Summary:
programUndefinedIfPoison makes more sense, given what the function
does; and I'm about to add a function with a name similar to
isKnownNotFullPoison (so do the rename to avoid confusion).
Reviewers: broune, majnemer, bjarke.roune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30444
llvm-svn: 301776
There have been multiple reports of this causing problems: a
compile-time explosion on the LLVM testsuite, and a stack
overflow for an opencl kernel.
llvm-svn: 300928
Use haveNoCommonBitsSet to figure out whether an "or" instruction
is equivalent to addition. This handles more cases than just
checking for a constant on the RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32239
llvm-svn: 300746
The patch rL298481 was reverted due to crash on clang-with-lto-ubuntu build.
The reason of the crash was type mismatch between either a or b and RHS in the following situation:
LHS = sext(a +nsw b) > RHS.
This is quite rare, but still possible situation. Normally we need to cast all {a, b, RHS} to their widest type.
But we try to avoid creation of new SCEV that are not constants to avoid initiating recursive analysis that
can take a lot of time and/or cache a bad value for iterations number. To deal with this, in this patch we
reject this case and will not try to analyze it if the type of sum doesn't match with the type of RHS. In this
situation we don't need to create any non-constant SCEVs.
This patch also adds an assertion to the method IsProvedViaContext so that we could fail on it and not
go further into range analysis etc (because in some situations these analyzes succeed even when the passed
arguments have wrong types, what should not normally happen).
The patch also contains a fix for a problem with too narrow scope of the analysis caused by wrong
usage of predicates in recursive invocations.
The regression test on the said failure: test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution/implied-via-addition.ll
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31238
llvm-svn: 299205
The patch rL298481 was reverted due to crash on clang-with-lto-ubuntu build.
The reason of the crash was type mismatch between either a or b and RHS in the following situation:
LHS = sext(a +nsw b) > RHS.
This is quite rare, but still possible situation. Normally we need to cast all {a, b, RHS} to their widest type.
But we try to avoid creation of new SCEV that are not constants to avoid initiating recursive analysis that
can take a lot of time and/or cache a bad value for iterations number. To deal with this, in this patch we
reject this case and will not try to analyze it if the type of sum doesn't match with the type of RHS. In this
situation we don't need to create any non-constant SCEVs.
This patch also adds an assertion to the method IsProvedViaContext so that we could fail on it and not
go further into range analysis etc (because in some situations these analyzes succeed even when the passed
arguments have wrong types, what should not normally happen).
The patch also contains a fix for a problem with too narrow scope of the analysis caused by wrong
usage of predicates in recursive invocations.
The regression test on the said failure: test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution/implied-via-addition.ll
llvm-svn: 298690
Given below case:
%y = shl %x, n
%z = ashr %y, m
when n = m, SCEV models it as sext(trunc(x)). This patch tries to handle
the case where n > m by using sext(mul(trunc(x), 2^(n-m)))) as the SCEV
expression.
llvm-svn: 298631
This patch allows SCEV predicate analysis to prove implication of some expression predicates
from context predicates related to arguments of those expressions.
It introduces three new rules:
For addition:
(A >X && B >= 0) || (B >= 0 && A > X) ===> (A + B) > X.
For division:
(A > X) && (0 < B <= X + 1) ===> (A / B > 0).
(A > X) && (-B <= X < 0) ===> (A / B >= 0).
Using these rules, SCEV is able to prove facts like "if X > 1 then X / 2 > 0".
They can also be combined with the same context, to prove more complex expressions like
"if X > 1 then X/2 + 1 > 1".
Diffirential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30887
Reviewed by: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 298481
If loop bound containing calculations like min(a,b), the Scalar
Evolution API getSmallConstantTripMultiple returns 4294967295 "-1"
as the trip multiple. The problem is that, SCEV use -1 * umax to
represent umin. The multiple constant -1 was returned, and the logic
of guarding against huge trip counts was skipped. Because -1 has 32
active bits.
The fix attempt to factor more general cases. First try to get the
greatest power of two divisor of trip count expression. In case
overflow happens, the trip count expression is still divisible by the
greatest power of two divisor returned. Returns 1 if not divisible by 2.
