Summary:
DataLayout keeps the string used for its creation.
As a side effect it is no longer needed in the Module.
This is "almost" NFC, the string is no longer
canonicalized, you can't rely on two "equals" DataLayout
having the same string returned by getStringRepresentation().
Get rid of DataLayoutPass: the DataLayout is in the Module
The DataLayout is "per-module", let's enforce this by not
duplicating it more than necessary.
One more step toward non-optionality of the DataLayout in the
module.
Make DataLayout Non-Optional in the Module
Module->getDataLayout() will never returns nullptr anymore.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: resistor, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7992
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231270
(The change was landed in r230280 and caused the regression PR22674.
This version contains a fix and a test-case for PR22674).
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic)
manifestation of the bug can be seen in
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
llvm-svn: 230533
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic) manifestation
of the bug can be seen in Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
NOTE: this change was landed with an incorrect commit message in
rL230275 and was reverted for that reason in rL230279. This commit
message is the correct one.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
llvm-svn: 230280
230275 got committed with an incorrect commit message due to a mixup
on my side. Will re-land in a few moments with the correct commit
message.
llvm-svn: 230279
The bug was a result of getPreStartForExtend interpreting nsw/nuw
flags on an add recurrence more strongly than is legal. {S,+,X}<nsw>
implies S+X is nsw only if the backedge of the loop is taken at least
once.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7808
llvm-svn: 230275
bug fixes, and with improved heuristics for analyzing foreign-loop
addrecs.
This change also flattens IVUsers, eliminating the stride-oriented
groupings, which makes it easier to work with.
llvm-svn: 95975
This new version is much more aggressive about doing "full" reduction in
cases where it reduces register pressure, and also more aggressive about
rewriting induction variables to count down (or up) to zero when doing so
reduces register pressure.
It currently uses fairly simplistic algorithms for finding reuse
opportunities, but it introduces a new framework allows it to combine
multiple strategies at once to form hybrid solutions, instead of doing
all full-reduction or all base+index.
llvm-svn: 94061
Mehdi Amini