The initial implementation just delegates to APInt's implementation of
XOR for single element ranges and conservatively returns the full set
otherwise.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76453
We returning a full set, we should use ResultBitWidth. Otherwise we might
it assertions when the resulting constant ranges are used later on.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71937
Summary:
To be used in `ConstantRange::mulWithNoOverflow()`,
may in future be useful for when saturating shift/mul ops are added.
These are precise as far as i can tell.
I initially though i will need `APInt::[us]mul_sat()` for these,
but it turned out much simpler to do what `ConstantRange::multiply()`
does - perform multiplication in twice the bitwidth, and then truncate.
Though here we want saturating signed truncation.
Reviewers: nikic, reames, spatel
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69994
Summary:
To be used in `ConstantRange::shlWithNoOverflow()`,
may in future be useful for when saturating shift/mul ops are added.
Unlike `ConstantRange::shl()`, these are precise.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69960
Summary:
Much like D67339, adds ConstantRange handling for
when we know no-wrap behavior of the `sub`.
Unlike addWithNoWrap(), we only get lucky re returning empty set
for signed wrap. For unsigned, we must perform overflow check manually.
A patch that makes use of this in LVI (CVP) to be posted later.
Reviewers: nikic, shchenz, efriedma
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69918
Summary:
If all the shifts amount are already poison-producing,
then we can add more poison-producing flags ontop:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Ocwi
Otherwise, we should only consider the possible range of shift amts that don't result in poison.
For unsigned range not not overflow, we must not shift out any set bits,
and the actual limit for `x` can be computed by backtransforming
the maximal value we could ever get out of the `shl` - `-1` through
`lshr`. If the `x` is any larger than that then it will overflow.
Likewise for signed range, but just in signed domain..
This is based on the general idea outlined by @nikic in https://reviews.llvm.org/D68672#1714990
Reviewers: nikic, sanjoy
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, nikic
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69217
llvm-svn: 375370
Enumerate one less constant range in TestNoWrapRegionExhaustive,
which was unnecessary. This allows us to bump the bit count from
3 to 5 while keeping reasonable timing.
Drop four tests for multiply nowrap regions, as these cover subsets
of the exhaustive test. They do use a wider bitwidth, but I don't
think it's worthwhile to have them additionally now.
llvm-svn: 375369
The implementation is conceptually simple: We separate the LHS and
RHS into positive and negative components and then also compute the
positive and negative components of the result, taking into account
that e.g. only pos/pos and neg/neg will give a positive result.
However, there's one significant complication: SignedMin / -1 is UB
for sdiv, and we can't just ignore it, because the APInt result of
SignedMin would break the sign segregation. Instead we drop SignedMin
or -1 from the corresponding ranges, taking into account some edge
cases with wrapped ranges.
Because of the sign segregation, the implementation ends up being
nearly fully precise even for wrapped ranges (the remaining
imprecision is due to ranges that are both signed and unsigned
wrapping and are divided by a trivial divisor like 1). This means
that the testing cannot just check the signed envelope as we
usually do. Instead we collect all possible results in a bitvector
and construct a better sign wrapped range (than the full envelope).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61238
llvm-svn: 362430
In order to fold an always overflowing signed saturating add/sub,
we need to know in which direction the always overflow occurs.
This patch splits up AlwaysOverflows into AlwaysOverflowsLow and
AlwaysOverflowsHigh to pass through this information (but it is
not used yet).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62463
llvm-svn: 361858
Add support for srem() to ConstantRange so we can use it in LVI. For
srem the sign of the result matches the sign of the LHS. For the RHS
only the absolute value is important. Apart from that the logic is
like urem.
Just like for urem this is only an approximate implementation. The tests
check a few specific cases and run an exhaustive test for conservative
correctness (but not exactness).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61207
llvm-svn: 360055
I got confused on the terminology, and the change in D60598 was not
correct. I was thinking of "exact" in terms of the result being
non-approximate. However, the relevant distinction here is whether
the result is
* Largest range such that:
Forall Y in Other: Forall X in Result: X BinOp Y does not wrap.
(makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion)
* Smallest range such that:
Forall Y in Other: Forall X not in Result: X BinOp Y wraps.
