Summary:
LAA currently generates a set of SCEV predicates that must be checked by users.
In the case of Loop Distribute/Loop Load Elimination, no such predicates could have
been emitted, since we don't allow stride versioning. However, in the future there
could be SCEV predicates that will need to be checked.
This change adds support for SCEV predicate versioning in the Loop Distribute, Loop
Load Eliminate and the loop versioning infrastructure.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: mssimpso, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14240
llvm-svn: 252467
SCEV expansion can invalidate previously expanded values. For example
in SCEVExpander::ReuseOrCreateCast, if we already have the requested
cast value but it's not at the desired location, a new cast is inserted
and the old cast will be invalidated.
Therefore, when expanding the bounds for the pointers, a later entry can
invalidate the IR value for an earlier one. The fix is to store a value
handle rather than the value itself.
The newly added test has a more detailed description of how the bug
triggers.
This bug can have a negative but potentially highly variable performance
impact in Loop Distribution. Because one of the bound values was
invalidated and is an undef expression now, InstCombine is free to
transform the array overlap check:
Start0 <= End1 && Start1 <= End0
into:
Start0 <= End1
So depending on the runtime location of the arrays, we would detect a
conflict and fall back on the original loop of the versioned loop.
Also tested compile time with SPEC2006 LTO bc files.
llvm-svn: 245760
Summary:
Often filter-like loops will do memory accesses that are
separated by constant offsets. In these cases it is
common that we will exceed the threshold for the
allowable number of checks.
However, it should be possible to merge such checks,
sice a check of any interval againt two other intervals separated
by a constant offset (a,b), (a+c, b+c) will be equivalent with
a check againt (a, b+c), as long as (a,b) and (a+c, b+c) overlap.
Assuming the loop will be executed for a sufficient number of
iterations, this will be true. If not true, checking against
(a, b+c) is still safe (although not equivalent).
As long as there are no dependencies between two accesses,
we can merge their checks into a single one. We use this
technique to construct groups of accesses, and then check
the intervals associated with the groups instead of
checking the accesses directly.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10386
llvm-svn: 241673
As with the previous patch, the goal is to turn the class into a general
loop-versioning class. This patch removes any references to loop
distribution.
llvm-svn: 240352
"Store to invariant address..." is moved as the last line. This is not
the prime result of the analysis. Plus it simplifies some of the tests.
llvm-svn: 237573
Summary:
This implements the initial version as was proposed earlier this year
(http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-January/080462.html).
Since then Loop Access Analysis was split out from the Loop Vectorizer
and was made into a separate analysis pass. Loop Distribution becomes
the second user of this analysis.
The pass is off by default and can be enabled
with -enable-loop-distribution. There is currently no notion of
profitability; if there is a loop with dependence cycles, the pass will
try to split them off from other memory operations into a separate loop.
I decided to remove the control-dependence calculation from this first
version. This and the issues with the PDT are actively discussed so it
probably makes sense to treat it separately. Right now I just mark all
terminator instruction required which keeps identical CFGs for each
distributed loop. This seems to be working pretty well for 456.hmmer
where even though there is an empty if-then block in the distributed
loop initially, it gets completely removed.
The pass keeps DominatorTree and LoopInfo updated. I've tested this
with -loop-distribute-verify with the testsuite where we distribute ~90
loops. SimplifyLoop is violated in some cases and I have a FIXME
covering this.
Reviewers: hfinkel, nadav, aschwaighofer
Reviewed By: aschwaighofer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8831
llvm-svn: 237358
Silviu Baranga