Commit Graph

150 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Roman Lebedev 69ce2ae990
[ConstantRange][LVI] Use overflow flags from `sub` to constrain the range
Summary:
This notably improves non-negativity deduction:
```
| statistic                              |     old |     new | delta | % change |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAShrs  |     209 |     227 |    18 |  8.6124% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNSW |    4972 |    4988 |    16 |  0.3218% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNUW |    7141 |    7148 |     7 |  0.0980% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNW  |   12113 |   12136 |    23 |  0.1899% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAnd    |     442 |     445 |     3 |  0.6787% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNSW    |    7160 |    7176 |    16 |  0.2235% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNUW    |   13306 |   13316 |    10 |  0.0752% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNW     |   20466 |   20492 |    26 |  0.1270% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSDivs  |     207 |     212 |     5 |  2.4155% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSExt   |    6279 |    6679 |   400 |  6.3704% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSRems  |      28 |      29 |     1 |  3.5714% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNUW |    2793 |    2796 |     3 |  0.1074% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNW  |    3964 |    3967 |     3 |  0.0757% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumUDivs  |     353 |     358 |     5 |  1.4164% |
| instcount.NumAShrInst                  |   13763 |   13741 |   -22 | -0.1598% |
| instcount.NumAddInst                   |  277349 |  277348 |    -1 | -0.0004% |
| instcount.NumLShrInst                  |   27437 |   27463 |    26 |  0.0948% |
| instcount.NumOrInst                    |  102677 |  102678 |     1 |  0.0010% |
| instcount.NumSDivInst                  |    8732 |    8727 |    -5 | -0.0573% |
| instcount.NumSExtInst                  |   80872 |   80468 |  -404 | -0.4996% |
| instcount.NumSRemInst                  |    1679 |    1678 |    -1 | -0.0596% |
| instcount.NumTruncInst                 |   62154 |   62153 |    -1 | -0.0016% |
| instcount.NumUDivInst                  |    2526 |    2527 |     1 |  0.0396% |
| instcount.NumURemInst                  |    1589 |    1590 |     1 |  0.0629% |
| instcount.NumZExtInst                  |   69405 |   69809 |   404 |  0.5821% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                   | 7439575 | 7439574 |    -1 |  0.0000% |
```

Reviewers: nikic, reames, spatel

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69942
2019-11-07 16:18:03 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 55b445150d
[NFC][CVP] Add some tests for `sub` with preexisting no-wrap flags
We can use those to further limit the ranges in LVI.
2019-11-07 13:59:51 +03:00
Nikita Popov 98245d081e [JT][CVP] Regenerate test checks, again
The changes to update_test_checks format have been disabled again,
so regenerate these tests. Also regenerate select.ll.
2019-11-01 22:27:48 +01:00
Nikita Popov 2f8a43e199 [CVP] Add tests for icmp on local ranges; NFC
We currently don't simplify these, because getPredicateAt() does
not use block values.
2019-10-31 22:24:46 +01:00
Sanjay Patel f2e93d10fe [CVP] prevent propagating poison when substituting edge values into a phi (PR43802)
This phi simplification transform was added with:
D45448

However as shown in PR43802:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43802

...we must be careful not to propagate poison when we do the substitution.
There might be some more complicated analysis possible to retain the overflow flag,
but it should always be safe and easy to drop flags (we have similar behavior in
instcombine and other passes).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69442
2019-10-28 08:58:28 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 3c7c371793 [CVP] add test for poison propagation bug (PR43802); NFC 2019-10-25 15:01:57 -04:00
Roman Lebedev 1f665046fb
[LVI][CVP] LazyValueInfoImpl::solveBlockValueBinaryOp(): use no-wrap flags from `add` op
Summary:
This was suggested in https://reviews.llvm.org/D69277#1717210
In this form (this is what was suggested, right?), the results aren't staggering
(especially since given LVI cross-block focus)
this does catch some things (as per test-suite), but not too much:

