D30041 extended SCEVPredicateRewriter to improve handling of Phi nodes whose
update chain involves casts; PSCEV can now build an AddRecurrence for some
forms of such phi nodes, under the proper runtime overflow test. This means
that we can identify such phi nodes as an induction, and the loop-vectorizer
can now vectorize such inductions, however inefficiently. The vectorizer
doesn't know that it can ignore the casts, and so it vectorizes them.
This patch records the casts in the InductionDescriptor, so that they could
be marked to be ignored for cost calculation (we use VecValuesToIgnore for
that) and ignored for vectorization/widening/scalarization (i.e. treated as
TriviallyDead).
In addition to marking all these casts to be ignored, we also need to make
sure that each cast is mapped to the right vector value in the vector loop body
(be it a widened, vectorized, or scalarized induction). So whenever an
induction phi is mapped to a vector value (during vectorization/widening/
scalarization), we also map the respective cast instruction (if exists) to that
vector value. (If the phi-update sequence of an induction involves more than one
cast, then the above mapping to vector value is relevant only for the last cast
of the sequence as we allow only the "last cast" to be used outside the
induction update chain itself).
This is the last step in addressing PR30654.
llvm-svn: 320672
CreateAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl() adds an IncrementNUSW overflow predicate
which allows the PSCEV rewriter to rewrite this scev expression:
(zext i8 {0, + , (trunc i32 step to i8)} to i32)
into
{0, +, (sext i8 (trunc i32 step to i8) to i32)}
But then it adds the wrong Equal predicate:
%step == (zext i8 (trunc i32 %step to i8) to i32).
instead of:
%step == (sext i8 (trunc i32 %step to i8) to i32)
This is fixed here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40641
llvm-svn: 320298
In this method, we invoke `SimplifyICmpOperands` which takes the `Cond` predicate
by reference and may change it along with `LHS` and `RHS` SCEVs. But then we invoke
`computeShiftCompareExitLimit` with Values from which the SCEVs have been derived,
these Values have not been modified while `Cond` could be.
One of possible outcomes of this is that we may falsely prove that an infinite loop ends
within some finite number of iterations.
In this patch, we save the original `Cond` and pass it along with original operands.
This logic may be removed in future once `computeShiftCompareExitLimit` works
with SCEVs instead of value operands.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40953
llvm-svn: 320142
Lexicographical comparison of SCEV trees is potentially expensive for big
expression trees. We can define ordering between them for AddRecs and
N-ary operations by SCEV NoWrap flags to make non-equality check
cheaper.
This change does not prevent grouping eqivalent SCEVs together and is
not supposed to have any meaningful impact on behavior of any transforms.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40645
llvm-svn: 319889
Current implementation of `compareSCEVComplexity` is being unreasonable with `SCEVUnknown`s:
every time it sees one, it creates a new value cache and tries to prove equality of two values using it.
This cache reallocates and gets lost from SCEV to SCEV.
This patch changes this behavior: now we create one cache for all values and share it between SCEVs.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40597
llvm-svn: 319880
Summary:
I don't think rL309080 is the right fix for PR33494 -- caching ExitLimit only
hides the problem[0]. The real issue is that because of how we forget SCEV
expressions ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenInfo, in the test case for PR33494
computing the backedge for any loop invalidates the trip count for every other
loop. This effectively makes the SCEV cache useless.
I've instead made the SCEV expression invalidation in
ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenInfo less aggressive to fix this issue.
[0]: One way to think about this is that rL309080 essentially augmented the
backedge-taken-count cache with another equivalent exit-limit cache. The bug
went away because we were explicitly not clearing the exit-limit cache in
getBackedgeTakenInfo. But instead of doing all of that, we can just avoid
clearing the backedge-taken-count cache.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39361
llvm-svn: 319678
These command line options are not intended for public use, and often
don't even make sense in the context of a particular tool anyway. About
90% of them are already hidden, but when people add new options they
forget to hide them, so if you were to make a brand new tool today, link
against one of LLVM's libraries, and run tool -help you would get a
bunch of junk that doesn't make sense for the tool you're writing.
This patch hides these options. The real solution is to not have
libraries defining command line options, but that's a much larger effort
and not something I'm prepared to take on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40674
llvm-svn: 319505
Currently, we use a set of pairs to cache responces like `CompareValueComplexity(X, Y) == 0`. If we had
proved that `CompareValueComplexity(S1, S2) == 0` and `CompareValueComplexity(S2, S3) == 0`,
this cache does not allow us to prove that `CompareValueComplexity(S1, S3)` is also `0`.
