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.
InsertBinop now accepts NoWrapFlags, so pass them through when
expanding a simple add expression.
This is the first re-commit of the functional changes from rL362687,
which was previously reverted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 363364
If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer
these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 362687
INC/DEC is really a special case of a more generic issue. We should also turn leas into add reg/reg or add reg/imm regardless of the slow lea flags.
This also supports LEA64_32 which has 64 bit input registers and 32 bit output registers. So we need to convert the 64 bit inputs to their 32 bit equivalents to check if they are equal to base reg.
One thing to note, the original code preserved the kill flags by adding operands to the new instruction instead of using addReg. But I think tied operands aren't supposed to have the kill flag set. I dropped the kill flags, but I could probably try to preserve it in the add reg/reg case if we think its important. Not sure which operand its supposed to go on for the LEA64_32r instruction due to the super reg implicit uses. Though I'm also not sure those are needed since they were probably just created by an INSERT_SUBREG from a 32-bit input.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61472
llvm-svn: 361691
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
This adds a BranchFusion feature to replace the usage of the MacroFusion
for AMD CPUs.
See D59688 for context.
Reviewers: andreadb, lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59872
llvm-svn: 357171
We are adding a sign extended IR value to an int64_t, which can cause
signed overflows, as in the attached test case, where we have a formula
with BaseOffset = -1 and a constant with numeric_limits<int64_t>::min().
If the addition would overflow, skip the simplification for this
formula. Note that the target triple is required to trigger the failure.
Reviewers: qcolombet, gilr, kparzysz, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59211
llvm-svn: 356256
When LSR first adds SCEVs to BaseRegs, it only does it if `isZero()` has
returned false. In the end, in invocation of `InsertFormula`, it asserts that
all values there are still not zero constants. However between these two
points, it makes some transformations, in particular extends them to wider
type.
SCEV does not give us guarantee that if `S` is not a constant zero, then
`sext(S)` is also not a constant zero. It might have missed some optimizing
transforms when it was calculating `S` and then made them when it took `sext`.
For example, it may happen if previously optimizing transforms were limited
by depth or somehow else.
This patch adds a bailout when we may end up with a zero SCEV after extension.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57565
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 353136
Currently SCEV attempts to limit transformations so that they do not work with
big SCEVs (that may take almost infinite compile time). But for this, it uses heuristics
such as recursion depth and number of operands, which do not give us a guarantee
that we don't actually have big SCEVs. This situation is still possible, though it is not
likely to happen. However, the bug PR33494 showed a bunch of simple corner case
tests where we still produce huge SCEVs, even not reaching big recursion depth etc.
This patch introduces a concept of 'huge' SCEVs. A SCEV is huge if its expression
size (intoduced in D35989) exceeds some threshold value. We prohibit optimizing
transformations if any of SCEVs we are dealing with is huge. This gives us a reliable
check that we don't spend too much time working with them.
As the next step, we can possibly get rid of old limiting mechanisms, such as recursion
depth thresholds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35990
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 352728
Summary:
Two utils methods have essentially the same functionality. This is an attempt to merge them into one.
1. lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp : MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
2. lib/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.cpp : MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Prior to the patch:
1. MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
Updates either DomTree or DeferredDominance
Moves all instructions from Pred to BB, deletes Pred
Asserts BB has single predecessor
If address was taken, replace the block address with constant 1 (?)
2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Updates DomTree, LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
After the patch:
Method 2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor is attempting to become the new default:
Updates DomTree or DeferredDominance, and LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
Uses of MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred that need to be replaced:
1. lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSimplifyCFG.cpp
Updated in this patch. No challenges.
2. lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPrepare.cpp
Updated in this patch.
i. eliminateFallThrough is straightforward, but I added using a temporary array to avoid the iterator invalidation.
ii. eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(s) methods also now use a temporary array for blocks
Some interesting aspects:
- Since Pred is not deleted (BB is), the entry block does not need updating.
- The entry block was being updated with the deleted block in eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock. Added assert to make obvious that BB=SinglePred.
- isMergingEmptyBlockProfitable assumes BB is the one to be deleted.
- eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(BB) does not delete BB on one path, it deletes its unique predecessor instead.
- adding some test owner as subscribers for the interesting tests modified:
test/CodeGen/X86/avx-cmp.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/nested-loop-conditions.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/si-annotate-cf.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/hoist-spill.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/2006-11-17-IllegalMove.ll
3. lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp
Not covered in this patch. It is the only use case using the DeferredDominance.
I would defer to Brian Rzycki to make this replacement.
Reviewers: chandlerc, spatel, davide, brzycki, bkramer, javed.absar
Subscribers: qcolombet, sanjoy, nemanjai, nhaehnle, jlebar, tpr, kbarton, RKSimon, wmi, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48202
llvm-svn: 335183
In the motivating case from PR35681 and represented by the macro-fuse-cmp test:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35681
...there's a 37 -> 31 byte size win for the loop because we eliminate the big base
address offsets.
SPEC2017 on Ryzen shows no significant perf difference.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42607
llvm-svn: 324289
Summary:
Before emitting code for scaled registers, we prevent
SCEVExpander from hoisting any scaled addressing mode
by emitting all the bases first. However, these bases
are being forced to the final type, resulting in some
odd code.
For example, if the type of the base is an integer and
the final type is a pointer, we will emit an inttoptr
for the base, a ptrtoint for the scale, and then a
'reverse' GEP where the GEP pointer is actually the base
integer and the index is the pointer. It's more intuitive
to use the pointer as a pointer and the integer as index.
Patch by: Bevin Hansson
Reviewers: atrick, qcolombet, sanjoy
Reviewed By: qcolombet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42103
llvm-svn: 323946
Discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120320.html
In preparation for adding support for named vregs we are changing the sigil for
physical registers in MIR to '$' from '%'. This will prevent name clashes of
named physical register with named vregs.
llvm-svn: 323922
Summary:
1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been extended, such that it promotes Scale to
accommodate similar operand appearing in the DAG e.g.
T1 = A + B
T2 = T1 + 10
T3 = T2 + A
For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will now look like
Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs so that if there is an opportunity
then complex LEAs (having 3 operands) could be factored out e.g.
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
will be factored as following
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops, thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
4/ Simplify LEA converts (lea (BASE,1,INDEX,0) --> add (BASE, INDEX) which offers better through put.
PR32755 will be taken care of by this pathc.
Previous patch revisions : r313343 , r314886
Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet, jmolloy, jbhateja
Reviewed By: lsaba, RKSimon, jbhateja
Subscribers: jmolloy, spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 319543
It broke the Chromium / SQLite build; see PR34830.
> Summary:
> 1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
> extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
> appearing in the DAG.
> e.g.
> T1 = A + B
> T2 = T1 + 10
> T3 = T2 + A
> For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
> Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
>
> 2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
> so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
> could be factored out.
> e.g.
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
> will be factored as following
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
>
> 3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
> thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
>
> Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet, jmolloy
>
> Reviewed By: lsaba
>
> Subscribers: jmolloy, spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 314919
Summary:
1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
appearing in the DAG.
e.g.
T1 = A + B
T2 = T1 + 10
T3 = T2 + A
For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
could be factored out.
e.g.
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
will be factored as following
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet, jmolloy
Reviewed By: lsaba
Subscribers: jmolloy, spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 314886
This caused PR34629: asserts firing when building Chromium. It also broke some
buildbots building test-suite as reported on the commit thread.
> Summary:
> 1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
> extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
> appearing in the DAG.
> e.g.
> T1 = A + B
> T2 = T1 + 10
> T3 = T2 + A
> For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
> Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
>
> 2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
> so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
> could be factored out.
> e.g.
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
> will be factored as following
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
>
> 3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
> thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
>
> Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet
>
> Reviewed By: lsaba
>
> Subscribers: spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 313376
Summary:
1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
appearing in the DAG.
e.g.
T1 = A + B
T2 = T1 + 10
T3 = T2 + A
For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
could be factored out.
e.g.
