The loop rerolling pass was failing with an assertion failure from a
failed cast on loops like this:
void foo(int *A, int *B, int m, int n) {
for (int i = m; i < n; i+=4) {
A[i+0] = B[i+0] * 4;
A[i+1] = B[i+1] * 4;
A[i+2] = B[i+2] * 4;
A[i+3] = B[i+3] * 4;
}
}
The code was casting the SCEV-expanded code for the new
induction variable to a phi-node. When the loop had a non-constant
lower bound, the SCEV expander would end the code expansion with an
add insted of a phi node and the cast would fail.
It looks like the cast to a phi node was only needed to get the
induction variable value coming from the backedge to compute the end
of loop condition. This patch changes the loop reroller to compare
the induction variable to the number of times the backedge is taken
instead of the iteration count of the loop. In other words, we stop
the loop when the current value of the induction variable ==
IterationCount-1. Previously, the comparison was comparing the
induction variable value from the next iteration == IterationCount.
This problem only seems to occur on 32-bit targets. For some reason,
the loop is not rerolled on 64-bit targets.
PR18290
llvm-svn: 198425
This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The
transformation aims to take loops like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) {
a[i] += alpha * b[i];
a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1];
a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2];
a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3];
a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4];
}
and turn them into this:
for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) {
a[i] += alpha * b[i];
}
and loops like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) {
x[3*i] = foo(0);
x[3*i+1] = foo(0);
x[3*i+2] = foo(0);
}
and turn them into this:
for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) {
x[i] = foo(0);
}
There are two motivations for this transformation:
1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for
code size).
2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to
choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop
vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when
choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that
choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized
for a machine different from the current target.
The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The
rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are
intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect
constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the
instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to
capture all current use cases.
This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level.
llvm-svn: 194939
David Peixotto