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
Operands of binary operations that might overflow will be temporarily
promoted to i64 again, though that is not a sound solution for the problem.
llvm-svn: 271538
We now have a simple function to adjust/unify the types of two (or three)
operands before an operation that requieres the same type for all operands.
Due to this change we will not promote parameters that are added to i64
anymore if that is not needed.
llvm-svn: 271513
We utilize assumptions on the input to model IR in polyhedral world.
To verify these assumptions we version the code and guard it with a
runtime-check (RTC). However, since the RTCs are themselves generated
from the polyhedral representation we generate them under the same
assumptions that they should verify. In other words, the guarantees
that we try to provide with the RTCs do not hold for the RTCs
themselves. To this end it is necessary to employ a different check
for the RTCs that will verify the assumptions did hold for them too.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20165
llvm-svn: 269299
Tobias Grosser