Fold %x umin_seq %y to %x if %x ule %y. This also subsumes the
special handling for constant operands, as if %y is constant this
folds to umin via implied poison reasoning, and if %x is constant
then either %x is not zero and it folds to umin, or it is known
zero, in which case it is ule anything.
Fold %x umin_seq %y to %x umin %y if %x cannot be zero. They only
differ in semantics for %x==0.
More generally %x *_seq %y folds to %x * %y if %x cannot be the
saturation fold (though currently we only have umin_seq).
Similar to how we convert logical and/or to bitwise and/or, we should
also convert umin_seq to umin based on implied poison reasoning. In
%x umin_seq %y, if %y being poison implies %x being poison, then we
don't need the sequential evaluation: Having %y contribute towards
the result will never make the result more poisonous. An important
corollary of this is that if %y is never poison, we also don't need
the sequential evaluation.
This avoids some of the regressions in D124910.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124921
With opaque pointers, we cannot use the pointer element type to
determine the LocationSize for the AA query. Instead, -aa-eval
tests are now required to have an explicit load or store for any
pointer they want to compute alias results for, and the load/store
types are used to determine the location size.
This may affect ordering of results, and sorting within one result,
as the type is not considered part of the sorted string anymore.
To somewhat minimize the churn, printing still uses faux typed
pointer notation.
Our current strategy of computing ranges of SCEVUnknown Phis was to simply
compute the union of ranges of all its inputs. In order to avoid infinite recursion,
we mark Phis as pending and conservatively return full set for them. As result,
even simplest patterns of cycled phis always have a range of full set.
This patch makes this logic a bit smarter. We basically do the same, but instead
of taking inputs of single Phi we find its strongly connected component (SCC)
and compute the union of all inputs that come into this SCC from outside.
Processing entire SCC together has one more advantage: we can set range for all
of them at once, because the only thing that happens to them is the same value is
being passed between those Phis. So, despite we spend more time analyzing a
single Phi, overall we may save time by not processing other SCC members, so
amortized compile time spent should be approximately the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110620
Reviewed By: reames
zext(umin(x,y)) == umin(zext(x),zext(y))
zext(x) == 0 -> x == 0
While it is not a very likely scenario, we probably should not expect
that instcombine already dropped such a redundant zext,
but handle directly. Moreover, perhaps there was no ZExtInst,
and SCEV somehow managed to pull out said zext out of the SCEV expression.
zext(umin(x,y)) == umin(zext(x),zext(y))
zext(x) == 0 -> x == 0
Extra leading zeros do not affect the result of comparison with zero,
nor do they matter for the unsigned min/max,
so we should not be dissuaded when we find a zero-extensions,
but instead we should just skip it.
Since we don't greedily flatten `umin_seq(a, umin(b, c))` into `umin_seq(a, b, c)`,
just looking at the operands of the outer-level `umin` is not sufficient,
and we need to recurse into all same-typed `umin`'s.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ULuZxB
We could transparently handle wider bitwidths,
by effectively casting iN to <N x i1> and performing the `add`
bit/element -wise, the expression will be rather large,
so let's not do that for now.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/aKAr94
We could transparently handle wider bitwidths,
by effectively casting iN to <N x i1> and performing the `umin`
bit/element -wise, the expression will be rather large,
so let's not do that for now.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/SMEaoc
We could transparently handle wider bitwidths,
by effectively casting iN to <N x i1> and performing the `umax`
bit/element -wise, the expression will be rather large,
so let's not do that for now.
Extend scalar evolution to handle >= and <= if a loop is known to be finite and the induction variable guards the condition. Specifically, with these assumptions lhs <= rhs is equivalent to lhs < rhs + 1 and lhs >= rhs to lhs > rhs -1.
In the case of lhs <= rhs, this is true since the only case these are not equivalent
is when rhs == unsigned/signed intmax, which would have resulted in an infinite loop.
In the case of lhs >= rhs, this is true since the only case these are not equivalent
is when rhs == unsigned/signed intmin, which would again have resulted in an infinite loop.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118090
Since we don't merge/expand non-sequential umin exprs into umin_seq exprs,
we may have umin_seq(umin(umin_seq())) chain, and the innermost umin_seq
can have duplicate operands still.
Let's consider sequential min/max expression family
to be more complex than their non-sequential counterparts,
preserving internal ordering within them.
We could just merge all umin into umin_seq, but that is likely
a pessimization, so don't do that, but pretend that we did
for the purpose of deduplication.
Having the same operand more than once doesn't change the outcome here,
neither reduction-wise nor poison-wise.
We must keep the first instance specifically though.
Two crashes have been reported. This change disables the new logic while leaving the new node in tree. Hopefully, that's enough to allow investigation without breakage while avoiding massive churn.
Nikita Popov