A backedge-taken count doesn't refer to memory; returning a pointer type
is nonsense. So make sure we always return an integer.
The obvious way to do this would be to just convert the operands of the
icmp to integers, but that doesn't quite work out at the moment:
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond currently gets confused by ptrtoint operations.
So we perform the ptrtoint conversion late for lt/gt operations.
The test changes are mostly innocuous. The most interesting changes are
more complex SCEV expressions of the form "(-1 * (ptrtoint i8* %ptr to
i64)) + %ptr)". This is expected: we can't fold this to zero because we
need to preserve the pointer base.
The call to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in howFarToZero is less precise
because of ptrtoint operations; this shows up in the function
pr46786_c26_char in ptrtoint.ll. Fixing it here would require more
complex refactoring. It should eventually be fixed by future
improvements to isImpliedCond.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 for context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103656
The old version of this code would blindly perform arithmetic without
paying attention to whether the types involved were pointers or
integers. This could lead to weird expressions like negating a pointer.
Explicitly handle simple cases involving pointers, like "x < y ? x : y".
In all other cases, coerce the operands of the comparison to integer
types. This avoids the weird cases, while handling most of the
interesting cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103660
This addresses a performance regression reported against 3c6e4191. That change (correctly) limited a transform based on assumed finiteness to mustprogress loops, but the previous change (38540d7) which introduced the mustprogress check utility only handled function attributes, not the loop metadata form.
It turns out that clang uses the function attribute form for C++, and the loop metadata form for C. As a result, 3c6e4191 ended up being a large regression in practice for C code as loops weren't being considered mustprogress despite the language semantics.
Currently, NoWrapFlags are dropped if we inline operands of SCEVAddExpr
operands. As a consequence, we always drop flags when building
expressions like `getAddExpr(A, getAddExpr(B, C, NUW), NUW)`.
We should be able to retain NUW flags common among all inlined
SCEVAddExpr and the original flags.
Reviewed By: nikic, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103877
Noticed via code inspection. We changed the semantics of the IR when we added mustprogress, and we appear to have not updated this location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103834
The motivation here is simple loops with unsigned induction variables w/non-one steps. A toy example would be:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) { body; }
Given C/C++ semantics, we do not get the nuw flag on the induction variable. Given that lack, we currently can't compute a bound for this loop. We can do better for many cases, depending on the contents of "body".
The basic intuition behind this patch is as follows:
* A step which evenly divides the iteration space must wrap through the same numbers repeatedly. And thus, we can ignore potential cornercases where we exit after the n-th wrap through uint32_max.
* Per C++ rules, infinite loops without side effects are UB. We already have code in SCEV which relies on this. In LLVM, this is tied to the mustprogress attribute.
Together, these let us conclude that the trip count of this loop must come before unsigned overflow unless the body would form a well defined infinite loop.
A couple notes for those reading along:
* I reused the loop properties code which is overly conservative for this case. I may follow up in another patch to generalize it for the actual UB rules.
* We could cache the n(s/u)w facts. I left that out because doing a pre-patch which cached existing inference showed a lot of diffs I had trouble fully explaining. I plan to get back to this, but I don't want it on the critical path.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103118
This patch implements getSmallConstantTripMultiple(L) correctly for multiple exit loops. The previous implementation was both imprecise, and violated the specified behavior of the method. This was fine in practice, because it turns out the function was both dead in real code, and not tested for the multiple exit case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103189
We already apply loop-guards when computing the maximum with unitary
steps. This extends the code to also do so when dealing with non-unitary
steps.
This allows us to infer a tighter maximum in some cases.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102267
applyLoopGuards() already combines conditions from multiple nested
guards. However, it cannot use multiple conditions on the same guard,
combined using and/or. Add support for this by recursing into either
`and` or `or`, depending on the direction of the branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101692
Straight forward extension to the recently added infrastructure which was pioneered with shl. This was originally posted as part of D99687, but split off for ease of review.
(I also decided to exclude the unknown start sign case explicitly for simplicity of understanding.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101181
These can be handled the same way as ule/ult, just using umax
instead of umin. This is useful in cases where the umax prevents
the upper bound from overflowing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101196
ICMP_NE predicates directly overwrote the rewritten result,
instead of chaining it with previous rewrites, as was done for
ICMP_ULT and ICMP_ULE. This means that some guards were effectively
discarded, depending on their order.
As being discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100721,
this modelling is lossy, we can't reconstruct `ash`/`ashr exact`
from it, which means that whenever we actually expand the IR,
we've just pessimized the code..
It would be good to model this pattern, after all it comes up every time
you want to compute a distance between two pointers, but not at this cost.
This reverts commit ec54867df5.
