While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
Many tests use opt's -analyze feature, which does not translate well to
NPM and has better alternatives. The alternative here is to explicitly
add a pass that calls ScalarEvolution::print().
The legacy pass manager RUNs aren't changing, but they are now pinned to
the legacy pass manager. For each legacy pass manager RUN, I added a
corresponding NPM RUN using the 'print<scalar-evolution>' pass. For
compatibility with update_analyze_test_checks.py and existing test
CHECKs, 'print<scalar-evolution>' now prints what -analyze prints per
function.
This was generated by the following Python script and failures were
manually fixed up:
import sys
for i in sys.argv:
with open(i, 'r') as f:
s = f.read()
with open(i, 'w') as f:
for l in s.splitlines():
if "RUN:" in l and ' -analyze ' in l and '\\' not in l:
f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -analyze -enable-new-pm=0 '))
f.write('\n')
f.write(l.replace(' -analyze ', ' -disable-output ').replace(' -scalar-evolution ', ' "-passes=print<scalar-evolution>" ').replace(" | ", " 2>&1 | "))
f.write('\n')
else:
f.write(l)
There are a couple failures still in ScalarEvolution under NPM, but
those are due to other unrelated naming conflicts.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83798
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x + ...)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x + ...), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such expressions.
This enables better canonicalization of expressions like
1 + zext(5 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y) and
zext(6 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
which get both transformed to
2 + zext(4 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
This pattern is common in address arithmetics and the transformation
makes it easier for passes like LoadStoreVectorizer to prove that 2 or
more memory accesses are consecutive and optimize (vectorize) them.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337859
Summary:
This uses `ScalarEvolution::getRange` and not potentially control
dependent `nsw` and `nuw` bits on the arithmetic instruction.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, nlewycky
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13613
llvm-svn: 251048
Roman Lebedev