This patch teaches SCEV how to prove implications for SCEVUnknown nodes that are Phis.
If we need to prove `Pred` for `LHS, RHS`, and `LHS` is a Phi with possible incoming values
`L1, L2, ..., LN`, then if we prove `Pred` for `(L1, RHS), (L2, RHS), ..., (LN, RHS)` then we can also
prove it for `(LHS, RHS)`. If both `LHS` and `RHS` are Phis from the same block, it is sufficient
to prove the predicate for values that come from the same predecessor block.
The typical case that it handles is that we sometimes need to prove that `Phi(Len, Len - 1) >= 0`
given that `Len > 0`. The new logic was added to `isImpliedViaOperations` and only uses it and
non-recursive reasoning to prove the facts we need, so it should not hurt compile time a lot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44001
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 329150
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 328611
This patch teaches `computeConstantDifference` handle calculation of constant
difference between `(X + C1)` and `(X + C2)` which is `(C2 - C1)`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43759
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 328609
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
llvm-svn: 327822
It is a revert of rL327362 which causes build bot failures with assert like
Assertion `isAvailableAtLoopEntry(RHS, L) && "RHS is not available at Loop Entry"' failed.
llvm-svn: 327363
IsKnownPredicate is updated to implement the following algorithm
proposed by @sanjoy and @mkazantsev :
isKnownPredicate(Pred, LHS, RHS) {
Collect set S all loops on which either LHS or RHS depend.
If S is non-empty
a. Let PD be the element of S which is dominated by all other elements of S
b. Let E(LHS) be value of LHS on entry of PD.
To get E(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their entry values.
Define E(RHS) in the same way.
c. Let B(LHS) be value of L on backedge of PD.
To get B(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their backedge values.
Define B(RHS) in the same way.
d. Note that E(LHS) and E(RHS) are automatically available on entry of PD,
so we can assert on that.
e. Return true if isLoopEntryGuardedByCond(Pred, E(LHS), E(RHS)) &&
isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond(Pred, B(LHS), B(RHS))
Return true if Pred, L, R is known from ranges, splitting etc.
}
This is follow-up for https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43507
llvm-svn: 327362
There is a more powerful but still simple function `isKnownViaSimpleReasoning ` that
does constant range check and few more additional checks. We use it some places (e.g.
when proving implications) and in some other places we only check constant ranges.
Currently, indvar simplifier fails to remove the check in following loop:
int inc = ...;
for (int i = inc, j = inc - 1; i < 200; ++i, ++j)
if (i > j) { ... }
This patch replaces all usages of `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges` with
`isKnownViaSimpleReasoning` to have smarter proofs. In particular, it fixes the
case above.
Reviewed-By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43175
llvm-svn: 325214
The failures happened because of assert which was overconfident about
SCEV's proving capabilities and is generally not valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324473
Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly.
But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is
known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts
together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324453
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
To bugs additionally fixed:
assert is moved after the check whether loop is not a nullptr.
Usage of isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCondOperandsViaNoOverflow
is guarded by isAvailableAtLoopEntry.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417
llvm-svn: 324204
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42165
llvm-svn: 323077
We cannot move the insertion point to header if SCEV contains div/rem
operations due to they may go over check for zero denominator.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop
Reviewed By: sebpop
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41229
llvm-svn: 320789
Summary:
The function is meant to recurse until it comes upon the
phi it's looking for. However, with the current condition,
it will recurse until it finds anything _but_ the phi.
The function will even fail for simple cases like:
%i = phi i32 [ %inc, %loop ], ...
...
%inc = add i32 %i, 1
because the base condition will not happen when the phi
is recursed to, and the recursion will end with a 'false'
result since the previous instruction is a phi.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, bjope, llvm-commits
Committing on behalf of: Bevin Hansson (bevinh)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40946
llvm-svn: 320700
Turns out we can have comparisons which are indirect users of the induction variable that we can make invariant. In this case, there is no loop invariant value contributing and we'd fail an assert.
The test case was found by a java fuzzer and reduced. It's a real cornercase. You have to have a static loop which we've already proven only executes once, but haven't broken the backedge on, and an inner phi whose result can be constant folded by SCEV using exit count reasoning but not proven by isKnownPredicate. To my knowledge, only the fuzzer has hit this case.
llvm-svn: 319583
As noted in the nice block comment, the previous code didn't actually handle multi-entry loops correctly, it just assumed SCEV didn't analyze such loops. Given SCEV has comments to the contrary, that seems a bit suspect. More importantly, the pass actually requires loopsimplify form which ensures a loop-preheader is available. Remove the excessive generaility and shorten the code greatly.
Note that we do successfully analyze many multi-entry loops, but we do so by converting them to single entry loops. See the added test case.
llvm-svn: 316976
This patch allows SCEVFindUnsafe algorithm to tread division by any non-positive
value as safe. Previously, it could only recognize non-zero constants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39228
llvm-svn: 316568
The type of a SCEVConstant may not match the corresponding LLVM Value.
In this case, we skip the constant folding for now.