A value from reachable block may come to a Phi node as its input from
unreachable block. This may confuse matchSimpleRecurrence which
has no access to DomTree and can falsely recognize something as a recurrency
because of this effect, as the attached test shows.
Patch `ae7b1e` deals with half of this problem, but it only accounts from
the case when an unreachable instruction comes to Phi as an input.
This patch provides a generalization by checking that no Phi block's
predecessor is unreachable (no matter what the input is).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99929
Reviewed By: reames
This fixes an issue introduced with my change d4648e, and reported in pr49768.
The root problem is that dominance collapses in unreachable code, and that LoopInfo explicitly only models reachable code. Since the recurrence matcher doesn't filter by reachability (and can't easily because not all consumers have domtree), we need to bailout before assuming that finding a recurrence implies we found a loop.
SCEV currently tries to prove implications of x pred y by also
trying to imply ~y pred ~x. This is expensive in terms of
compile-time (in fact, the majority of isImpliedCond compile-time
is spent here) and generally not fruitful. The issue is that this
also swaps the operands and thus breaks canonical ordering. If
originally we were trying to prove an implication like
X > C1 -> Y > C2, then we'll now try to prove X > C1 -> C3 > ~Y,
which will not work.
The only real case where we can get some use out of this transform
is if the original conditions were in the form X > C1 -> Y < C2, were
then swapped to X > C1 -> C2 > Y and are then swapped again here to
X > C1 -> ~Y > C3.
As such, handle this at a higher level, where we are doing the
swapping in the first place. There's four different ways that we
can line up a predicate and a swapped predicate, so we use some
heuristics to pick some profitable way.
Because we now try this transform at a higher level
(isImpliedCondOperands rather than isImpliedCondOperandsHelper),
we can also prove additional facts. Of the added tests, one was
proven previously while the other wasn't.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90926
This patch exploits the knowledge that we may be running many fewer than bitwidth iterations of the loop, and may be able to disallow the overflow case. This patch specifically implements only the shl case, but this can be generalized to ashr and lshr without difficulty.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98222
By definition of Implication operator, `false -> true` and `false -> false`. It means that
`false` implies any predicate, no matter true or false. We don't need to go any further
trying to prove the statement we need and just always say that `false` implies it in this case.
In practice it means that we are trying to prove something guarded by `false` condition,
which means that this code is unreachable, and we can safely prove any fact or perform any
transform in this code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98706
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This reverts commit 329aeb5db4,
and relands commit 61f006ac65.
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
When computing a range for a SCEVUnknown, today we use computeKnownBits for unsigned ranges, and computeNumSignBots for signed ranges. This means we miss opportunities to improve range results.
One common missed pattern is that we have a signed range of a value which CKB can determine is positive, but CNSB doesn't convey that information. The current range includes the negative part, and is thus double the size.
Per the removed comment, the original concern which delayed using both (after some code merging years back) was a compile time concern. CTMark results (provided by Nikita, thanks!) showed a geomean impact of about 0.1%. This doesn't seem large enough to avoid higher quality results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96534
Extend applyLoopGuards() to take into account conditions/assumes proving some
value %v to be divisible by D by rewriting %v to (%v / D) * D. This lets the
loop unroller and the loop vectorizer identify more loops as not requiring
remainder loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95521
In computeLoadConstantCompareExitLimit, the addrec used to compute the
exit count should be from the loop which the exiting block belongs to.
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92367
This patch pre-commits a test case with wrong exit count
analysis for D92367.
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94657
Let getTruncateExpr() short-circuit to zero when the value being truncated is
known to have at least as many trailing zeros as the target type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93973
This patch makes SCEV recognize 'select A, B, false' and 'select A, true, B'.
This is a performance improvement that will be helpful after unsound select -> and/or transformation is removed, as discussed in D93065.
SCEV's answers for the select form should be a bit more conservative than the equivalent `and A, B` / `or A, B`.
Take this example: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NsP9ue .
To check whether it is valid for SCEV's computeExitLimit to return min(n, m) as ExactNotTaken value, I put llvm.assume at tgt.
It fails because the exit limit becomes poison if n is zero and m is poison. This is problematic if e.g. the exit value of i is replaced with min(n, m).
If either n or m is constant, we can revive the analysis again. I added relevant tests and put alive2 links there.
If and is used instead, this is okay: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/K9rbJk . Hence the existing analysis is sound.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93882
SCEV makes a logical mistake when handling EitherMayExit in
case when both conditions must be met to exit the loop. The
mistake looks like follows: "if condition `A` fails within at most `X` first
iterations, and `B` fails within at most `Y` first iterations, then `A & B`
fails at most within `min (X, Y)` first iterations". This is wrong, because
both of them must fail at the same time.