| statistic                                        |       old |       new | delta | % change |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNSW           |      4981 |      4982 |     1 |  0.0201% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNW            |     12125 |     12126 |     1 |  0.0082% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumCmps             |      1199 |      1202 |     3 |  0.2502% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumDeadCases        |       112 |       111 |    -1 | -0.8929% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNSW           |       275 |       278 |     3 |  1.0909% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNUW           |      1323 |      1326 |     3 |  0.2268% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNW            |      1598 |      1604 |     6 |  0.3755% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNSW              |      7158 |      7167 |     9 |  0.1257% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNUW              |     13304 |     13310 |     6 |  0.0451% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNW               |     20462 |     20477 |    15 |  0.0733% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumOverflows        |         4 |         7 |     3 | 75.0000% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumPhis             |     15366 |     15381 |    15 |  0.0976% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSExt             |      6273 |      6277 |     4 |  0.0638% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNSW           |      1172 |      1171 |    -1 | -0.0853% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNUW           |      2793 |      2794 |     1 |  0.0358% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSubNSW           |       730 |       736 |     6 |  0.8219% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSubNUW           |      2044 |      2046 |     2 |  0.0978% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSubNW            |      2774 |      2782 |     8 |  0.2884% |
| instcount.NumAddInst                             |    277586 |    277569 |   -17 | -0.0061% |
| instcount.NumAndInst                             |     66056 |     66054 |    -2 | -0.0030% |
| instcount.NumBrInst                              |    709147 |    709146 |    -1 | -0.0001% |
| instcount.NumCallInst                            |    528579 |    528576 |    -3 | -0.0006% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst                    |     18307 |     18301 |    -6 | -0.0328% |
| instcount.NumOrInst                              |    102660 |    102665 |     5 |  0.0049% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                             |    318008 |    318007 |    -1 | -0.0003% |
| instcount.NumSelectInst                          |     46373 |     46370 |    -3 | -0.0065% |
| instcount.NumSExtInst                            |     79496 |     79488 |    -8 | -0.0101% |
| instcount.NumShlInst                             |     40654 |     40657 |     3 |  0.0074% |
| instcount.NumTruncInst                           |     62251 |     62249 |    -2 | -0.0032% |
| instcount.NumZExtInst                            |     68211 |     68221 |    10 |  0.0147% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                            |    843910 |    843909 |    -1 | -0.0001% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                             |   7387448 |   7387423 |   -25 | -0.0003% |

Reviewers: nikic, reames

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69321
2019-10-23 18:17:32 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 9b1419a9e5
[NFC][LVI][CVP] Tests where pre-specified `add` no-wrap flags could be used by LVI
There's `ConstantRange::addWithNoWrap()`, LVI could use it to further
constrain the range, if an `add` already has some no-wrap flags specified.
2019-10-22 22:54:57 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 7cd7f4a83b [CVP] No-wrap deduction for `shl`
Summary:
This is the last `OverflowingBinaryOperator` for which we don't deduce flags.
D69217 taught `ConstantRange::makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion()` about it.

The effect is better than of the `mul` patch (D69203):

| statistic                              |     old |     new | delta | % change |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNUW |    7145 |    7144 |    -1 | -0.0140% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAddNW  |   12126 |   12125 |    -1 | -0.0082% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumAnd    |     443 |     446 |     3 |  0.6772% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNSW    |    5986 |    7158 |  1172 | 19.5790% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNUW    |   10512 |   13304 |  2792 | 26.5601% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNW     |   16498 |   20462 |  3964 | 24.0272% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNSW |       0 |    1172 |  1172 |          |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNUW |       0 |    2793 |  2793 |          |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumShlNW  |       0 |    3965 |  3965 |          |
| instcount.NumAShrInst                  |   13824 |   13790 |   -34 | -0.2459% |
| instcount.NumAddInst                   |  277584 |  277586 |     2 |  0.0007% |
| instcount.NumAndInst                   |   66061 |   66056 |    -5 | -0.0076% |
| instcount.NumBrInst                    |  709153 |  709147 |    -6 | -0.0008% |
| instcount.NumICmpInst                  |  483709 |  483708 |    -1 | -0.0002% |
| instcount.NumSExtInst                  |   79497 |   79496 |    -1 | -0.0013% |
| instcount.NumShlInst                   |   40691 |   40654 |   -37 | -0.0909% |
| instcount.NumSubInst                   |   61997 |   61996 |    -1 | -0.0016% |
| instcount.NumZExtInst                  |   68208 |   68211 |     3 |  0.0044% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                  |  843916 |  843910 |    -6 | -0.0007% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                   | 7387528 | 7387448 |   -80 | -0.0011% |