(A hypothetical makeAllowedNoWrapRegion)
* Both. (makeExactNoWrapRegion)
I'm adding a separate makeExactNoWrapRegion method accepting a
single APInt (same as makeExactICmpRegion) and using it in the
places where the guarantee is relevant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60960
llvm-svn: 359402
Add support for abs() to ConstantRange. This will allow to handle
SPF_ABS select flavor in LVI and will also come in handy as a
primitive for the srem implementation.
The implementation is slightly tricky, because a) abs of signed min
is signed min and b) sign-wrapped ranges may have an abs() that is
smaller than a full range, so we need to explicitly handle them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61084
llvm-svn: 359321
Add urem support to ConstantRange, so we can handle in in LVI. This
is an approximate implementation that tries to capture the most useful
conditions: If the LHS is always strictly smaller than the RHS, then
the urem is a no-op and the result is the same as the LHS range.
Otherwise the lower bound is zero and the upper bound is
min(LHSMax, RHSMax - 1).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60952
llvm-svn: 359019
This reverts commit 7bf4d7c07f2fac862ef34c82ad0fef6513452445.
After thinking about this more, this isn't right, the range is not exact
in the same sense as makeExactICmpRegion(). This needs a separate
function.
llvm-svn: 358876
Following D60632 makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion() always returns an
exact nowrap region. Rename the function accordingly. This is in
line with the naming of makeExactICmpRegion().
llvm-svn: 358875
Add support for uadd_sat and friends to ConstantRange, so we can
handle uadd.sat and friends in LVI. The implementation is forwarding
to the corresponding APInt methods with appropriate bounds.
One thing worth pointing out here is that the handling of wrapping
ranges is not maximally accurate. A simple example is that adding 0
to a wrapped range will return a full range, rather than the original
wrapped range. The tests also only check that the non-wrapping
envelope is correct and minimal.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60946
llvm-svn: 358855
As motivated in D60598, this drops support for specifying both NUW and
NSW in makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion(). None of the users of this function
currently make use of this.
When both NUW and NSW are specified, the exact nowrap region has two
disjoint parts and makeGNWR() returns one of them. This result doesn't
seem to be useful for anything, but makes the semantics of the function
fuzzier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60632
llvm-svn: 358340
makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion() is actually makeExactNoWrapRegion() as
long as only one of NUW or NSW is specified. This is not obvious from
the current documentation, and some code seems to think that it is
only exact for single-element ranges. Clarify docs and add tests to
be more confident this really holds.
There are currently no users of makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion() that
pass both NUW and NSW. I think it would be best to drop support for
this entirely and then rename the function to makeExactNoWrapRegion().
Knowing that the no-wrap region is exact is useful, because we can
backwards-constrain values. What I have in mind in particular is
that LVI should be able to constrain values on edges where the
with.overflow overflow flag is false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60598
llvm-svn: 358305
Same as the other ConstantRange overflow checking methods, but for
unsigned mul. In this case there is no cheap overflow criterion, so
using umul_ov for the implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60574
llvm-svn: 358228
This extends D59959 to unionWith(), allowing to specify that a
non-wrapping unsigned/signed range is preferred. This is somewhat
less useful than the intersect case, because union operations are
rarer. An example use would the the phi union computed in SCEV.
The implementation is mostly a straightforward use of getPreferredRange(),
but I also had to adjust some <=/< checks to make sure that no ranges with
lower==upper get constructed before they're passed to getPreferredRange(),
as these have additional constraints.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60377
llvm-svn: 357876
The intersection of two ConstantRanges may consist of two disjoint
ranges. As we can only return one range as the result, we need to
return one of the two possible ranges that cover both. Currently the
result is picked based on set size. However, this is not always
optimal: If we're in an unsigned context, we'd prefer to get a large
unsigned range over a small signed range -- the latter effectively
becomes a full set in the unsigned domain.
This revision adds a PreferredRangeType, which can be either Smallest,
Unsigned or Signed. Smallest is the current behavior and Unsigned and
Signed are new variants that prefer not to wrap the unsigned/signed
domain. The new type isn't used anywhere yet (but SCEV will be a good
first user, see D60035).
I've also added some comments to illustrate the various cases in
intersectWith(), which should hopefully make it more obvious what is
going on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59959
llvm-svn: 357873
Add isAllNegative() and isAllNonNegative() methods to ConstantRange,
which determine whether all values in the constant range are
negative/non-negative.
