Strengthening nowrap flags is relatively expensive. Make sure we
only do it if we're actually going to use the flags -- we don't
use them for many recursive invocations. Additionally, if we're
reusing an existing SCEV node, there's no point in trying to
strengthen the flags if we don't have any new baseline facts.
This change falls slightly short of being NFC, because the way
flags during add+addrec / mul+addrec folding are handled may be
more precise (as less operands are included in the calculation).
Instead of performing a sequence of pairwise additions, directly
construct a multi-operand add expression.
This should be NFC modulo any SCEV canonicalization deficiencies.
This is functionally-identical to the previous implementation,
just using a generic interface to do that instead of hand-rolled one,
with caching as a bonus. Thought the sinking is still recursive..
Note that SCEVRewriteVisitor<>'s default implementations
don't preserve NoWrap flags on Add/Mul (but does on AddRec!),
but here we know we can preserve them,
so `visitAddExpr()`/`visitMulExpr()` are specialized.
If we've got an SCEVPtrToIntExpr(op), where op is not an SCEVUnknown,
we want to sink the SCEVPtrToIntExpr into an operand,
so that the operation is performed on integers,
and eventually we end up with just an `SCEVPtrToIntExpr(SCEVUnknown)`.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89692
And use it to model LLVM IR's `ptrtoint` cast.
This is essentially an alternative to D88806, but with no chance for
all the problems it caused due to having the cast as implicit there.
(see rG7ee6c402474a2f5fd21c403e7529f97f6362fdb3)
As we've established by now, there are at least two reasons why we want this:
* It will allow SCEV to actually model the `ptrtoint` casts
and their operands, instead of treating them as `SCEVUnknown`
* It should help with initial problem of PR46786 - this should eventually allow us
to not loose pointer-ness of an expression in more cases
As discussed in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 | PR46786 ]], in principle,
we could just extend `SCEVUnknown` with a `is ptrtoint` cast, because `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`
should sink the cast as far down into the expression as possible,
so in the end we should always end up with `SCEVPtrToIntExpr` of `SCEVUnknown`.
But i think that it isn't the best solution, because it doesn't really matter
from memory consumption side - there probably won't be *that* many `SCEVPtrToIntExpr`s
for it to matter, and it allows for much better discoverability.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89456
URem operations with constant power-of-2 second operands are modeled as
such. This patch on its own has very little impact (e.g. no changes in
CodeGen for MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 on X86 -O3 -flto), but I'll
soon post follow-up patches that make use of it to more accurately
determine the trip multiple.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89821
This reverts commit e038b60d91.
This reverts commit a0d84d8031.
This revert was a mistake. The reason of the failures was
"Use uint64_t for branch weights instead of uint32_t"
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
The return was due to revert of underlying patch that this one depends on.
Unit test temporarily disabled because the required logic in SCEV is switched
off due to compile time reasons.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Switched off by default, can be turned on by flag.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, nikic
This reverts commit c6ca26c0bf.
This breaks stage2 builds due to hitting this assert:
```
Assertion failed: (WeightSum <= UINT32_MAX && "Expected weights to scale down to 32 bits"), function calcMetadataWeights
```
when compiling AArch64RegisterBankInfo.cpp in LLVM.
Even if the exact exit count is unknown, we can still prove that this
exit will not be taken. If we can prove that the predicate is monotonic,
fulfilled on first & last iteration, and no overflow happened in between,
then the check can be removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Same change as 0dda633317, but for
mul expressions. We want to first fold any constant operans and
then strengthen the nowrap flags, as we can compute more precise
flags at that point.
Establish parity with the handling of add expressions, by always
constant folding mul expression operands before checking the depth
limit (this is a non-recursive simplification). The code was already
unconditionally constant folding the case where all operands were
constants, but was not folding multiple constant operands together
if there were also non-constant operands.
This requires picking out a different demonstration for depth-based
folding differences in the limit-depth.ll test.
Separate out the code handling constant folding into a separate
block, that is independent of other folds that need a constant
first operand. Also make some minor adjustments to make the
constant folding look nearly identical to the same code in
getAddExpr().
The only reason this change is not strictly NFC is that the
C1*(C2+V) fold is moved below the constant folding, which means
that it now also applies to C1*C2*(C3+V), as it should.
We should first try to constant fold the add expression and only
strengthen nowrap flags afterwards. This allows us to determine
stronger flags if e.g. only two operands are left after constant
folding (and thus "guaranteed no wrap region" code applies) or the
resulting operands are non-negative and thus nsw->nuw strengthening
applies.
We want to have a caching version of symbolic BE exit count
rather than recompute it every time we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89954
Reviewed By: nikic, efriedma
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
Reviewed By: fhahn
This reverts commit a10a64e7e3.
It broke polly/test/ScopInfo/NonAffine/non-affine-loop-condition-dependent-access_3.ll
The difference suggests that this may be a serious issue.
Fixed wrapping range case & proof methods reduced to constant range
checks to save compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
The main tricky thing here is forward-declaring the enum:
we have to specify it's underlying data type.
In particular, this avoids the danger of switching over the SCEVTypes,
but actually switching over an integer, and not being notified
when some case is not handled.
I have updated most of such switches to be exaustive and not have
a default case, where it's pretty obvious to be the intent,
however not all of them.
All existing SCEV cast types operate on integers.
D89456 will add SCEVPtrToIntExpr cast expression type.
I believe this is best for consistency.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89455
It's not pretty, but probably better than modelling it
as an opaque SCEVUnknown, i guess.
It is relevant e.g. for the loop that was brought up in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c26
as an example of what we'd be able to better analyze
once SCEV handles `ptrtoint` (D89456).
But as it is evident, even if we deal with `ptrtoint` there,
we also fail to model such an `ashr`.
Also, modeling of mul-of-exact-shr/div could use improvement.
As per alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tnfZKd
```
define i8 @src(i8 %0) {
%2 = ashr exact i8 %0, 4
ret i8 %2
}
declare i8 @llvm.abs(i8, i1)
declare i8 @llvm.smin(i8, i8)
declare i8 @llvm.smax(i8, i8)
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x) {
%abs_x = call i8 @llvm.abs(i8 %x, i1 false)
%div = udiv exact i8 %abs_x, 16
%t0 = call i8 @llvm.smax(i8 %x, i8 -1)
%t1 = call i8 @llvm.smin(i8 %t0, i8 1)
%r = mul nsw i8 %div, %t1
ret i8 %r
}
```
Transformation seems to be correct!
It was reverted because of negative compile time impact. In this version,
less powerful proof methods are used (non-recursive reasoning only), and
scope limited to constant End values to avoid explision of complex proofs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: efriedma
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
As being pointed out by @efriedma in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGaaafe350bb65#inline-4883
of course we can't just call ptrtoint in sign-extending case
and be done with it, because it will zero-extend.
I'm not sure what i was thinking there.
This is very much not an NFC, however looking at the user of
BuildConstantFromSCEV() i'm not sure how to actually show that
it results in a different constant expression.
Much similar to the ZExt/Trunc handling.
Thanks goes to Alexander Richardson for nudging towards noticing this one proactively.
The appropriate (currently crashing) test coverage added.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
We cannot guarantee that the replacement expression is loop-invariant in
all AddRecs in the source expression. Use a rewriter that skips
AddRecExpr for now.
Fixes PR47776.
Max Kazantsev