Reviewers: nikic, reames, sanjoy, timshen

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69277

llvm-svn: 375455
2019-10-21 21:31:19 +00:00
Roman Lebedev ca7f4d8b85 [NFC][CVP] Add `shl` no-wrap deduction test coverage
llvm-svn: 375441
2019-10-21 18:35:26 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 2927716277 [CVP] Deduce no-wrap on `mul`
Summary:
`ConstantRange::makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion()` knows how to deal with `mul`
since rL335646, there is exhaustive test coverage.
This is already used by CVP's `processOverflowIntrinsic()`,
and by SCEV's `StrengthenNoWrapFlags()`

That being said, currently, this doesn't help much in the end:
| statistic                              |     old |     new | delta | percentage |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNSW |       4 |     275 |   271 |   6775.00% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNUW |       4 |    1323 |  1319 |  32975.00% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumMulNW  |       8 |    1598 |  1590 |  19875.00% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNSW    |    5715 |    5986 |   271 |      4.74% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNUW    |    9193 |   10512 |  1319 |     14.35% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumNW     |   14908 |   16498 |  1590 |     10.67% |
| instcount.NumAddInst                   |  275871 |  275869 |    -2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.NumBrInst                    |  708234 |  708232 |    -2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.NumMulInst                   |   43812 |   43810 |    -2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                   |  316786 |  316784 |    -2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.NumTruncInst                 |   62165 |   62167 |     2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.NumUDivInst                  |    2528 |    2526 |    -2 |     -0.08% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                  |  842995 |  842993 |    -2 |      0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                   | 7376486 | 7376478 |    -8 |      0.00% |
(^ test-suite plain, tests still pass)

Reviewers: nikic, reames, luqmana, sanjoy, timshen

Reviewed By: reames

Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69203

llvm-svn: 375396
2019-10-21 08:21:44 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 7c4fa28e5c [NFC][CVP] Some tests for `mul` no-wrap deduction
llvm-svn: 375285
2019-10-18 20:36:19 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 284b6d7f4d [CVP] After proving that @llvm.with.overflow()/@llvm.sat() don't overflow, also try to prove other no-wrap
Summary:
CVP, unlike InstCombine, does not run till exaustion.
It only does a single pass.

When dealing with those special binops, if we prove that they can
safely be demoted into their usual binop form,
we do set the no-wrap we deduced. But when dealing with usual binops,
we try to deduce both no-wraps.

So if we convert e.g. @llvm.uadd.with.overflow() to `add nuw`,
we won't attempt to check whether it can be `add nuw nsw`.

This patch proposes to call `processBinOp()` on newly-created binop,
which is identical to what we do for div/rem already.

Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69183

llvm-svn: 375273
2019-10-18 19:32:47 +00:00
Roman Lebedev d532f12c82 [NFC][CVP] Add @llvm.*.sat tests where we could prove both no-overflows
llvm-svn: 375260
2019-10-18 17:18:12 +00:00
Philip Reames 2d5820cd72 [CVP] Remove a masking operation if range information implies it's a noop
This is really a known bits style transformation, but known bits isn't context sensitive. The particular case which comes up happens to involve a range which allows range based reasoning to eliminate the mask pattern, so handle that case specifically in CVP.

InstCombine likes to generate the mask-by-low-bits pattern when widening an arithmetic expression which includes a zext in the middle.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68811

llvm-svn: 374506
2019-10-11 03:48:56 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 354ba6985c [CVP} Replace SExt with ZExt if the input is known-non-negative
Summary:
zero-extension is far more friendly for further analysis.
While this doesn't directly help with the shift-by-signext problem, this is not unrelated.