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
will be factored as following
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet
Reviewed By: lsaba
Subscribers: spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 313343
When LSR processes code like
int accumulator = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
accummulator += i;
use((double) accummulator);
}
It may decide to replace integer `accumulator` with a double Shadow IV to get rid
of casts. The problem with that is that the `accumulator`'s value may overflow.
Starting from this moment, the behavior of integer and double accumulators
will differ.
This patch strenghtens up the conditions of Shadow IV mechanism applicability.
We only allow it for IVs that are proved to be `AddRec`s with `nsw`/`nuw` flag.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37209
llvm-svn: 311986
The root cause of reverting was fixed - PR33514.
Summary:
The patch makes instruction count the highest priority for
LSR solution for X86 (previously registers had highest priority).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D30562
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
<evgeny.v.stupachenko@intel.com>
llvm-svn: 310289
When the formulae search space is huge, LSR uses a series of heuristic to keep
pruning the search space until the number of possible solutions are within
certain limit.
The big hammer of the series of heuristics is NarrowSearchSpaceByPickingWinnerRegs,
which picks the register which is used by the most LSRUses and deletes the other
formulae which don't use the register. This is a effective way to prune the search
space, but quite often not a good way to keep the best solution. We saw cases before
that the heuristic pruned the best formula candidate out of search space.
To relieve the problem, we introduce a new heuristic called
NarrowSearchSpaceByFilterFormulaWithSameScaledReg. The basic idea is in order to
reduce the search space while keeping the best formula, we want to keep as many
formulae with different Scale and ScaledReg as possible. That is because the central
idea of LSR is to choose a group of loop induction variables and use those induction
variables to represent LSRUses. An induction variable candidate is often represented
by the Scale and ScaledReg in a formula. If we have more formulae with different
ScaledReg and Scale to choose, we have better opportunity to find the best solution.
That is why we believe pruning search space by only keeping the best formula with the
same Scale and ScaledReg should be more effective than PickingWinnerReg. And we use
two criteria to choose the best formula with the same Scale and ScaledReg. The first
criteria is to select the formula using less non shared registers, and the second
criteria is to select the formula with less cost got from RateFormula. The patch
implements the heuristic before NarrowSearchSpaceByPickingWinnerRegs, which is the
last resort.
Testing shows we get 1.8% and 2% on two internal benchmarks on x86. llvm nightly
testsuite performance is neutral. We also tried lsr-exp-narrow and it didn't help
on the two improved internal cases we saw.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34583
llvm-svn: 307269
This seems to be interacting badly with ASan somehow, causing false reports of
heap-buffer overflows: PR33514.
> Summary:
> The patch makes instruction count the highest priority for
> LSR solution for X86 (previously registers had highest priority).
>
> Reviewers: qcolombet
>
> Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D30562
>
> From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 305720
Current implementation of SCEVExpander demonstrates a very naive behavior when
it deals with power calculation. For example, a SCEV for x^8 looks like
(x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x)
If we try to expand it, it generates a very straightforward sequence of muls, like:
x2 = mul x, x
x3 = mul x2, x
x4 = mul x3, x
...
x8 = mul x7, x
This is a non-efficient way of doing that. A better way is to generate a sequence of
binary power calculation. In this case the expanded calculation will look like:
x2 = mul x, x
x4 = mul x2, x2
x8 = mul x4, x4
In some cases the code size reduction for such SCEVs is dramatic. If we had a loop:
x = a;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
x = x * x;
And this loop have been fully unrolled, we have something like:
x = a;
x2 = x * x;
x4 = x2 * x2;
x8 = x4 * x4;
The SCEV for x8 is the same as in example above, and if we for some reason
want to expand it, we will generate naively 7 multiplications instead of 3.
The BinPow expansion algorithm here allows to keep code size reasonable.
This patch teaches SCEV Expander to generate a sequence of BinPow multiplications
if we have repeating arguments in SCEVMulExpressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34025
llvm-svn: 305663
Summary:
The patch makes instruction count the highest priority for
LSR solution for X86 (previously registers had highest priority).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D30562
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 304824
The patch rL303730 was reverted because test lsr-expand-quadratic.ll failed on
many non-X86 configs with this patch. The reason of this is that the patch
makes a correctless fix that changes optimizer's behavior for this test.
