As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
LoopInterchange relies on LoopInfo being up-to-date, so we should
preserve it after interchanging. This patch updates restructureLoops to
move the BBs of the interchanged loops to the right place.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, karthikthecool, mcrosier
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45278
llvm-svn: 329264
It's been quite some time the Dependence Analysis (DA) is broken,
as it uses the GEP representation to "identify" multi-dimensional arrays.
It even wrongly detects multi-dimensional arrays in single nested loops:
from test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/Coupled.ll, example @couple6
;; for (long int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
;; A[i][3*i - 6] = i;
;; *B++ = A[i][i];
DA used to detect two subscripts, which makes no sense in the LLVM IR
or in C/C++ semantics, as there are no guarantees as in Fortran of
subscripts not overlapping into a next array dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcPtrSCEV = %A
DstPtrSCEV = %A
using GEPs
subscript 0
src = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
subscript 1
src = {-6,+,3}<nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {}
Coupled = {1}
With the current patch, DA will correctly work on only one dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcSCEV = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
DstSCEV = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
subscript 0
src = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
dst = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {0}
Coupled = {}
This change removes all uses of GEP from DA, and we now only rely
on the SCEV representation.
The patch does not turn on -da-delinearize by default, and so the DA analysis
will be more conservative in the case of multi-dimensional memory accesses in
nested loops.
I disabled some interchange tests, as the DA is not able to disambiguate
the dependence anymore. To make DA stronger, we may need to
compute a bound on the number of iterations based on the access functions
and array dimensions.
The patch cleans up all the CHECKs in test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/*.ll to
avoid checking for snippets of LLVM IR: this form of checking is very hard to
maintain. Instead, we now check for output of the pass that are more meaningful
than dozens of lines of LLVM IR. Some tests now require -debug messages and thus
only enabled with asserts.
Patch written by Sebastian Pop and Aditya Kumar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35430
llvm-svn: 326837
Summary:
Without any information about the called function, we cannot be sure
that it is safe to interchange loops which contain function calls. For
example there could be dependences that prevent interchanging between
accesses in the called function and the loops. Even functions without any
parameters could cause problems, as they could access memory using
global pointers.
For now, I think it is only safe to interchange loops with calls marked
as readnone.
With this patch, the LLVM test suite passes with `-O3 -mllvm
-enable-loopinterchange` and LoopInterchangeProfitability::isProfitable
returning true for all loops. check-llvm and check-clang also pass when
bootstrapped in a similar fashion, although only 3 loops got
interchanged.
Reviewers: karthikthecool, blitz.opensource, hfinkel, mcrosier, mkuper
Reviewed By: mcrosier
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35489
llvm-svn: 309547
Summary:
Currently most tests for the loop interchange pass are in
test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchange.ll. This patch splits up the
large test file in smaller pieces, which makes debugging test failures
easier.
Reviewers: karthikthecool, blitz.opensource, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: hfinkel, mcrosier, mkuper, mzolotukhin, mssimpso, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35488
llvm-svn: 308284
Eric Christopher