This has the following effect on test-suite (numbers collected after the finish of middle-end module pass manager):
| Statistic                            |     old |     new | delta | percent change |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumSExt |       0 |    6026 |  6026 |   +100.00%     |
| instcount.NumAddInst                 |  272860 |  271283 | -1577 |     -0.58%     |
| instcount.NumAllocaInst              |   27227 |   27226 | -1    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumAndInst                 |   63502 |   63320 | -182  |     -0.29%     |
| instcount.NumAShrInst                |   13498 |   13407 | -91   |     -0.67%     |
| instcount.NumAtomicCmpXchgInst       |    1159 |    1159 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumAtomicRMWInst           |    5036 |    5036 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumBitCastInst             |  672482 |  672353 | -129  |     -0.02%     |
| instcount.NumBrInst                  |  702768 |  702195 | -573  |     -0.08%     |
| instcount.NumCallInst                |  518285 |  518205 | -80   |     -0.02%     |
| instcount.NumExtractElementInst      |   18481 |   18482 |  1    |      0.01%     |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst        |   18290 |   18288 | -2    |     -0.01%     |
| instcount.NumFAddInst                |  139035 |  138963 | -72   |     -0.05%     |
| instcount.NumFCmpInst                |   10358 |   10348 | -10   |     -0.10%     |
| instcount.NumFDivInst                |   30310 |   30302 | -8    |     -0.03%     |
| instcount.NumFenceInst               |     387 |     387 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumFMulInst                |   93873 |   93806 | -67   |     -0.07%     |
| instcount.NumFPExtInst               |    7148 |    7144 | -4    |     -0.06%     |
| instcount.NumFPToSIInst              |    2823 |    2838 |  15   |      0.53%     |
| instcount.NumFPToUIInst              |    1251 |    1251 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumFPTruncInst             |    2195 |    2191 | -4    |     -0.18%     |
| instcount.NumFSubInst                |   92109 |   92103 | -6    |     -0.01%     |
| instcount.NumGetElementPtrInst       | 1221423 | 1219157 | -2266 |     -0.19%     |
| instcount.NumICmpInst                |  479140 |  478929 | -211  |     -0.04%     |
| instcount.NumIndirectBrInst          |       2 |       2 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumInsertElementInst       |   66089 |   66094 |  5    |      0.01%     |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst         |    2032 |    2030 | -2    |     -0.10%     |
| instcount.NumIntToPtrInst            |   19641 |   19641 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst              |   21789 |   21788 | -1    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst          |   12051 |   12051 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumLoadInst                |  880079 |  878673 | -1406 |     -0.16%     |
| instcount.NumLShrInst                |   25919 |   25921 |  2    |      0.01%     |
| instcount.NumMulInst                 |   42416 |   42417 |  1    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumOrInst                  |  100826 |  100576 | -250  |     -0.25%     |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                 |  315118 |  314092 | -1026 |     -0.33%     |
| instcount.NumPtrToIntInst            |   15933 |   15939 |  6    |      0.04%     |
| instcount.NumResumeInst              |    2156 |    2156 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumRetInst                 |   84485 |   84484 | -1    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumSDivInst                |    8599 |    8597 | -2    |     -0.02%     |
| instcount.NumSelectInst              |   45577 |   45913 |  336  |      0.74%     |
| instcount.NumSExtInst                |   84026 |   78278 | -5748 |     -6.84%     |
| instcount.NumShlInst                 |   39796 |   39726 | -70   |     -0.18%     |
| instcount.NumShuffleVectorInst       |  100272 |  100292 |  20   |      0.02%     |
| instcount.NumSIToFPInst              |   29131 |   29113 | -18   |     -0.06%     |
| instcount.NumSRemInst                |    1543 |    1543 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumStoreInst               |  805394 |  804351 | -1043 |     -0.13%     |
| instcount.NumSubInst                 |   61337 |   61414 |  77   |      0.13%     |
| instcount.NumSwitchInst              |    8527 |    8524 | -3    |     -0.04%     |
| instcount.NumTruncInst               |   60523 |   60484 | -39   |     -0.06%     |
| instcount.NumUDivInst                |    2381 |    2381 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumUIToFPInst              |    5549 |    5549 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumUnreachableInst         |    9855 |    9855 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumURemInst                |    1305 |    1305 |  0    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.NumXorInst                 |   10230 |   10081 | -149  |     -1.46%     |
| instcount.NumZExtInst                |   60353 |   66840 |  6487 |     10.75%     |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                |  829582 |  829004 | -578  |     -0.07%     |
| instcount.TotalFuncs                 |   83818 |   83817 | -1    |      0.00%     |
| instcount.TotalInsts                 | 7316574 | 7308483 | -8091 |     -0.11%     |