This patch replaces this set with `EquivalenceClasses` that merges Values into equivalence sets so that
any two values from the same set are equal from point of `CompareValueComplexity`. This, in particular,
allows us to prove the fact from example above.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40429
llvm-svn: 319153
Currently, we use a set of pairs to cache responces like `CompareSCEVComplexity(X, Y) == 0`. If we had
proved that `CompareSCEVComplexity(S1, S2) == 0` and `CompareSCEVComplexity(S2, S3) == 0`,
this cache does not allow us to prove that `CompareSCEVComplexity(S1, S3)` is also `0`.
This patch replaces this set with `EquivalenceClasses` any two values from the same set are equal from
point of `CompareSCEVComplexity`. This, in particular, allows us to prove the fact from example above.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40428
llvm-svn: 319149
Summary:
For a given loop, getLoopLatch returns a non-null value
when a loop has only one latch block. In the modified
context adding an assertion to check that both the outgoing branches of
a terminator instruction (of latch) does not target same header.
+
few minor code reorganization.
Reviewers: jbhateja
Reviewed By: jbhateja
Subscribers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40460
llvm-svn: 318997
Summary:
For a given loop, getLoopLatch returns a non-null value
when a loop has only one latch block. In the modified
context a check on both the outgoing branches of a terminator instruction (of latch) to same header is redundant.
Reviewers: jbhateja
Reviewed By: jbhateja
Subscribers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40460
llvm-svn: 318991
Given loops `L1` and `L2` with AddRecs `AR1` and `AR2` varying in them respectively.
When identifying loop disposition of `AR2` w.r.t. `L1`, we only say that it is varying if
`L1` contains `L2`. But there is also a possible situation where `L1` and `L2` are
consecutive sibling loops within the parent loop. In this case, `AR2` is also varying
w.r.t. `L1`, but we don't correctly identify it.
It can lead, for exaple, to attempt of incorrect folding. Consider:
AR1 = {a,+,b}<L1>
AR2 = {c,+,d}<L2>
EXAR2 = sext(AR1)
MUL = mul AR1, EXAR2
If we incorrectly assume that `EXAR2` is invariant w.r.t. `L1`, we can end up trying to
construct something like: `{a * {c,+,d}<L2>,+,b * {c,+,d}<L2>}<L1>`, which is incorrect
because `AR2` is not available on entrance of `L1`.
Both situations "`L1` contains `L2`" and "`L1` preceeds sibling loop `L2`" can be handled
with one check: "header of `L1` dominates header of `L2`". This patch replaces the old
insufficient check with this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39453
llvm-svn: 318819
I don't believe this was a problem in practice, as it's likely that the
boolean wasn't checked unless the backend condition was non-null.
llvm-svn: 318073
Summary:
If a compare instruction is same or inverse of the compare in the
branch of the loop latch, then return a constant evolution node.
This shall facilitate computations of loop exit counts in cases
where compare appears in the evolution chain of induction variables.
Will fix PR 34538
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, junryoungju
Reviewed By: sanjoy, junryoungju
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38494
llvm-svn: 318050
Max backedge taken count is always expected to be a constant; and this is
usually true by construction -- it is a SCEV expression with constant inputs.
However, if the max backedge expression ends up being computed to be a udiv with
a constant zero denominator[0], SCEV does not fold the result to a constant
since there is no constant it can fold it to (SCEV has no representation for
"infinity" or "undef").
However, in computeMaxBECountForLT we already know the denominator is positive,
and thus at least 1; and we can use this fact to avoid dividing by zero.
[0]: We can end up with a constant zero denominator if the signed range of the
stride is more precise than the unsigned range.
llvm-svn: 316615
Summary:
If a compare instruction is same or inverse of the compare in the
branch of the loop latch, then return a constant evolution node.
Currently scope of evaluation is limited to SCEV computation for
PHI nodes.
This shall facilitate computations of loop exit counts in cases
where compare appears in the evolution chain of induction variables.
Will fix PR 34538
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, junryoungju
Reviewed By: junryoungju
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38494
llvm-svn: 316054
This reverts commit r315713. It causes PR34968.