Simple example illustrating this is following: we have an IV with step 1,
condition `A` = "IV is even", condition `B` = "IV is odd". Both `A` and `B`
will fail within first two iterations. But it doesn't mean that both of them
will fail within first two first iterations at the same time, which would mean
that IV is neither even nor odd at the same time within first 2 iterations.
We can only do so for known exact BE counts, but not for max.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91942
Reviewed By: nikic
In an effort to make code around flag determination more readable, and (possibly) prepare for a follow up change, factor out some of the flag detection logic. In the process, reduce the number of locations we mutate wrap flags by a couple.
Note that this isn't NFC. The old code tried for NSW xor (NUW || NW). This is, two different paths computed different sets of wrap flags. The new code will try for all three. The result is that some expressions end up with a few extra flags set.
The SCEV code for constructing GEP expressions currently assumes
that the addition of the base and all the offsets is nsw if the GEP
is inbounds. While the addition of the offsets is indeed nsw, the
addition to the base address is not, as the base address is
interpreted as an unsigned value.
Fix the GEP expression code to not assume nsw for the base+offset
calculation. However, do assume nuw if we know that the offset is
non-negative. With this, we use the same behavior as the
construction of GEP addrecs does. (Modulo the fact that we
disregard SCEV unification, as the pre-existing FIXME points out).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90648
Our range computation methods benefit from no-wrap flags. But if the ranges
were first computed before the flags were set, the cached range will be too
pessimistic.
We need to drop cached ranges whenever we sharpen AddRec's no wrap flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89847
Reviewed By: fhahn
If we've got an SCEVPtrToIntExpr(op), where op is not an SCEVUnknown,
we want to sink the SCEVPtrToIntExpr into an operand,
so that the operation is performed on integers,
and eventually we end up with just an `SCEVPtrToIntExpr(SCEVUnknown)`.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89692
And use it to model LLVM IR's `ptrtoint` cast.
This is essentially an alternative to D88806, but with no chance for
all the problems it caused due to having the cast as implicit there.
(see rG7ee6c402474a2f5fd21c403e7529f97f6362fdb3)
As we've established by now, there are at least two reasons why we want this:
* It will allow SCEV to actually model the `ptrtoint` casts
and their operands, instead of treating them as `SCEVUnknown`
* It should help with initial problem of PR46786 - this should eventually allow us
to not loose pointer-ness of an expression in more cases
As discussed in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 | PR46786 ]], in principle,
we could just extend `SCEVUnknown` with a `is ptrtoint` cast, because `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`
should sink the cast as far down into the expression as possible,
so in the end we should always end up with `SCEVPtrToIntExpr` of `SCEVUnknown`.
But i think that it isn't the best solution, because it doesn't really matter
from memory consumption side - there probably won't be *that* many `SCEVPtrToIntExpr`s
for it to matter, and it allows for much better discoverability.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89456
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
The return was due to revert of underlying patch that this one depends on.
Unit test temporarily disabled because the required logic in SCEV is switched
off due to compile time reasons.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Switched off by default, can be turned on by flag.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, nikic
Same change as 0dda633317, but for
mul expressions. We want to first fold any constant operans and
then strengthen the nowrap flags, as we can compute more precise
flags at that point.
Establish parity with the handling of add expressions, by always
constant folding mul expression operands before checking the depth
limit (this is a non-recursive simplification). The code was already
unconditionally constant folding the case where all operands were
constants, but was not folding multiple constant operands together
if there were also non-constant operands.
This requires picking out a different demonstration for depth-based
folding differences in the limit-depth.ll test.
We should first try to constant fold the add expression and only
strengthen nowrap flags afterwards. This allows us to determine
stronger flags if e.g. only two operands are left after constant
folding (and thus "guaranteed no wrap region" code applies) or the
resulting operands are non-negative and thus nsw->nuw strengthening
applies.
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
Reviewed By: fhahn
This reverts commit a10a64e7e3.
It broke polly/test/ScopInfo/NonAffine/non-affine-loop-condition-dependent-access_3.ll
The difference suggests that this may be a serious issue.
Fixed wrapping range case & proof methods reduced to constant range
checks to save compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
It's not pretty, but probably better than modelling it
as an opaque SCEVUnknown, i guess.
It is relevant e.g. for the loop that was brought up in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c26
as an example of what we'd be able to better analyze
once SCEV handles `ptrtoint` (D89456).
But as it is evident, even if we deal with `ptrtoint` there,
we also fail to model such an `ashr`.
Also, modeling of mul-of-exact-shr/div could use improvement.