This is useful for replacing KnownBits isNegative() and isNonNegative()
calls when changing code to use constant ranges.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60264
llvm-svn: 357871
if we do SHL of two 16-bit ranges like [0, 30000) with [1,2) we get
"full-set" instead of what I would have expected [0, 60000) which is
still in the 16-bit unsigned range.
This patch changes the SHL algorithm to allow getting a usable range
even in this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57983
llvm-svn: 357854
Add a test that checks the intersectWith() implementation against
all 4-bit range pairs. The test uses a more explicit way of
calculating the possible intersections, and checks that the right
one is picked out according to the smallest set heuristic.
This is in preparation for introducing intersectWith() variants that
use different heuristics to pick an intersection range, if there are
multiple possibilities.
llvm-svn: 357119
Split off from D59749. This adds isWrappedSet() and
isUpperSignWrapped() set with the same behavior as isSignWrappedSet()
and isUpperWrapped() for the respectively other domain.
The methods isWrappedSet() and isSignWrappedSet() will not consider
ranges of the form [X, Max] == [X, 0) and [X, SignedMax] == [X, SignedMin)
to be wrapping, while isUpperWrapped() and isUpperSignWrapped() will.
Also replace the checks in getUnsignedMin() and friends with method
calls that implement the same logic.
llvm-svn: 357112
Split out from D59749. The current implementation of isWrappedSet()
doesn't do what it says on the tin, and treats ranges like
[X, Max] as wrapping, because they are represented as [X, 0) when
using half-inclusive ranges. This also makes it inconsistent with
the semantics of isSignWrappedSet().
This patch renames isWrappedSet() to isUpperWrapped(), in preparation
for the introduction of a new isWrappedSet() method with corrected
behavior.
llvm-svn: 357107
Split off from D59749. This uses a simpler and more efficient
implementation of isSignWrappedSet(), and considers full sets
as non-wrapped, to be consistent with isWrappedSet(). Otherwise
the behavior is unchanged.
There are currently only two users of this function and both already
check for isFullSet() || isSignWrappedSet(), so this is not going to
cause a change in overall behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59848
llvm-svn: 357039
This adds ConstantRange::getFull(BitWidth) and
ConstantRange::getEmpty(BitWidth) named constructors as more readable
alternatives to the current ConstantRange(BitWidth, /* full */ false)
and similar. Additionally private getFull() and getEmpty() member
functions are added which return a full/empty range with the same bit
width -- these are commonly needed inside ConstantRange.cpp.
The IsFullSet argument in the ConstantRange(BitWidth, IsFullSet)
constructor is now mandatory for the few usages that still make use of it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59716
llvm-svn: 356852
Following the suggestion in D59450, I'm moving the code for constructing
a ConstantRange from KnownBits out of ValueTracking, which also allows us
to test this code independently.
I'm adding this method to ConstantRange rather than KnownBits (which
would have been a bit nicer API wise) to avoid creating a dependency
from Support to IR, where ConstantRange lives.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59475
llvm-svn: 356339
Add functions to ConstantRange that determine whether the
unsigned/signed addition/subtraction of two ConstantRanges
may/always/never overflows. This will allow checking overflow
conditions based on known constant ranges in addition to known bits.
I'm implementing these methods on ConstantRange to allow them to be
unit tested independently of any ValueTracking machinery. The tests
include exhaustive testing on 4-bit ranges, to make sure the result
is both conservatively correct and maximally precise.
The OverflowResult enum is redeclared on ConstantRange, because
I wanted to avoid a dependency in either direction between
ValueTracking.h and ConstantRange.h.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59193
llvm-svn: 356276
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary: This is trying to add support for r334428.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: jlebar, hiraditya, bixia, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48399
llvm-svn: 335646
Extend the ConstantRange implementation to compute the range of possible values resulting from an arithmetic right shift operation.
There will be a follow up patch to leverage this constant range infrastructure in LazyValueInfo.
Patch by Surya Kumari Jangala!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40881
llvm-svn: 320976
Previously ConstantRange::makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion only handled addition. This adds support for subtraction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40036
llvm-svn: 319806
r271020 added an early out to skip the signed multiply portion of ConstantRange::multiply. The comment says we don't need to do signed multiply if the range is only positive numbers, but the implemented check only ensures that the start of the range is positive. It doesn't look at the end of the range.
This patch checks the end of the range instead. Because Upper is one more than the end we have to see if its positive or if its one past the last positive number.
llvm-svn: 302717
Florian Hahn