I think I know what the problem is, but I don't think I'll have time to fix it
this week.
llvm-svn: 315962
Summary:
This change uses the loop use list added in the previous change to remember the
loops that appear in the trip count expressions of other loops; and uses it in
forgetLoop. This lets us not scan every loop in the function on a forgetLoop
call.
With this change we no longer invalidate clear out backedge taken counts on
forgetValue. I think this is fine -- the contract is that SCEV users must call
forgetLoop(L) if their change to the IR could have changed the trip count of L;
solely calling forgetValue on a value feeding into the backedge condition of L
is not enough. Moreover, I don't think we can strengthen forgetValue to be
sufficient for invalidating trip counts without significantly re-architecting
SCEV. For instance, if we have the loop:
I = *Ptr;
E = I + 10;
do {
// ...
} while (++I != E);
then the backedge taken count of the loop is 9, and it has no reference to
either I or E, i.e. there is no way in SCEV today to re-discover the dependency
of the loop's trip count on E or I. So a SCEV client cannot change E to (say)
"I + 20", call forgetValue(E) and expect the loop's trip count to be updated.
Reviewers: atrick, sunfish, mkazantsev
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38435
llvm-svn: 315713
Summary:
This patch teaches SCEV to calculate the maxBECount when the end bound
of the loop can vary. Note that we cannot calculate the exactBECount.
This will only be done when both conditions are satisfied:
1. the loop termination condition is strictly LT.
2. the IV is proven to not overflow.
This provides more information to users of SCEV and can be used to
improve identification of finite loops.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, silviu.baranga, atrick
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38825
llvm-svn: 315683
Summary:
Currently we do not correctly invalidate memoized results for add recurrences
that were created directly (i.e. they were not created from a `Value`). This
change fixes this by keeping loop use lists and using the loop use lists to
determine which SCEV expressions to invalidate.
Here are some statistics on the number of uses of in the use lists of all loops
on a clang bootstrap (config: release, no asserts):
Count: 731310
Min: 1
Mean: 8.555150
50th %time: 4
95th %tile: 25
99th %tile: 53
Max: 433
Reviewers: atrick, sunfish, mkazantsev
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38434
llvm-svn: 315672
Summary:
Add LLVM_FORCE_ENABLE_DUMP cmake option, and use it along with
LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS to set LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP.
Remove NDEBUG and only use LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP to enable dump methods.
Move definition of LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP from config.h to llvm-config.h so
it'll be picked up by public headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38406
llvm-svn: 315590
Summary:
This patch fixes an error in the patch to ScalarEvolution::createAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl
made in D37265. In that patch we handle the cases where the either the start or accum values can be
zero after truncation. But, we assume that the start value must be a constant if the accum is
zero. This is clearly an erroneous assumption. This change removes that assumption.
Reviewers: sanjoy, dorit, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38814
llvm-svn: 315491
Summary:
A SCEV such as:
{%v2,+,((-1 * (trunc i64 (-1 * %v1) to i32)) + (-1 * (trunc i64 %v1 to i32)))}<%loop>
can be folded into, simply, {%v2,+,0}. However, the current code in ::getAddExpr()
will not try to apply the simplification m*trunc(x)+n*trunc(y) -> trunc(trunc(m)*x+trunc(n)*y)
because it only keys off having a non-multiplied trunc as the first term in the simplification.
This patch generalizes this code to try to do a more generic fold of these trunc
expressions.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37888
llvm-svn: 313988
forgetLoop() has pretty bad performance because it goes over
the same instructions over and over again in particular when
nested loop are involved.
The refactoring changes the function to a not-recursive function
and reusing the allocation for data-structures and the Visited
set.
NFCI
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37659
llvm-svn: 312920
Summary:
When constructing the predicate P1 in ScalarEvolution::createAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl() it is possible
for the PHISCEV from which the predicate is constructed to be a SCEVConstant instead of a SCEVAddRec. If
this happens, then the cast<SCEVAddRec>(PHISCEV) in the code will assert.
Such a PHISCEV is possible if either the start value or the accumulator value is a constant value
that not equal to its truncated value, and if the truncated value is zero.