As per alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tnfZKd
```
define i8 @src(i8 %0) {
%2 = ashr exact i8 %0, 4
ret i8 %2
}
declare i8 @llvm.abs(i8, i1)
declare i8 @llvm.smin(i8, i8)
declare i8 @llvm.smax(i8, i8)
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x) {
%abs_x = call i8 @llvm.abs(i8 %x, i1 false)
%div = udiv exact i8 %abs_x, 16
%t0 = call i8 @llvm.smax(i8 %x, i8 -1)
%t1 = call i8 @llvm.smin(i8 %t0, i8 1)
%r = mul nsw i8 %div, %t1
ret i8 %r
}
```
Transformation seems to be correct!
It was reverted because of negative compile time impact. In this version,
less powerful proof methods are used (non-recursive reasoning only), and
scope limited to constant End values to avoid explision of complex proofs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: efriedma
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
Much similar to the ZExt/Trunc handling.
Thanks goes to Alexander Richardson for nudging towards noticing this one proactively.
The appropriate (currently crashing) test coverage added.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
Similar to collecting information from branches guarding a loop, we can
also collect information from assumes dominating the loop header.
Fixes PR47247.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87854
For some expressions, we can use information from loop guards when
we are looking for a maximum. This patch applies information from
loop guards to the expression used to compute the maximum backedge
taken count in howFarToZero. It currently replaces an unknown
expression X with UMin(X, Y), if the loop is guarded by
X ult Y.
This patch is minimal in what conditions it applies, and there
are a few TODOs to generalize.
This partly addresses PR40961. We will also need an update to
LV to address it completely.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67178
This commit was originally because it was suspected to cause a crash,
but a reproducer did not surface.
A crash that was exposed by this change was fixed in 1d8f2e5292.
This reverts the revert commit 0581c0b0ee.
This adds test cases for PR40961 and PR47247. They illustrate cases in
which the max backedge-taken count can be improved by information from
the loop guards.
Recognize umin/umax/smin/smax intrinsics and convert them to the
already existing SCEV nodes of the same name.
In the future we'll want SCEVExpander to also produce the intrinsics,
but we're not ready for that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87160
This reverts commit e441b7a7a0.
This patch causes a compile error in tensorflow opensource project. The stack trace looks like:
Point of crash:
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfoImpl.h : line 35
(gdb) ptype *this
type = const class llvm::LoopBase<llvm::BasicBlock, llvm::Loop> [with BlockT = llvm::BasicBlock, LoopT = llvm::Loop]
(gdb) p *this
$1 = {ParentLoop = 0x0, SubLoops = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0, Blocks = std::vector of length 0, capacity 1,
DenseBlockSet = {<llvm::SmallPtrSetImpl<llvm::BasicBlock const*>> = {<llvm::SmallPtrSetImplBase> = {<llvm::DebugEpochBase> = {Epoch = 3}, SmallArray = 0x1b2bf6c8, CurArray = 0x1b2bf6c8,
CurArraySize = 8, NumNonEmpty = 0, NumTombstones = 0}, <No data fields>}, SmallStorage = {0xfffffffffffffffe, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}}, IsInvalid = true}
(gdb) p *this->DenseBlockSet->CurArray
$2 = (const void *) 0xfffffffffffffffe
I will try to get a case from tensorflow or use creduce to get a small case.
Now that SCEVExpander can preserve LCSSA form,
we do not have to worry about LCSSA form when
trying to look through PHIs. SCEVExpander will take
care of inserting LCSSA PHI nodes as required.
This increases precision of the analysis in some cases.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev, bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71539
This is the max version of D85046.
This change causes binary changes in 44 out of 237 benchmarks (out of
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006)
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85189
In some cases, it seems like we can get rid of unnecessary s/umins by
using information from the loop guards (unless I am missing something).
One place where this seems to be helpful in practice is when computing
loop trip counts. This patch just changes howManyGreaterThans for now.
Note that this requires a loop for which we can check 'is guarded'.
On SPEC2000/SPEC2006/MultiSource, there are some notable changes for
some programs in the number of loops unrolled and trip counts computed.
