We were failing to compute trip counts (both exact and maximum) for any loop which involved a comparison against either an umin or smin. It looks like this simply got missed when we added smin/umin to SCEV. (Note: umin was submitted separately earlier today. Turned out two folks hit this at the same time.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67514
llvm-svn: 371776
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
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
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
In the patch rL329547, we have lifted the over-restrictive limitation on collected range
checks, allowing to work with range checks with the end of their range not being
provably non-negative. However it appeared that the non-negativity of this value was
assumed in the utility function `ClampedSubtract`. In particular, its reasoning is based
on the fact that `0 <= SINT_MAX - X`, which is not true if `X` is negative.
The function `ClampedSubtract` is only called twice, once with `X = 0` (which is OK)
and the second time with `X = IRC.getEnd()`, where we may now see the problem if
the end is actually a negative value. In this case, we may sometimes miscompile.
This patch is the conservative fix of the miscompile problem. Rather than rejecting
non-provably non-negative `getEnd()` values, we will check it for non-negativity in
runtime. For this, we use function `smax(smin(X, 0), -1) + 1` that is equal to `1` if `X`
is non-negative and is equal to 0 if `X` is negative. If we multiply `Begin, End` of safe
iteration space by this function calculated for `X = IRC.getEnd()`, we will get the original
`[Begin, End)` if `IRC.getEnd()` was non-negative (and, thus, `ClampedSubtract` worked
correctly) and the empty range `[0, 0)` in case if ` IRC.getEnd()` was negative.
So we in fact prohibit execution of the main loop if at least one of range checks was
made against a negative value (and we figured it out in runtime). It is still better than
what we have before (non-negativity had to be proved in compile time) and prevents
us from miscompile, however it is sometiles too restrictive for unsigned range checks
against a negative value (which in fact can be eliminated).
Once we re-implement `ClampedSubtract` in a way that it handles negative `X` correctly,
this limitation can be lifted, too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46860
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 332809
Philip Reames