Patch by Huihui Zhang <huihuiz@codeaurora.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30840
llvm-svn: 298301
Summary:
This approach has two major advantages over the existing one:
1. We don't need to extend bitwidth in our computations. Extending
bitwidth is a big issue for compile time as we often end up working with
APInts wider than 64bit, which is a slow case for APInt.
2. When we zero extend a wrapped range, we lose some information (we
replace the range with [0, 1 << src bit width)). Thus, avoiding such
extensions better preserves information.
Correctness testing:
I ran 'ninja check' with assertions that the new implementation of
getRangeForAffineAR gives the same results as the old one (this
functionality is not present in this patch). There were several failures
- I inspected them manually and found out that they all are caused by
the fact that we're returning more accurate results now (see bullet (2)
above).
Without such assertions 'ninja check' works just fine, as well as
SPEC2006.
Compile time testing:
CTMark/Os:
- mafft/pairlocalalign -16.98%
- tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 -12.72%
- lencod/lencod -11.51%
- Bullet/bullet -4.36%
- ClamAV/clamscan -3.66%
- 7zip/7zip-benchmark -3.19%
- sqlite3/sqlite3 -2.95%
- SPASS/SPASS -2.74%
- Average -5.81%
Performance testing:
The changes are expected to be neutral for runtime performance.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick, pete
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30477
llvm-svn: 297992
Summary:
Motivation: fix PR31181 without regression (the actual fix is still in
progress). However, the actual content of PR31181 is not relevant
here.
This change makes poison propagation more aggressive in the following
cases:
1. poision * Val == poison, for any Val. In particular, this changes
existing intentional and documented behavior in these two cases:
a. Val is 0
b. Val is 2^k * N
2. poison << Val == poison, for any Val
3. getelementptr is poison if any input is poison
I think all of these are justified (and are axiomatically true in the
new poison / undef model):
1a: we need poison * 0 to be poison to allow transforms like these:
A * (B + C) ==> A * B + A * C
If poison * 0 were 0 then the above transform could not be allowed
since e.g. we could have A = poison, B = 1, C = -1, making the LHS
poison * (1 + -1) = poison * 0 = 0
and the RHS
poison * 1 + poison * -1 = poison + poison = poison
1b: we need e.g. poison * 4 to be poison since we want to allow
A * 4 ==> A + A + A + A
If poison * 4 were a value with all of their bits poison except the
last four; then we'd not be able to do this transform since then if A
were poison the LHS would only be "partially" poison while the RHS
would be "full" poison.
2: Same reasoning as (1b), we'd like have the following kinds
transforms be legal:
A << 1 ==> A + A
Reviewers: majnemer, efriedma
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30185
llvm-svn: 295809
Make SolveLinEquationWithOverflow take the start as a SCEV, so we can
solve more cases. With that implemented, get rid of the special case
for powers of two.
The additional functionality probably isn't particularly useful,
but it might help a little for certain cases involving pointer
arithmetic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28884
llvm-svn: 293576
Inlining in getAddExpr() can cause abnormal computational time in some cases.
New parameter -scev-addops-inline-threshold is intruduced with default value 500.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28812
llvm-svn: 293176
bots ever since d0k fixed the CHECK lines so that it did something at
all.
It isn't actually testing SCEV directly but LSR, so move it into LSR and
the x86-specific tree of tests that already exists there. Target
dependence is common and unavoidable with the current design of LSR.
llvm-svn: 292774
To avoid regressions, make ScalarEvolution::createSCEV a bit more
clever.
Also get rid of some useless code in ScalarEvolution::howFarToZero
which was hiding this bug.
No new testcase because it's impossible to actually expose this bug:
we don't have any in-tree users of getUDivExactExpr besides the two
functions I just mentioned, and they both dodged the problem. I'll
try to add some interesting users in a followup.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28587
llvm-svn: 292449
First, I've moved a test of IVUsers from the LSR tree to a dedicated
IVUsers test directory. I've also simplified its RUN line now that the
new pass manager's loop PM is providing analyses on their own.
No functionality changed, but it makes subsequent changes cleaner.
llvm-svn: 292060
mark it as never invalidated in the new PM.
The old PM already required this to work, and after a discussion with
Hal this seems to really be the only sensible answer. The cache
gracefully degrades as the IR is mutated, and most things which do this
should already be incrementally updating the cache.