TLDR: we produce -0.11% less instructions, -6.84% less `sext`, +10.75% more `zext`.
To be noted, clearly, not all new `zext`'s are produced by this fold.

(And now i guess it might have been interesting to measure this for D68103 :S)

Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames, dberlin

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, jfb, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68654

llvm-svn: 374112
2019-10-08 20:29:48 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 347f6a770b [CVP][NFC] Revisit sext vs. zext test
llvm-svn: 374111
2019-10-08 20:29:36 +00:00
Roman Lebedev d1fe34cc93 [NFC][CVP] Add tests where we can replace sext with zext
If the sign bit of the value that is being sign-extended is not set,
i.e. the value is non-negative (s>= 0), then zero-extension will suffice,
and is better for analysis: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/a8PD

llvm-svn: 374075
2019-10-08 16:21:13 +00:00
Nikita Popov fdc6977ff3 [LVI] Look through extractvalue of insertvalue
This addresses the issue mentioned on D19867. When we simplify
with.overflow instructions in CVP, we leave behind extractvalue
of insertvalue sequences that LVI no longer understands. This
means that we can not simplify any instructions based on the
with.overflow anymore (until some over pass like InstCombine
cleans them up).

This patch extends LVI extractvalue handling by calling
SimplifyExtractValueInst (which doesn't do anything more than
constant folding + looking through insertvalue) and using the block
value of the simplification.

A possible alternative would be to do something similar to
SimplifyIndVars, where we instead directly try to replace
extractvalue users of the with.overflow. This would need some
additional structural changes to CVP, as it's currently not legal
to remove anything but the current instruction -- we'd have to
introduce a worklist with instructions scheduled for deletion or similar.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67035

llvm-svn: 371306
2019-09-07 12:03:59 +00:00
Nikita Popov a91f729279 [CVP] Add tests for simplified with.overflow + icmp; NFC
These tests are based on D19867.

llvm-svn: 370574
2019-08-31 09:58:42 +00:00
Nikita Popov b9e668f2e7 [CVP] Generate simpler code for elided with.overflow intrinsics
Use a { iN undef, i1 false } struct as the base, and only insert
the first operand, instead of using { iN undef, i1 undef } as the
base and inserting both. This is the same as what we do in InstCombine.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67034

llvm-svn: 370573
2019-08-31 09:58:37 +00:00
Nikita Popov f1ffc4305d [CVP] Reenable nowrap flag inference
Inference of nowrap flags in CVP has been disabled, because it
triggered a bug in LFTR (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31181).
This issue has been fixed in D60935, so we should be able to reenable
nowrap flag inference now.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62776

llvm-svn: 364228
2019-06-24 20:13:13 +00:00
Yevgeny Rouban a3e16719c4 Resubmit "[CorrelatedValuePropagation] Fix prof branch_weights metadata handling for SwitchInst"
This reverts commit 5b32f60ec3.
The fix is in commit 4f9e68148b.

This patch fixes the CorrelatedValuePropagation pass to keep
prof branch_weights metadata of SwitchInst consistent.
It makes use of SwitchInstProfUpdateWrapper.
New tests are added.

Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62126

llvm-svn: 362583
2019-06-05 05:46:40 +00:00
Nikita Popov df621bdfc8 [LVI][CVP] Add support for urem, srem and sdiv
The underlying ConstantRange functionality has been added in D60952,
D61207 and D61238, this just exposes it for LVI.

I'm switching the code from using a whitelist to a blacklist, as
we're down to one unsupported operation here (xor) and writing it
this way seems more obvious :)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62822

llvm-svn: 362519
2019-06-04 16:24:09 +00:00
Nikita Popov 7bafae55c0 Reapply [CVP] Simplify non-overflowing saturating add/sub
If we can determine that a saturating add/sub will not overflow based
on range analysis, convert it into a simple binary operation. This is
a sibling transform to the existing with.overflow handling.

Reapplying this with an additional check that the saturating intrinsic
has integer type, as LVI currently does not support vector types.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62703

llvm-svn: 362263
2019-05-31 20:48:26 +00:00
Nikita Popov d435093056 [CVP] Add vector saturating add test; NFC
Extra test for the assertion failure from D62703.

llvm-svn: 362262
2019-05-31 20:42:13 +00:00
Nikita Popov 23a02f6a5f [CVP] Fix assertion failure on vector with.overflow
Noticed on D62703. LVI only handles plain integers, not vectors of
integers. This was previously not an issue, because vector support
for with.overflow is only a relatively recent addition.

llvm-svn: 362261
2019-05-31 20:42:07 +00:00
Nikita Popov ccb63e0bfe Revert "[CVP] Simplify non-overflowing saturating add/sub"
This reverts commit 1e692d1777.

Causes assertion failure in builtins-wasm.c clang test.

llvm-svn: 362254
2019-05-31 19:04:47 +00:00
Nikita Popov 1e692d1777 [CVP] Simplify non-overflowing saturating add/sub
If we can determine that a saturating add/sub will not overflow
based on range analysis, convert it into a simple binary operation.
This is a sibling transform to the existing with.overflow handling.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62703

llvm-svn: 362242
2019-05-31 16:46:05 +00:00
Nikita Popov 751be7d51a [CVP] Add tests for non-overflowing saturating math; NFC
llvm-svn: 362153
2019-05-30 21:03:17 +00:00
Nikita Popov 5b32f60ec3 Revert "[CorrelatedValuePropagation] Fix prof branch_weights metadata handling for SwitchInst"
This reverts commit 53f2f32865.

As reported on D62126, this causes assertion failures if the switch
has incorrect branch_weights metadata, which may happen as a result
of other transforms not handling it correctly yet.

llvm-svn: 361881
2019-05-28 21:28:24 +00:00
Yevgeny Rouban 53f2f32865 [CorrelatedValuePropagation] Fix prof branch_weights metadata handling for SwitchInst
This patch fixes the CorrelatedValuePropagation pass to keep
prof branch_weights metadata of SwitchInst consistent.
It makes use of SwitchInstProfUpdateWrapper.
New tests are added.

Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62126

llvm-svn: 361808
2019-05-28 11:33:50 +00:00
Nikita Popov 6bb5041e94 [LVI][CVP] Add support for saturating add/sub
Adds support for the uadd.sat family of intrinsics in LVI, based on
ConstantRange methods from D60946.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62447

llvm-svn: 361703
2019-05-25 16:44:14 +00:00
Nikita Popov 9a33dc9fb8 [CVP] Add tests for saturating add/sub ranges; NFC
llvm-svn: 361694
2019-05-25 09:53:51 +00:00
Nikita Popov 024b18aca7 [LVI][CVP] Calculate with.overflow result range
In LVI, calculate the range of extractvalue(op.with.overflow(%x, %y), 0)
as the range of op(%x, %y). This is mainly useful in conjunction with
D60650: If the result of the operation is extracted in a branch guarded
against overflow, then the value of %x will be appropriately constrained
and the result range of the operation will be calculated taking that
into account.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60656

llvm-svn: 361693
2019-05-25 09:53:45 +00:00
Nikita Popov 48c4e4fa80 [LVI][CVP] Add support for abs/nabs select pattern flavor
Based on ConstantRange support added in D61084, we can now handle
abs and nabs select pattern flavors in LVI.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61794

llvm-svn: 360700
2019-05-14 18:53:47 +00:00
Nikita Popov e99486dc11 [CVP] Add tests for urem, sdiv, srem ranges; NFC
We currently don't calcuate result ranges for these binary operators.