```
Same hash: 179 (filtered out)
Remaining: 58
Metric: scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed
Program base patch diff
test-suite...langs-C/compiler/compiler.test 25.00 31.00 24.0%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 2020.00 2323.00 15.0%
test-suite...langs-C/allroots/allroots.test 29.00 32.00 10.3%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C/loader/loader.test 17.00 18.00 5.9%
test-suite...fice-ispell/office-ispell.test 253.00 265.00 4.7%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 3552.00 3692.00 3.9%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 453.00 470.00 3.8%
test-suite...ngs-C/assembler/assembler.test 29.00 30.00 3.4%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Ptrdist/bc/bc.test 263.00 270.00 2.7%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft.test 722.00 741.00 2.6%
test-suite...count/automotive-bitcount.test 41.00 42.00 2.4%
test-suite...0/253.perlbmk/253.perlbmk.test 1417.00 1451.00 2.4%
test-suite...000/197.parser/197.parser.test 387.00 396.00 2.3%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 1168.00 1189.00 1.8%
test-suite...000/255.vortex/255.vortex.test 173.00 176.00 1.7%
Metric: loop-unroll.NumUnrolled
Program base patch diff
test-suite...langs-C/compiler/compiler.test 1.00 3.00 200.0%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 134.00 234.00 74.6%
test-suite...count/automotive-bitcount.test 3.00 4.00 33.3%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C/loader/loader.test 3.00 4.00 33.3%
test-suite...langs-C/allroots/allroots.test 3.00 4.00 33.3%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 10.00 12.00 20.0%
test-suite...fice-ispell/office-ispell.test 21.00 25.00 19.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Ptrdist/bc/bc.test 32.00 38.00 18.8%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 300.00 352.00 17.3%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft.test 60.00 69.00 15.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 57.00 63.00 10.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/assembler/assembler.test 10.00 11.00 10.0%
test-suite...0/253.perlbmk/253.perlbmk.test 145.00 157.00 8.3%
test-suite...000/197.parser/197.parser.test 43.00 46.00 7.0%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 205.00 214.00 4.4%
Geomean difference 7.6%
```
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46924 on X86.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85046
This assert was added to verify assumption that GEP's SCEV will be of pointer type,
basing on fact that it should be a SCEVAddExpr with (at least) last operand being
pointer. Two notes:
- GEP's SCEV does not have to be a SCEVAddExpr after all simplifications;
- In current state, GEP's SCEV does not have to have at least one pointer operands
(all of them can become int during the transforms).
However, we might want to be at a point where it is true. We are currently removing
this assert and will try to enumerate the cases where "is pointer" notion might be
lost during the transforms. When all of them are fixed, we can return it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84294
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Many tests use opt's -analyze feature, which does not translate well to
NPM and has better alternatives. The alternative here is to explicitly
add a pass that calls ScalarEvolution::print().
The legacy pass manager RUNs aren't changing, but they are now pinned to
the legacy pass manager. For each legacy pass manager RUN, I added a
corresponding NPM RUN using the 'print<scalar-evolution>' pass. For
compatibility with update_analyze_test_checks.py and existing test
CHECKs, 'print<scalar-evolution>' now prints what -analyze prints per
function.
This was generated by the following Python script and failures were
manually fixed up:
import sys
for i in sys.argv:
with open(i, 'r') as f:
s = f.read()
with open(i, 'w') as f:
for l in s.splitlines():
if "RUN:" in l and ' -analyze ' in l and '\\' not in l:
f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -analyze -enable-new-pm=0 '))
f.write('\n')
f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -disable-output ').replace(' -scalar-evolution ', ' "-passes=print<scalar-evolution>" ').replace(" | ", " 2>&1 | "))
f.write('\n')
else:
f.write(l)
There are a couple failures still in ScalarEvolution under NPM, but
those are due to other unrelated naming conflicts.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83798
The legacy pass was called "loop-reduce".
This lowers the number of check-llvm failures under NPM by 83.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82925
Summary:
While InstCombine trivially converts that `srem` into a `urem`,
it might happen later than wanted, in particular i'd like
for that to happen on https://godbolt.org/z/bwuEmJ test case
early in pipeline, before first instcombine run, just before `-mem2reg`.
SCEV should recognize this case natively.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, efriedma, nikic, reames
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: clementval, hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82721
Summary:
The added assertion fails on the added test without the fix.
Reduced from test-suite/MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/office-ispell/correct.c
In IR, getelementptr, obviously, takes pointer as it's base,
and returns a pointer.
When creating an SCEV expression, SCEV operands are sorted in hope
that it increases folding potential, and at the same time SCEVAddExpr's
type is the type of the last(!) operand.
Which means, in some exceedingly rare cases, pointer operand may happen to
end up not being the last operand, and as a result SCEV for GEP
will suddenly have a non-pointer return type.
We should ensure that does not happen.
In the end, actually storing the `Type *`, at the cost of increasing
memory footprint of `SCEVAddExpr`, appears to be the solution.
We can't just store a 'is a pointer' bit and create pointer type
on the fly since we don't have data layout in getType().
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46457 | PR46457 ]]
Reviewers: efriedma, mkazantsev, reames, nikic
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82633
Summary:
There was this comment here previously:
```
- // It is currently not resolved how to interpret NSW for left
- // shift by BitWidth - 1, so we avoid applying flags in that
- // case. Remove this check (or this comment) once the situation
- // is resolved. See
- // http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-April/084195.html
- // and http://reviews.llvm.org/D8890 .
