For some unclear reason rewriteLoopExitValues considers recalculation
after the loop profitable if it has some "soft uses" outside the loop (i.e. any
use other than call and return), even if we have proved that it has a user inside
the loop which we think will not be optimized away.
There is no existing unit test that would explain this. This patch provides an
example when rematerialisation of exit value is not profitable but it passes
this check due to presence of a "soft use" outside the loop.
It makes no sense to recalculate value on exit if we are going to compute it
due to some irremovable within the loop. This patch disallows applying this
transform in the described situation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51581
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345708
There is a transform that may replace `lshr (x+1), 1` with `lshr x, 1` in case
if it can prove that the result will be the same. However the initial instruction
might have an `exact` flag set, and it now should be dropped unless we prove
that it may hold. Incorrectly set `exact` attribute may then produce poison.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53061
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 344223
A piece of logic in rewriteLoopExitValues has a weird check on number of
users which allowed an unprofitable transform in case if an instruction has
more than 6 users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51404
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 342444
Currently, `sinkUnusedInvariants` does not set Changed flag even if it makes
changes in the IR. There is no clear evidence that it can cause a crash, but it
looks highly suspicious and likely invalid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51777
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341777
IndVars does not set `Changed` flag when it eliminates dead instructions. As result,
it may make IR modifications and report that it has done nothing. It leads to inconsistent
preserved analyzes results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51770
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341633
This patch removes the function `expandSCEVIfNeeded` which behaves not as
it was intended. This function tries to make a lookup for exact existing expansion
and only goes to normal expansion via `expandCodeFor` if this lookup hasn't found
anything. As a result of this, if some instruction above the loop has a `SCEVConstant`
SCEV, this logic will return this instruction when asked for this `SCEVConstant` rather
than return a constant value. This is both non-profitable and in some cases leads to
breach of LCSSA form (as in PR38674).
Whether or not it is possible to break LCSSA with this algorithm and with some
non-constant SCEVs is still in question, this is still being investigated. I wasn't
able to construct such a test so far, so maybe this situation is impossible. If it is,
it will go as a separate fix.
Rather than do it, it is always correct to just invoke `expandCodeFor` unconditionally:
it behaves smarter about insertion points, and as side effect of this it will choose a
constant value for SCEVConstants. For other SCEVs it may end up finding a better insertion
point. So it should not be worse in any case.
NOTE: So far the only known case for which this transform may break LCSSA is mapping
of SCEVConstant to an instruction. However there is a suspicion that the entire algorithm
can compromise LCSSA form for other cases as well (yet not proved).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51286
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 341345
This patch issues an error message if Darwin ABI is attempted with the PPC
backend. It also cleans up existing test cases, either converting the test to
use an alternative triple or removing the test if the coverage is no longer
needed.
Updated Tests
-------------
The majority of test cases were updated to use a different triple that does not
include the Darwin ABI. Many tests were also updated to use FileCheck, in place
of grep.
Deleted Tests
-------------
llvm/test/tools/dsymutil/PowerPC/sibling.test was originally added to test
specific functionality of dsymutil using an object file created with an old
version of llvm-gcc for a Powerbook G4. After a discussion with @JDevlieghere he
suggested removing the test.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/combine_loads_from_build_pair.ll was converted from a
PPC test to a SystemZ test, as the behavior is also reproducible there.
All other tests that were deleted were specific to the darwin/ppc ABI and no
longer necessary.
Phabricator Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50988
llvm-svn: 340795
This is a follow-up for the patch rL335020. When we replace compares against
trunc with compares against wide IV, we can also replace signed predicates with
unsigned where it is legal.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48763
llvm-svn: 338115
as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's
(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)
This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:
1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
(respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.
Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:
double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
double x = 0.0;
double y = 0.0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
x += a[i];
y += a[i + 1];
}
return x * y;
}
If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})
it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).
How it all works:
Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:
i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
...
ZZZZ...0000
then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.
Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:
j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).
So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:
0000...00CC = D
CCCC...CC00 = (C - D)
and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:
CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
----------- // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00
The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:
YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
----------- <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC
Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.
Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:
0001 0101 // 21
XXXX XX00 // 12x
YYYY Y000 // 8y
0001 0101 // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
0001 0100 // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
WWWW WW00 // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y
therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>
This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:
i
10 1110...0011 // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.