llvm-svn: 360460
2019-05-10 19:36:38 +00:00
Nikita Popov d74b871504 [CVP] Add tests for abs and nabs spf; NFC
One half of the bound is already computed correctly for these
tests, the other isn't.

llvm-svn: 360445
2019-05-10 17:39:50 +00:00
Luqman Aden 2993661cc0 [CorrelatedValuePropagation] Mark subs that we know not to wrap with nuw/nsw.
Summary:
Teach CorrelatedValuePropagation to also handle sub instructions in addition to add. Relatively simple since makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion already understood sub instructions. Only subtle change is which range is passed as "Other" to that function, since sub isn't commutative.

Note that CorrelatedValuePropagation::processAddSub is still hidden behind a default-off flag as IndVarSimplify hasn't yet been fixed to strip the added nsw/nuw flags and causes a miscompile. (PR31181)

Reviewers: sanjoy, apilipenko, nikic

Reviewed By: nikic

Subscribers: hiraditya, jfb, jdoerfert, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60036

llvm-svn: 358816
2019-04-20 13:14:18 +00:00
Nikita Popov 2e33f8de57 [CVP] Add tests for sub nowrap inference; NFC
These are baseline tests for D60036.

Patch by Luqman Aden.

llvm-svn: 358808
2019-04-20 07:43:15 +00:00
Nikita Popov 2039581002 [LVI][CVP] Constrain values in with.overflow branches
If a branch is conditional on extractvalue(op.with.overflow(%x, C), 1)
then we can constrain the value of %x inside the branch based on
makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion(). We do this by extending the edge-value
handling in LVI. This allows CVP to then fold comparisons against %x,
as illustrated in the tests.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60650

llvm-svn: 358597
2019-04-17 16:57:42 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 0080645846 [CVP] processOverflowIntrinsic(): don't crash if constant-holding happened
As reported by Mikael Holmén in post-commit review in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60791#1469765

llvm-svn: 358559
2019-04-17 06:35:07 +00:00
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Nikita Popov 52b24ee932 [CVP] Simplify umulo and smulo that cannot overflow
If a umul.with.overflow or smul.with.overflow operation cannot
overflow, simplify it to a simple mul nuw / mul nsw. After the
refactoring in D60668 this is just a matter of removing an
explicit check against multiplications.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60791

llvm-svn: 358521
2019-04-16 20:31:41 +00:00
Nikita Popov 5a30177906 [CVP] Add tests for non-overflowing mulo; NFC
Should be simplified to simple mul.

llvm-svn: 358517
2019-04-16 19:25:35 +00:00
Nikita Popov 040871db48 [CVP] Add tests for range of with.overflow result; NFC
Test range of with.overflow result in the no-overflow branch.

llvm-svn: 358341
2019-04-13 19:43:51 +00:00
Nikita Popov 41e284b9c3 [CVP] Fix inverted predicates in test; NFC
Checked the wrong direction in the umul tests... fix predicated to
line up with the test name.

llvm-svn: 358331
2019-04-13 11:47:36 +00:00
Nikita Popov 25c1aa15a7 [CVP] Add tests for with.overflow used as condition; NFC
llvm-svn: 358330
2019-04-13 11:40:16 +00:00
Nikita Popov 00a0d5d1de [CVP] Set NSW/NUW flags when simplifying with.overflow
When CVP determines that a with.overflow intrinsic cannot overflow,
it currently inserts a simple add/sub. As we already determined that
there can be no overflow, we should add the appropriate NUW/NSW flag.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60585

llvm-svn: 358298
2019-04-12 18:18:17 +00:00