```
But langref was fixed in rL286785, and the behavior is pretty obvious:
http://volta.cs.utah.edu:8080/z/MM4WZP
^ nuw can always be propagated. nsw can be propagated if
either nuw is specified, or the shift is by *less* than bitwidth-1.
This mimics similar D81189 Reassociate change, alive2 is happy about that one.
I'm not sure `NUW` isn't being printed, but that seems unrelated.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, reames, sanjoy, nlopes, craig.topper, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81243
Summary:
Users of SCEV reasonably assume that multiplication of two constant
SCEVs will in turn be constant.
However, that is not always the case:
First, we can get here with reached depth limit, and will create
MultExpr SCEV `C1 * C2` and cache it.
Then, we can get here with the same operands, but with small depth
level. But this time we will find existing MultExpr SCEV and return
it, instead of expected constant SCEV.
This patch changes getMultExpr to not apply depth limit to all constant
operands expression, allowing them to be folded.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79893
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Summary:
This patch makes propagatesPoison be more accurate by returning true on
more bin ops/unary ops/casts/etc.
The changed test in ScalarEvolution/nsw.ll was introduced by
a19edc4d15 .
IIUC, the goal of the tests is to show that iv.inc's SCEV expression still has
no-overflow flags even if the loop isn't in the wanted form.
It becomes more accurate with this patch, so think this is okay.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, reames, nikic, sanjoy
Reviewed By: spatel, nikic
Subscribers: regehr, nlopes, efriedma, fhahn, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hiraditya
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78615
Summary:
This is RFC for fixes in poison-related functions of ValueTracking.
These functions assume that a value can be poison bitwisely, but the semantics
of bitwise poison is not clear at the moment.
Allowing a value to have bitwise poison adds complexity to reasoning about
correctness of optimizations.
This patch makes the analysis functions simply assume that a value is
either fully poison or not, which has been used to understand the correctness
of a few previous optimizations.
The bitwise poison semantics seems to be only used by these functions as well.
In terms of implementation, using value-wise poison concept makes existing
functions do more precise analysis, which is what this patch contains.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, reames, nikic, nlopes, regehr
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78503
Summary:
This is RFC for fixes in poison-related functions of ValueTracking.
These functions assume that a value can be poison bitwisely, but the semantics
of bitwise poison is not clear at the moment.
Allowing a value to have bitwise poison adds complexity to reasoning about
correctness of optimizations.
This patch makes the analysis functions simply assume that a value is
either fully poison or not, which has been used to understand the correctness
of a few previous optimizations.
The bitwise poison semantics seems to be only used by these functions as well.
In terms of implementation, using value-wise poison concept makes existing
functions do more precise analysis, which is what this patch contains.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, reames, nikic, nlopes, regehr
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78503
This will allow us to use the datalayout to disambiguate other
constructs in IR, like load alignment. Split off from D78403.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78413
For the PHI node
%1 = phi [%A, %entry], [%X, %latch]
it is incorrect to use SCEV of backedge val %X as an exit value
of PHI unless %X is loop invariant.
This is because exit value of %1 is value of %X at one-before-last
iteration of the loop.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73181
Because we have to use a ConstantExpr at some point, the canonical form
isn't set in stone, but this seems reasonable.
The pretty sizeof(<vscale x 4 x i32>) dumping is a relic of ancient
LLVM; I didn't have to touch that code. :)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75887
If addrecexpr has nuw flag, the value should never be less than its
start value and start value does not required to be SCEVConstant.
Reviewed By: nikic, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71690
For the various trip-count tests, the classification isn't useful and makes the auto-generated tests super verbose. By skipping it, we make the auto-gen tests closer to the manually written ones. Up next: auto-genning a bunch of the existings tests.
Simple loop unswitch likes to leave around unsimplified and/or/xors. SCEV today bails out on these idioms which is unfortunate in general, and specifically for the unswitch interaction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70459
If we partially unswitch a loop, we leave around the (and i1 X, true) or (or i1 X, false) forms. At the moment, this inhibits SCEVs ability to compute trip counts, patch forthcoming.
This is a common idiom which arises after induction variables are widened, and we have two or more exit conditions. Interestingly, we don't have instcombine or instsimplify support for this either.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69006
llvm-svn: 375349
This reverts r366419 because the analysis performed is within the context of
the loop and it's only valid to add wrapping flags to "global" expressions if
they're always correct.
llvm-svn: 373184
At present, `-scalar-evolution-max-iterations` is a `cl::Optional`
option, which means it demands to be passed exactly zero or one times.
Our build system makes it pretty tricky to guarantee this. We often
accidentally pass the flag more than once (but always with the same
value) which results in an error, after which compilation fails:
```
clang (LLVM option parsing): for the -scalar-evolution-max-iterations option: may only occur zero or one times!
