The previous output was next to useless if *any* exit was not computable. If we have more than one exit, show the exit count for each so that it's easier to see what's going from with SCEV analysis when debugging.
llvm-svn: 364579
Summary:
Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes
a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x`
is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since
comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to
express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is
as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation
to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions
into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were
largely identical.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167
llvm-svn: 360159
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
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
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
Philip Reames