We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:
i
00 0010...0011 = D
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:
XX1 1 = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
XX X1XX...XX00 = X
--- -----------
XX X0XX...XX00
Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:
0 X
00 0010...0011 = D
sX X0XX...XX00 = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
sX XXXX XX11
As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.
The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337943
If a trunc has a user in a block which is not reachable from entry,
we can safely perform trunc elimination as if this user didn't exist.
llvm-svn: 335816
This patch adds logic to deal with the following constructions:
%iv = phi i64 ...
%trunc = trunc i64 %iv to i32
%cmp = icmp <pred> i32 %trunc, %invariant
Replacing it with
%iv = phi i64 ...
%cmp = icmp <pred> i64 %iv, sext/zext(%invariant)
In case if it is legal. Specifically, if `%iv` has signed comparison users, it is
required that `sext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`, and if it has unsigned comparison
uses then we require `zext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`. The current implementation
bails if `%trunc` has other uses than `icmp`, but in theory we can handle more
cases here (e.g. if the user of trunc is bitcast).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47928
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 335020
This reverts r334428. It incorrectly marks some multiplications as nuw. Tim
Shen is working on a proper fix.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Add nuw/nsw to mul ops in StrengthenNoWrapFlags where safe.
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
llvm-svn: 335016
IndVarSimplify sometimes makes transforms basing on users that are trivially dead. In particular,
if DCE wasn't run before it, there may be a dead `sext/zext` in loop that will trigger widening
transforms, however it makes no sense to do it.
This patch teaches IndVarsSimplify ignore the mist trivial cases of that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47974
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 334567
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48038
llvm-svn: 334428
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
This patch teaches SCEV how to prove implications for SCEVUnknown nodes that are Phis.
If we need to prove `Pred` for `LHS, RHS`, and `LHS` is a Phi with possible incoming values
`L1, L2, ..., LN`, then if we prove `Pred` for `(L1, RHS), (L2, RHS), ..., (LN, RHS)` then we can also
prove it for `(LHS, RHS)`. If both `LHS` and `RHS` are Phis from the same block, it is sufficient
to prove the predicate for values that come from the same predecessor block.
The typical case that it handles is that we sometimes need to prove that `Phi(Len, Len - 1) >= 0`
given that `Len > 0`. The new logic was added to `isImpliedViaOperations` and only uses it and
non-recursive reasoning to prove the facts we need, so it should not hurt compile time a lot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44001
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 329150
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 328611
This patch teaches `computeConstantDifference` handle calculation of constant
difference between `(X + C1)` and `(X + C2)` which is `(C2 - C1)`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43759
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 328609
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
llvm-svn: 327822
It is a revert of rL327362 which causes build bot failures with assert like
Assertion `isAvailableAtLoopEntry(RHS, L) && "RHS is not available at Loop Entry"' failed.
llvm-svn: 327363
IsKnownPredicate is updated to implement the following algorithm
proposed by @sanjoy and @mkazantsev :
isKnownPredicate(Pred, LHS, RHS) {
Collect set S all loops on which either LHS or RHS depend.
If S is non-empty
a. Let PD be the element of S which is dominated by all other elements of S
b. Let E(LHS) be value of LHS on entry of PD.
To get E(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their entry values.
Define E(RHS) in the same way.
c. Let B(LHS) be value of L on backedge of PD.
To get B(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their backedge values.
Define B(RHS) in the same way.
d. Note that E(LHS) and E(RHS) are automatically available on entry of PD,
so we can assert on that.
e. Return true if isLoopEntryGuardedByCond(Pred, E(LHS), E(RHS)) &&
isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond(Pred, B(LHS), B(RHS))
Return true if Pred, L, R is known from ranges, splitting etc.
}
This is follow-up for https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43507
llvm-svn: 327362
There is a more powerful but still simple function `isKnownViaSimpleReasoning ` that
does constant range check and few more additional checks. We use it some places (e.g.
when proving implications) and in some other places we only check constant ranges.
Currently, indvar simplifier fails to remove the check in following loop:
int inc = ...;
for (int i = inc, j = inc - 1; i < 200; ++i, ++j)
if (i > j) { ... }
This patch replaces all usages of `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges` with
`isKnownViaSimpleReasoning` to have smarter proofs. In particular, it fixes the
case above.
