Create the MemoryAccesses of invariant loads separately and before
all other MemoryAccesses.
Invariant loads are classified as synthesizable and therefore are not
contained in any statement. When iterating over all instructions of all
statements, the invariant loads are consequently not processed and
iterating over them separately becomes necessary.
This patch can change the order in which MemoryAccesses are created, but
otherwise has no functional change.
Some temporary code is introduced to ensure correctness, but will be
removed in the next commit.
llvm-svn: 314664
This will make it easier to switch the default of Polly's invariant load
hoisting strategy and also makes it very clear that these test cases
indeed require invariant code hoisting to work.
llvm-svn: 278667
The recent expression type changes still need more discussion, which will happen
on phabricator or on the mailing list. The precise list of commits reverted are:
- "Refactor division generation code"
- "[NFC] Generate runtime checks after the SCoP"
- "[FIX] Determine insertion point during SCEV expansion"
- "Look through IntToPtr & PtrToInt instructions"
- "Use minimal types for generated expressions"
- "Temporarily promote values to i64 again"
- "[NFC] Avoid unnecessary comparison for min/max expressions"
- "[Polly] Fix -Wunused-variable warnings (NFC)"
- "[NFC] Simplify min/max expression generation"
- "Simplify the type adjustment in the IslExprBuilder"
Some of them are just reverted as we would otherwise get conflicts. I will try
to re-commit them if possible.
llvm-svn: 272483
We now use the minimal necessary bit width for the generated code. If
operations might overflow (add/sub/mul) we will try to adjust the types in
order to ensure a non-wrapping computation. If the type adjustment is not
possible, thus the necessary type is bigger than the type value of
--polly-max-expr-bit-width, we will use assumptions to verify the computation
will not wrap. However, for run-time checks we cannot build assumptions but
instead utilize overflow tracking intrinsics.
llvm-svn: 271878
A zero-extended value can be interpreted as a piecewise defined signed
value. If the value was non-negative it stays the same, otherwise it
is the sum of the original value and 2^n where n is the bit-width of
the original (or operand) type. Examples:
zext i8 127 to i32 -> { [127] }
zext i8 -1 to i32 -> { [256 + (-1)] } = { [255] }
zext i8 %v to i32 -> [v] -> { [v] | v >= 0; [256 + v] | v < 0 }
However, LLVM/Scalar Evolution uses zero-extend (potentially lead by a
truncate) to represent some forms of modulo computation. The left-hand side
of the condition in the code below would result in the SCEV
"zext i1 <false, +, true>for.body" which is just another description
of the C expression "i & 1 != 0" or, equivalently, "i % 2 != 0".
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
if (i & 1 != 0 /* == i % 2 */)
/* do something */
If we do not make the modulo explicit but only use the mechanism described
above we will get the very restrictive assumption "N < 3", because for all
values of N >= 3 the SCEVAddRecExpr operand of the zero-extend would wrap.
Alternatively, we can make the modulo in the operand explicit in the
resulting piecewise function and thereby avoid the assumption on N. For the
example this would result in the following piecewise affine function:
{ [i0] -> [(1)] : 2*floor((-1 + i0)/2) = -1 + i0;
[i0] -> [(0)] : 2*floor((i0)/2) = i0 }
To this end we can first determine if the (immediate) operand of the
zero-extend can wrap and, in case it might, we will use explicit modulo
semantic to compute the result instead of emitting non-wrapping assumptions.
Note that operands with large bit-widths are less likely to be negative
because it would result in a very large access offset or loop bound after the
zero-extend. To this end one can optimistically assume the operand to be
positive and avoid the piecewise definition if the bit-width is bigger than
some threshold (here MaxZextSmallBitWidth).
We choose to go with a hybrid solution of all modeling techniques described
above. For small bit-widths (up to MaxZextSmallBitWidth) we will model the
wrapping explicitly and use a piecewise defined function. However, if the
bit-width is bigger than MaxZextSmallBitWidth we will employ overflow
assumptions and assume the "former negative" piece will not exist.
llvm-svn: 267408
Sorting is replaced by a demand driven code generation that will pre-load a
value when it is needed or, if it was not needed before, at some point
determined by the order of invariant accesses in the program. Only in very
little cases this demand driven pre-loading will kick in, though it will
prevent us from generating faulty code. An example where it is needed is
shown in:
test/ScopInfo/invariant_loads_complicated_dependences.ll
Invariant loads that appear in parameters but are not on the top-level (e.g.,
the parameter is not a SCEVUnknown) will now be treated correctly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13831
llvm-svn: 250655
Michael Kruse