This gets rid of a bunch of logic preserving and testing the
invalidation of this analysis.
llvm-svn: 292039
Refines max backedge-taken count if a loop like
"for (int i = 0; i != n; ++i) { /* body */ }" is rotated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28536
llvm-svn: 291704
This is both easier to understand, and produces a tighter bound in certain
cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28393
llvm-svn: 291701
invalid.
This fixes use-after-free bugs that will arise with any interesting use
of SCEV.
I've added a dedicated test that works diligently to trigger these kinds
of bugs in the new pass manager and also checks for them explicitly as
well as triggering ASan failures when things go squirly.
llvm-svn: 291426
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
Summary:
When SCEVRewriteVisitor traverses the SCEV DAG, it may visit the same SCEV
multiple times if this SCEV is referenced by multiple other SCEVs. This has
exponential time complexity in the worst case. Memoizing the results will
avoid re-visiting the same SCEV. Add a map to save the results, and override
the visit function of SCEVVisitor. Now SCEVRewriteVisitor only visit each
SCEV once and thus returns the same result for the same input SCEV.
This patch fixes PR18606, PR18607.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25810
llvm-svn: 284868
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
This is to avoid inlining too many multiplication operands into a SCEV, which could
take exponential time in the worst case.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25794
llvm-svn: 284784
In loops that look something like
i = n;
do {
...
} while(i++ < n+k);
where k is a constant, the maximum backedge count is k (in fact the backedge
count will be either 0 or k, depending on whether n+k wraps). More generally
for LHS < RHS if RHS-(LHS of first comparison) is a constant then the loop will
iterate either 0 or that constant number of times.
This allows for more loop unrolling with the recent upper bound loop unrolling
changes, and I'm working on a patch that will let loop unrolling additionally
make use of the loop being executed either 0 or k times (we need to retain the
loop comparison only on the first unrolled iteration).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25607
llvm-svn: 284465
Enhance SCEV to compute the trip count for some loops with unknown stride.
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 281732
value is a pointer.
This patch is to fix PR30213. When expanding an expr based on ValueOffsetPair,
if the value is of pointer type, we can only create a getelementptr instead
of sub expr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24088
llvm-svn: 281439
when unroll runtime iteration loop.
In llvm::UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder, if the loop to be unrolled is the inner
loop inside a loop nest, the scalar evolution needs to be dropped for its
parent loop which is done by ScalarEvolution::forgetLoop. However, we can
postpone forgetLoop to the end of UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder so TripCountSC
expansion can still reuse existing value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23572
llvm-svn: 279748
The patch is to fix the bug in PR28705. It was caused by setting wrong return
value for SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion. The return values of findExistingExpansion
have different meanings when the function is used in different ways so it is easy to make
mistake. The fix creates two new interfaces to replace SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion,
and specifies where each interface is expected to be used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22942
llvm-svn: 278161
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
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
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 276136
When building SCEVs, if a function is known to return its argument, then we can
build the SCEV using the corresponding argument value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9381
llvm-svn: 275037
The way we elide max expressions when computing trip counts is incorrect
-- it breaks cases like this:
```
static int wrapping_add(int a, int b) {
return (int)((unsigned)a + (unsigned)b);
}
void test() {
volatile int end_buf = 2147483548; // INT_MIN - 100
int end = end_buf;
unsigned counter = 0;
for (int start = wrapping_add(end, 200); start < end; start++)
counter++;
print(counter);
}
```
Note: the `NoWrap` variable that was being tested has little to do with
the values flowing into the max expression; it is a property of the
induction variable.
test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/nsw-tripcount.ll was added to solely test
functionality I'm reverting in this change, so I've deleted the test
fully.
llvm-svn: 273079
We can safely rely on a NoWrap add recurrence causing UB down the road
only if we know the loop does not have a exit expressed in a way that is
opaque to ScalarEvolution (e.g. by a function call that conditionally
calls exit(0)).
I believe with this change PR28012 is fixed.
Note: I had to change some llvm-lit tests in LoopReroll, since it looks
like they were depending on this incorrect behavior.
llvm-svn: 272237
Sanjoy Das