Without the change, LSR was making an overconfident simplification basing on a
wrong SCEV. Apparently it did not need the IV analysis to do this. With the
change, it chose a different way to simplify (that wasn't so confident), and
this way required the IV analysis. Now, following the right execution path,
LSR tries to make a transformation relying on IV Users analysis. This analysis
is target-dependent due to this code:
// LSR is not APInt clean, do not touch integers bigger than 64-bits.
// Also avoid creating IVs of non-native types. For example, we don't want a
// 64-bit IV in 32-bit code just because the loop has one 64-bit cast.
uint64_t Width = SE->getTypeSizeInBits(I->getType());
if (Width > 64 || !DL.isLegalInteger(Width))
return false;
To make a proper transformation in this test case, the type i32 needs to be
legal for the specified data layout. When the test runs on some non-X86
configuration (e.g. pure ARM 64), opt gets confused by the specified target
and does not use it, rejecting the specified data layout as well. Instead,
it uses some default layout that does not treat i32 as a legal type
(currently the layout that is used when it is not specified does not have
legal types at all). As result, the transformation we expect to happen does
not happen for this test.
This re-enabling patch does not have any source code changes compared to the
original patch rL303730. The only difference is that the failing test is
moved to X86 directory and now has requirement of running on x86 only to comply
with the specified target triple and data layout.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33543
llvm-svn: 303971
When folding arguments of AddExpr or MulExpr with recurrences, we rely on the fact that
the loop of our base recurrency is the bottom-lost in terms of domination. This assumption
may be broken by an expression which is treated as invariant, and which depends on a complex
Phi for which SCEVUnknown was created. If such Phi is a loop Phi, and this loop is lower than
the chosen AddRecExpr's loop, it is invalid to fold our expression with the recurrence.
Another reason why it might be invalid to fold SCEVUnknown into Phi start value is that unlike
other SCEVs, SCEVUnknown are sometimes position-bound. For example, here:
for (...) { // loop
phi = {A,+,B}
}
X = load ...
Folding phi + X into {A+X,+,B}<loop> actually makes no sense, because X does not exist and cannot
exist while we are iterating in loop (this memory can be even not allocated and not filled by this moment).
It is only valid to make such folding if X is defined before the loop. In this case the recurrence {A+X,+,B}<loop>
may be existant.
This patch prohibits folding of SCEVUnknown (and those who use them) into the start value of an AddRecExpr,
if this instruction is dominated by the loop. Merging the dominating unknown values is still valid. Some tests that
relied on the fact that some SCEVUnknown should be folded into AddRec's are changed so that they no longer
expect such behavior.
llvm-svn: 303730
The testcase in PR33077 generates a LSR Use Formula with two SCEVAddRecExprs for the same
loop. Such uncommon formula will become non-canonical after GenerateTruncates adds sign
extension to the ScaledReg of the Formula, and it will break the assertion that every
Formula to be inserted is canonical.
The fix is to call canonicalize for the raw Formula generated by GenerateTruncates
before inserting it.
llvm-svn: 303361
The new codepath has been in the tree for years, and there isn't any
reason to use two codepaths here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30596
llvm-svn: 299723
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
In rL294814, we allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from loops
other than current loop. This is good for the case when induction variable
of outerloop being used in expr in innerloop. But it is very bad to allow
such Reg from sibling loop because we may need to add lsr.iv in other sibling
loops when scev expanding those SCEVAddRecExpr type exprs. For the testcase
below, one loop can be inserted with a bunch of lsr.iv because of LSR for
other loops.
// The induction variable j from a loop in the middle will have initial
// value generated from previous sibling loop and exit value used by its
// next sibling loop.
void goo(long i, long j);
long cond;
void foo(long N) {
long i = 0;
long j = 0;
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
}
The fix is to only allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from current
loop or its parents.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30021
llvm-svn: 295378
Summary:
The patch adds instructions number generated by a solution
to LSR cost under "-lsr-insns-cost" option.
Reviewers: qcolombet, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28307
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 294821
The recommit includes some changes of testcases. No functional change to the patch.
In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 294814
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
Florian Hahn