There are three reasons why we want to record assumptions first before we
add them to the assumed/invalid context:
1) If the SCoP is not profitable or otherwise invalid without the
assumed/invalid context we do not have to compute it.
2) Information about the context are gathered rather late in the SCoP
construction (basically after we know all parameters), thus the user
might see overly complicated assumptions to be taken while they would
have been simplified later on.
3) Currently we cannot take assumptions at any point but have to wait,
e.g., for the domain generation to finish. This makes wrapping
assumptions much more complicated as they need to be and it will
have a similar effect on "signed-unsigned" assumptions later.
llvm-svn: 266068
In order to speed up compile time and to avoid random timeouts we now
separately track assumptions and restrictions. In this context
assumptions describe parameter valuations we need and restrictions
describe parameter valuations we do not allow. During AST generation
we create a runtime check for both, whereas the one for the
restrictions is negated before a conjunction is build.
Except the In-Bounds assumptions we currently only track restrictions.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17247
llvm-svn: 262328
ISL 0.16 will change how sets are printed which breaks 117 unit tests
that text-compare printed sets. This patch re-formats most of these unit
tests using a script and small manual editing on top of that. When
actually updating ISL, most work is done by just re-running the script
to adapt to the changed output.
Some tests that compare IR and tests with single CHECK-lines that can be
easily updated manually are not included here.
The re-format script will also be committed afterwards. The per-test
formatter invocation command lines options will not be added in the near
future because it is ad hoc and would overwrite the manual edits.
Ideally it also shouldn't be required anymore because ISL's set printing
has become more stable in 0.16.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16095
llvm-svn: 257851
Thinking more about the last commit I came to realize that for testing the
new functionality it is sufficient to verify that the iteration domains
we construct for a simple test case do not contain any of the complexity that
caused compile time issues for larger inputs.
llvm-svn: 252714
Previously, we just skipped error blocks during scop construction. With
this change we make sure we can construct domains for error blocks such that
these domains can be forwarded to subsequent basic blocks.
This change ensures that basic blocks that post-dominate and are dominated by
a basic block that branches to an error condition have the very same iteration
domain as the branching basic block. Before, this change we would construct
a domain that excludes all error conditions. Such domains could become _very_
complex and were undesirable to build.
Another solution would have been to drop these constraints using a
dominance/post-dominance check instead of modeling the error blocks. Such
a solution could also work in case of unreachable statements or infinite
loops in the scop. However, as we currently (to my believe incorrectly) model
unreachable basic blocks in the post-dominance tree, such a solution is not
yet feasible and requires first a change to LLVM's post-dominance tree
construction.
This commit addresses the most sever compile time issue reported in:
http://llvm.org/PR25458
llvm-svn: 252713
Johannes Doerfert