```
It seems reasonable to allow -scalar-evolution-max-iterations to be
passed more than once. Quoting the [[ http://llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html#controlling-the-number-of-occurrences-required-and-allowed | documentation ]]:
> The cl::ZeroOrMore modifier ... indicates that your program will allow the option to be specified zero or more times.
> ...
> If an option is specified multiple times for an option of the cl::opt class, only the last value will be retained.
Original patch by: Enrico Bern Hardy Tanuwidjaja <etanuwid@fb.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67512
llvm-svn: 372346
We were failing to compute trip counts (both exact and maximum) for any loop which involved a comparison against either an umin or smin. It looks like this simply got missed when we added smin/umin to SCEV. (Note: umin was submitted separately earlier today. Turned out two folks hit this at the same time.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67514
llvm-svn: 371776
This patch adds support for SCEVUMinExpr to getRangeRef,
similar to the support for SCEVUMaxExpr.
Reviewers: sanjoy.google, efriedma, reames, nikic
Reviewed By: sanjoy.google
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67177
llvm-svn: 371768
The previous output was next to useless if *any* exit was not computable. If we have more than one exit, show the exit count for each so that it's easier to see what's going from with SCEV analysis when debugging.
llvm-svn: 364579
This patch generalizes the UnrollLoop utility to support loops that exit
from the header instead of the latch. Usually, LoopRotate would take care
of must of those cases, but in some cases (e.g. -Oz), LoopRotate does
not kick in.
Codesize impact looks relatively neutral on ARM64 with -Oz + LTO.
Program master patch diff
External/S.../CFP2006/447.dealII/447.dealII 629060.00 627676.00 -0.2%
External/SPEC/CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc 1245916.00 1244932.00 -0.1%
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 86100.00 86156.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...arks/Rodinia/backprop/backprop 66212.00 66252.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...chmarks/Prolangs-C++/life/life 67276.00 67312.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...s/Prolangs-C/compiler/compiler 69824.00 69788.00 -0.1%
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/assembler/assembler 86672.00 86696.00 0.0%
Reviewers: efriedma, vsk, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61962
llvm-svn: 364398
Based on D59959, this switches SCEV to use unsigned/signed range
intersection based on the sign hint. This will prefer non-wrapping
ranges in the relevant domain. I've left the one intersection in
getRangeForAffineAR() to use the smallest intersection heuristic,
as there doesn't seem to be any obvious preference there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60035
llvm-svn: 363490
Summary:
Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes
a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x`
is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since
comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to
express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is
as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation
to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions
into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were
largely identical.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167
llvm-svn: 360159
Summary:
This lets us avoid e.g. checking if A >=s B in getSMaxExpr(A, B) if we've
already established that (A smax B) is the best we can do.
Fixes PR41225.
Reviewers: asbirlea
Subscribers: mcrosier, jlebar, bixia, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60010
llvm-svn: 357320
Summary:
This fixes an extremely long compile time caused by recursive analysis
of truncs, which were not previously subject to any depth limits unlike
some of the other ops. I decided to use the same control used for
sext/zext, since the routines analyzing these are sometimes mutually
recursive with the trunc analysis.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58994
llvm-svn: 355949
In some cases, MaxBECount can be less precise than ExactBECount for AND
and OR (the AND case was PR26207). In the OR test case, both ExactBECounts are
undef, but MaxBECount are different, so we hit the assertion below. This
patch uses the same solution the AND case already uses.
Assertion failed:
((isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(ExactNotTaken) || !isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(MaxNotTaken))
&& "Exact is not allowed to be less precise than Max"), function ExitLimit
This patch also consolidates test cases for both AND and OR in a single
test case.
Fixes https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13245
Reviewers: sanjoy, efriedma, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58853
llvm-svn: 355259
Currently, SCEV creates SCEVUnknown for every node of unreachable code. If we
have a huge amounts of such code, we will be littering SE with these nodes. We could
just state that they all are undef and save some memory.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57567
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 353017
Currently SCEV attempts to limit transformations so that they do not work with
big SCEVs (that may take almost infinite compile time). But for this, it uses heuristics
such as recursion depth and number of operands, which do not give us a guarantee
that we don't actually have big SCEVs. This situation is still possible, though it is not
likely to happen. However, the bug PR33494 showed a bunch of simple corner case
tests where we still produce huge SCEVs, even not reaching big recursion depth etc.
This patch introduces a concept of 'huge' SCEVs. A SCEV is huge if its expression
size (intoduced in D35989) exceeds some threshold value. We prohibit optimizing
transformations if any of SCEVs we are dealing with is huge. This gives us a reliable
check that we don't spend too much time working with them.