This patch adds tests that demonstrate the cast<> assertion, and fixes this problem by checking
whether the PHISCEV is a constant before constructing the P1 predicate; if it is, then P1 is
equivalent to one of P2 or P3. Additionally, if we know that the start value or accumulator
value are constants then we check whether the P2 and/or P3 predicates are known false at compile
time; if either is, then we bail out of constructing the AddRec.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, silviu.baranga
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: mkazantsev, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37265
llvm-svn: 312568
In LLVM IR the following code:
%r = urem <ty> %t, %b
is equivalent to
%q = udiv <ty> %t, %b
%s = mul <ty> nuw %q, %b
%r = sub <ty> nuw %t, %q ; (t / b) * b + (t % b) = t
As UDiv, Mul and Sub are already supported by SCEV, URem can be implemented
with minimal effort using that relation:
%r --> (-%b * (%t /u %b)) + %t
We implement two special cases:
- if %b is 1, the result is always 0
- if %b is a power-of-two, we produce a zext/trunc based expression instead
That is, the following code:
%r = urem i32 %t, 65536
Produces:
%r --> (zext i16 (trunc i32 %a to i16) to i32)
Note that while this helps get a tighter bound on the range analysis and the
known-bits analysis, this exposes some normalization shortcoming of SCEVs:
%div = udim i32 %a, 65536
%mul = mul i32 %div, 65536
%rem = urem i32 %a, 65536
%add = add i32 %mul, %rem
Will usually not be reduced.
llvm-svn: 312329
Pushes the sext onto the operands of a Sub if NSW is present.
Also adds support for propagating the nowrap flags of the
llvm.ssub.with.overflow intrinsic during analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35256
llvm-svn: 310117
The patch rL309080 was reverted because it did not clean up the cache on "forgetValue"
method call. This patch re-enables this change, adds the missing check and introduces
two new unit tests that make sure that the cache is cleaned properly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36087
llvm-svn: 309925
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
This patch reworks the function that searches constants in Add and Mul SCEV expression
chains so that now it does not visit a node more than once, and also renames this function
for better correspondence between its implementation and semantics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35931
llvm-svn: 309367
This reverts commit r309080. The patch needs to clear out the
ScalarEvolution::ExitLimits cache in forgetMemoizedResults.
I've replied on the commit thread for the patch with more details.
llvm-svn: 309357
This patch adds a cache for computeExitLimit to save compilation time. A lot of examples of
tests that take extensive time to compile are attached to the bug 33494.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35827
llvm-svn: 309080
`SCEVUnknown::allUsesReplacedWith` does not need to call `forgetMemoizedResults`
since RAUW does a value-equivalent replacement by assumption. If this
assumption was false then the later setValPtr(New) call would be incorrect too.
This is a non-trivial performance optimization for functions with a large number
of loops since `forgetMemoizedResults` walks all loop backedge taken counts to
see if any of them use the SCEVUnknown being RAUWed. However, this improvement
is difficult to demonstrate without checking in an excessively large IR file.
llvm-svn: 309072
When SCEV calculates product of two SCEVAddRecs from the same loop, it
tries to combine them into one big AddRecExpr. If the sizes of the initial
SCEVs were `S1` and `S2`, the size of their product is `S1 + S2 - 1`, and every
operand of the resulting SCEV is combined from operands of initial SCEV and
has much higher complexity than they have.
As result, if we try to calculate something like:
%x1 = {a,+,b}
%x2 = mul i32 %x1, %x1
%x3 = mul i32 %x2, %x1
%x4 = mul i32 %x3, %x2
...
The size of such SCEVs grows as `2^N`, and the arguments
become more and more complex as we go forth. This leads
to long compilation and huge memory consumption.
This patch sets a limit after which we don't try to combine two
`SCEVAddRecExpr`s into one. By default, max allowed size of the
resulting AddRecExpr is set to 16.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35664
llvm-svn: 308847
using runtime checks
Extend the SCEVPredicateRewriter to work a bit harder when it encounters an
UnknownSCEV for a Phi node; Try to build an AddRecurrence also for Phi nodes
whose update chain involves casts that can be ignored under the proper runtime
overflow test. This is one step towards addressing PR30654.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D30041
llvm-svn: 308299
Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
In rL300494 there was an attempt to deal with excessive compile time on
invocations of getSign/ZeroExtExpr using local caching. This approach only
helps if we request the same SCEV multiple times throughout recursion. But
in the bug PR33431 we see a case where we request different values all the time,
so caching does not help and the size of the cache grows enormously.
In this patch we remove the local cache for this methods and add the recursion
depth limit instead, as we do for arithmetics. This gives us a guarantee that the
invocation sequence is limited and reasonably short.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34273
llvm-svn: 306785
Adrian Prantl