There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
This change lets us prove things like
"{X,+,10} s< 5000" implies "{X+7,+,10} does not sign overflow"
It does this by replacing replacing getConstantDifference by
computeConstantDifference (which is smarter) in
isImpliedCondOperandsViaRanges.
llvm-svn: 276505
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is the NUW variant of r269211 and fixes PR27691.
(Note: PR27691 is not a correct or stability bug, it was created to
track a pending task).
llvm-svn: 269790
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is not a problem for "normal" loops[0] that don't have
guards or assumes, but helps in cases where we have guards or assumes in
the loop that can be used to constrain incoming values over the backedge.
This partially fixes PR27691 (we still don't handle the NUW case).
[0]: for "normal" loops, in the cases where we'd be able to prove
no-wrap via isKnownPredicate, we'd also be able to compute a max
tripcount.
llvm-svn: 269211
Daniel Jasper