As the next step, we can possibly get rid of old limiting mechanisms, such as recursion
depth thresholds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35990
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 352728
The code of AddRec simplification is using wrong loop when it creates a new
AddRecExpr. It should be using AddRecLoop which we have saved and against which
all gate checks are made, and not calling AddRec->getLoop() over and over
again because AddRec may change and become an AddRecurrency from outer loop
during the transform iterations.
Considering this change trivial, commiting for postcommit review.
llvm-svn: 352451
Fix ScalarEvolution/solve-quadratic.ll test to account for __func__
output listing the complete function prototype rather than just its
name, as it does on NetBSD.
Example Linux output:
GetQuadraticEquation: addrec coeff bw: 4
GetQuadraticEquation: equation -2x^2 + -2x + -4, coeff bw: 5, multiplied by 2
Example NetBSD output:
llvm::Optional<std::tuple<llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, unsigned int> > GetQuadraticEquation(const llvm::SCEVAddRecExpr*): addrec coeff bw: 4
llvm::Optional<std::tuple<llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, llvm::APInt, unsigned int> > GetQuadraticEquation(const llvm::SCEVAddRecExpr*): equation -2x^2 + -2x + -4, coeff bw: 5, multiplied by 2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55162
llvm-svn: 348096
The patch has been reverted because it ended up prohibiting propagation
of a constant to exit value. For such values, we should skip all checks
related to hard uses because propagating a constant is always profitable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691
llvm-svn: 346397
This reverts commit 2f425e9c7946b9d74e64ebbfa33c1caa36914402.
It seems that the check that we still should do the transform if we
know the result is constant is missing in this code. So the logic that
has been deleted by this change is still sometimes accidentally useful.
I revert the change to see what can be done about it. The motivating
case is the following:
@Y = global [400 x i16] zeroinitializer, align 1
define i16 @foo() {
entry:
br label %for.body
for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.body
%i = phi i16 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.body ]
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [400 x i16], [400 x i16]* @Y, i16 0, i16 %i
store i16 0, i16* %arrayidx, align 1
%inc = add nuw nsw i16 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp ult i16 %inc, 400
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
for.end: ; preds = %for.body
%inc.lcssa = phi i16 [ %inc, %for.body ]
ret i16 %inc.lcssa
}
We should be able to figure out that the result is constant, but the patch
breaks it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
llvm-svn: 346198
When rewriting loop exit values, IndVars considers this transform not profitable if
the loop instruction has a loop user which it believes cannot be optimized away.
In current implementation only calls that immediately use the instruction are considered
as such.
This patch extends the definition of "hard" users to any side-effecting instructions
(which usually cannot be optimized away from the loop) and also allows handling
of not just immediate users, but use chains.
Differentlai Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345814
When we calculate a product of 2 AddRecs, we end up making quite massive
computations to deduce the operands of resulting AddRec. This process can
be optimized by computing all args of intermediate sum and then calling
`getAddExpr` once rather than calling `getAddExpr` with intermediate
result every time a new argument is computed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53189
Reviewed By: rtereshin
llvm-svn: 345813
SCEV's transform that turns `{A1,+,A2,+,...,+,An}<L> * {B1,+,B2,+,...,+,Bn}<L>` into
a single AddRec of size `2n+1` with complex combinatorial coefficients can easily
trigger exponential growth of the SCEV (in case if nothing gets folded and simplified).
We tried to restrain this transform using the option `scalar-evolution-max-add-rec-size`,
but its default value seems to be insufficiently small: the test attached to this patch
with default value of this option `16` has a SCEV of >3M symbols (when printed out).
This patch reduces the simplification limit. It is not a cure to combinatorial
explosions, but at least it reduces this corner case to something more or less
reasonable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53282
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 344584
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x + ...)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x + ...), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such expressions.
This enables better canonicalization of expressions like
1 + zext(5 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y) and
zext(6 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
which get both transformed to
2 + zext(4 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
This pattern is common in address arithmetics and the transformation
makes it easier for passes like LoadStoreVectorizer to prove that 2 or
more memory accesses are consecutive and optimize (vectorize) them.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337859
SCEV tries to constant-fold arguments of trunc operands in SCEVAddExpr, and when it does
that, it passes wrong flags into the recursion. It is only valid to pass flags that are proved for
narrow type into a computation in wider type if we can prove that trunc instruction doesn't
actually change the value. If it did lose some meaningful bits, we may end up proving wrong
no-wrap flags for sum of arguments of trunc.
In the provided test we end up with `nuw` where it shouldn't be because of this bug.
The solution is to conservatively pass `SCEV::FlagAnyWrap` which is always a valid thing to do.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49471
llvm-svn: 337435
Florian Hahn