Reviewed-By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43175
llvm-svn: 325214
The failures happened because of assert which was overconfident about
SCEV's proving capabilities and is generally not valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324473
Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly.
But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is
known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts
together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324453
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
To bugs additionally fixed:
assert is moved after the check whether loop is not a nullptr.
Usage of isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCondOperandsViaNoOverflow
is guarded by isAvailableAtLoopEntry.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417
llvm-svn: 324204
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42165
llvm-svn: 323077
We cannot move the insertion point to header if SCEV contains div/rem
operations due to they may go over check for zero denominator.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop
Reviewed By: sebpop
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41229
llvm-svn: 320789
Summary:
The function is meant to recurse until it comes upon the
phi it's looking for. However, with the current condition,
it will recurse until it finds anything _but_ the phi.
The function will even fail for simple cases like:
%i = phi i32 [ %inc, %loop ], ...
...
%inc = add i32 %i, 1
because the base condition will not happen when the phi
is recursed to, and the recursion will end with a 'false'
result since the previous instruction is a phi.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, bjope, llvm-commits
Committing on behalf of: Bevin Hansson (bevinh)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40946
llvm-svn: 320700
Turns out we can have comparisons which are indirect users of the induction variable that we can make invariant. In this case, there is no loop invariant value contributing and we'd fail an assert.
The test case was found by a java fuzzer and reduced. It's a real cornercase. You have to have a static loop which we've already proven only executes once, but haven't broken the backedge on, and an inner phi whose result can be constant folded by SCEV using exit count reasoning but not proven by isKnownPredicate. To my knowledge, only the fuzzer has hit this case.
llvm-svn: 319583
As noted in the nice block comment, the previous code didn't actually handle multi-entry loops correctly, it just assumed SCEV didn't analyze such loops. Given SCEV has comments to the contrary, that seems a bit suspect. More importantly, the pass actually requires loopsimplify form which ensures a loop-preheader is available. Remove the excessive generaility and shorten the code greatly.
Note that we do successfully analyze many multi-entry loops, but we do so by converting them to single entry loops. See the added test case.
llvm-svn: 316976
This patch allows SCEVFindUnsafe algorithm to tread division by any non-positive
value as safe. Previously, it could only recognize non-zero constants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39228
llvm-svn: 316568
The type of a SCEVConstant may not match the corresponding LLVM Value.
In this case, we skip the constant folding for now.
TODO: Replace ConstantInt Zero by ConstantPointerNull
llvm-svn: 314531
This patch tries to transform cases like:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = (i & 0x1) == 0;
bool c1 = ((i + 1) & 0x1) == 1;
}
To
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = true;
bool c1 = true;
}
This commit also update test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/replace-srem-by-urem.ll to prevent constant folding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38272
llvm-svn: 314266
Since now SCEV can handle 'urem', an 'urem' is a better canonical form than an 'srem' because it has well-defined behavior
This is a follow up of D34598
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38072
llvm-svn: 314125
If SCEV can prove that the backedge taken count for a loop is zero, it does not
need to "understand" a recursive PHI to compute its exiting value.
This should fix PR33885.
llvm-svn: 309758
The patch was reverted due to a bug. The bug was that if the IV is the 2nd operand of the icmp
instruction, then the "Pred" variable gets swapped and differs from the instruction's predicate.
In this patch we use the original predicate to do the transformation.
Also added a test case that exercises this situation.
Differentian Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35107
llvm-svn: 307477
It seems that the patch was reverted by mistake. Clang testing showed failure of the
MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply test, however I was unable to reproduce the issue on the
fresh code base and was able to confirm that the transformation introduced by the change
does not happen in the said test. This gives a strong confidence that the actual reason of
the failure of the initial patch was somewhere else, and that problem now seems to be
fixed. Re-submitting the change to confirm that.
llvm-svn: 307244
This adds exact flags to AShr/LShr flags where we can statically
prove it is valid using the range of induction variables. This
allows further optimisations to remove extra loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34207
llvm-svn: 307157
This patch seems to cause failures of test MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply on
multiple buildbots. Reverting until the reason of that is clarified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307126
llvm-svn: 307135
Max Kazantsev