TODO: Replace ConstantInt Zero by ConstantPointerNull
llvm-svn: 314531
This patch tries to transform cases like:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = (i & 0x1) == 0;
bool c1 = ((i + 1) & 0x1) == 1;
}
To
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = true;
bool c1 = true;
}
This commit also update test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/replace-srem-by-urem.ll to prevent constant folding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38272
llvm-svn: 314266
Since now SCEV can handle 'urem', an 'urem' is a better canonical form than an 'srem' because it has well-defined behavior
This is a follow up of D34598
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38072
llvm-svn: 314125
If SCEV can prove that the backedge taken count for a loop is zero, it does not
need to "understand" a recursive PHI to compute its exiting value.
This should fix PR33885.
llvm-svn: 309758
The patch was reverted due to a bug. The bug was that if the IV is the 2nd operand of the icmp
instruction, then the "Pred" variable gets swapped and differs from the instruction's predicate.
In this patch we use the original predicate to do the transformation.
Also added a test case that exercises this situation.
Differentian Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35107
llvm-svn: 307477
It seems that the patch was reverted by mistake. Clang testing showed failure of the
MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply test, however I was unable to reproduce the issue on the
fresh code base and was able to confirm that the transformation introduced by the change
does not happen in the said test. This gives a strong confidence that the actual reason of
the failure of the initial patch was somewhere else, and that problem now seems to be
fixed. Re-submitting the change to confirm that.
llvm-svn: 307244
This adds exact flags to AShr/LShr flags where we can statically
prove it is valid using the range of induction variables. This
allows further optimisations to remove extra loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34207
llvm-svn: 307157
This patch seems to cause failures of test MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply on
multiple buildbots. Reverting until the reason of that is clarified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307126
llvm-svn: 307135
-If there is a IndVar which is known to be non-negative, and there is a value which is also non-negative,
then signed and unsigned comparisons between them produce the same result. Both of those can be
seen in the same loop. To allow other optimizations to simplify them, we turn all instructions like
%c = icmp slt i32 %iv, %b
to
%c = icmp ult i32 %iv, %b
if both %iv and %b are known to be non-negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34979
llvm-svn: 307126
MulOpsInlineThreshold option of SCEV is defaulted to 1000, which is inadequately high.
When constructing SCEVs of expressions like:
x1 = a * a
x2 = x1 * x1
x3 = x2 * x2
...
We actually have huge SCEVs with max allowed amount of operands inlined.
Such expressions are easy to get from unrolling of loops looking like
x = a
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
x = x * x
Or more tricky cases where big powers are involved. If some non-linear analysis
tries to work with a SCEV that has 1000 operands, it may lead to excessively long
compilation. The attached test does not pass within 1 minute with default threshold.
This patch decreases its default value to 32, which looks much more reasonable if we
use analyzes with complexity O(N^2) or O(N^3) working with SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34397
llvm-svn: 305882
This change adds an option disable-lftr to be able to disable Linear Function Test Replace optimization.
By default option is off so current behavior is not changed.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, wmi, andreadb, apilipenko
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33979
llvm-svn: 305055
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/2011-10-27-lftrnull will fail if this regresses.
Transforms/GVN/PRE/2011-06-01-NonLocalMemdepMiscompile.ll has been changed to still test what it was
trying to test.
llvm-svn: 302446
Since there is no sdiv in SCEV, an 'udiv' is a better canonical form than an 'sdiv' as the user of induction variable
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31488
llvm-svn: 299118
Currently the default C calling convention functions are treated
the same as compute kernels. Make this explicit so the default
calling convention can be changed to a non-kernel.
Converted with perl -pi -e 's/define void/define amdgpu_kernel void/'
on the relevant test directories (and undoing in one place that actually
wanted a non-kernel).
llvm-svn: 298444
Summary:
Previously we used to return a bogus result, 0, for IR like `ashr %val,
-1`.
I've also added an assert checking that `ComputeNumSignBits` at least
returns 1. That assert found an already checked in test case where we
were returning a bad result for `ashr %val, -1`.
Fixes PR32045.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel, majnemer
Subscribers: efriedma, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30311
llvm-svn: 296273
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
llvm-svn: 284629
Summary:
The patch fixes regression caused by two earlier patches D18777 and D18867.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D24280
From: Li Huang
llvm-svn: 282650
This change needs to be reverted in order to revert -r278267 which cause performance regression on MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt from LNT and some other bechmarks.
See comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D18777 for details.
llvm-svn: 279432
`IVVisitor::visitCast` used to have the invariant that if the
instruction it was passed was a sext or zext instruction, the result of
the instruction would be wider than the induction variable. This is no
longer true after rL275037, so this change teaches `IndVarSimplify` s
implementation of `IVVisitor::visitCast` to work with the relaxed
invariant.
A corresponding change to SimplifyIndVar to preserve the said invariant
after rL275037 would also work, but given how `IVVisitor::visitCast` is
spelled (no indication of said invariant), I figured the current fix is
cleaner.
Fixes PR28935.
llvm-svn: 278584
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
This commit contains changes in a newly added testcase which was not included in the previous commit (which was reverted later on).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
llvm-svn: 278421
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
llvm-svn: 278334
Max Kazantsev