A while back, I added support for NE latches formed by LFTR. I didn't think that quite through, as LFTR will also produce the inverse EQ form for some loops and I hadn't handled that. This change just adds handling for that case as well.
llvm-svn: 365419
This reverts commit r365260 which broke the following tests:
Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cfi-mfcall.cpp
Clang :: CodeGenObjC/ubsan-nullability.m
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/pr36032.ll
llvm-svn: 365284
Without this, we have the unfortunate property that tests are dependent on the order of operads passed the CreateOr and CreateAnd functions. In actual usage, we'd promptly optimize them away, but it made tests slightly more verbose than they should have been.
llvm-svn: 365260
This is a really silly bug that even a simple test w/an unconditional latch would have caught. I tried to guard against the case, but put it in the wrong if check. Oops.
llvm-svn: 362727
At the moment, LoopPredication completely bails out if it sees a latch of the form:
%cmp = icmp ne %iv, %N
br i1 %cmp, label %loop, label %exit
OR
%cmp = icmp ne %iv.next, %NPlus1
br i1 %cmp, label %loop, label %exit
This is unfortunate since this is exactly the form that LFTR likes to produce. So, go ahead and recognize simple cases where we can.
For pre-increment loops, we leverage the fact that LFTR likes canonical counters (i.e. those starting at zero) and a (presumed) range fact on RHS to discharge the check trivially.
For post-increment forms, the key insight is in remembering that LFTR had to insert a (N+1) for the RHS. CVP can hopefully prove that add nsw/nuw (if there's appropriate range on N to start with). This leaves us both with the post-inc IV and the RHS involving an nsw/nuw add, and SCEV can discharge that with no problem.
This does still need to be extended to handle non-one steps, or other harder patterns of variable (but range restricted) starting values. That'll come later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62748
llvm-svn: 362282
The purpose of this patch is to eliminate a pass ordering dependence between LoopPredication and LICM. To understand the purpose, consider the following snippet of code inside some loop 'L' with IV 'i'
A = _a.length;
guard (i < A)
a = _a[i]
B = _b.length;
guard (i < B);
b = _b[i];
...
Z = _z.length;
guard (i < Z)
z = _z[i]
accum += a + b + ... + z;
Today, we need LICM to hoist the length loads, LoopPredication to make the guards loop invariant, and TrivialUnswitch to eliminate the loop invariant guard to establish must execute for the next length load. Today, if we can't prove speculation safety, we'd have to iterate these three passes 26 times to reduce this example down to the minimal form.
Using the fact that the array lengths are known to be invariant, we can short circuit this iteration. By forming the loop invariant form of all the guards at once, we remove the need for LoopPredication from the iterative cycle. At the moment, we'd still have to iterate LICM and TrivialUnswitch; we'll leave that part for later.
As a secondary benefit, this allows LoopPred to expose peeling oppurtunities in a much more obvious manner. See the udiv test changes as an example. If the udiv was not hoistable (i.e. we couldn't prove speculation safety) this would be an example where peeling becomes obviously profitable whereas it wasn't before.
A couple of subtleties in the implementation:
- SCEV's isSafeToExpand guarantees speculation safety (i.e. let's us expand at a new point). It is not a precondition for expansion if we know the SCEV corresponds to a Value which dominates the requested expansion point.
- SCEV's isLoopInvariant returns true for expressions which compute the same value across all iterations executed, regardless of where the original Value is located. (i.e. it can be in the loop) This implies we have a speculation burden to prove before expanding them outside loops.
- invariant_loads and AA->pointsToConstantMemory are two cases that SCEV currently does not handle, but meets the SCEV definition of invariance. I plan to sink this part into SCEV once this has baked for a bit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60093
llvm-svn: 358684
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
If we have multiple range checks which can be predicated, hoist the and of the results outside the loop. This minorly cleans up the resulting IR, but the main motivation is as a building block for D60093.
llvm-svn: 358419
We'd been optimizing the case where the predicate was obviously true, do the same for the false case. Mostly just for completeness sake, but also may improve compile time in loops which will exit through the guard. Such loops are presumed rare in fastpath code, but may be present down untaken paths, so optimizing for them is still useful.
llvm-svn: 357408
LoopPredication was replacing the original condition, but leaving the instructions to compute the old conditions around. This would get cleaned up by other passes of course, but we might as well do it eagerly. That also makes the test output less confusing.
llvm-svn: 357406
I'm about to make some changes to the pass which cause widespread - but uninteresting - test diffs. Prepare the tests for easy updating.
llvm-svn: 357404
This is a follow up change for D37569.
Currently the transformation is limited to the case when:
* The loop has a single latch with the condition of the form: ++i <pred> latchLimit, where <pred> is u<, u<=, s<, or s<=.
* The step of the IV used in the latch condition is 1.
* The IV of the latch condition is the same as the post increment IV of the guard condition.
* The guard condition is of the form i u< guardLimit.
This patch enables the transform in the case when the latch is
latchStart + i <pred> latchLimit, where <pred> is u<, u<=, s<, or s<=.
And the guard is
guardStart + i u< guardLimit
Reviewed By: anna
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39097
llvm-svn: 316768
This is a follow up for the loop predication change 313981 to support ule, sle latch predicates.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38177
llvm-svn: 315616
We've found a serious issue with the current implementation of loop predication.
The current implementation relies on SCEV and this turned out to be problematic.
To fix the problem we had to rework the pass substantially. We have had the
reworked implementation in our downstream tree for a while. This is the initial
patch of the series of changes to upstream the new implementation.
For now the transformation is limited to the following case:
* The loop has a single latch with either ult or slt icmp condition.
* The step of the IV used in the latch condition is 1.
* The IV of the latch condition is the same as the post increment IV of the guard condition.
* The guard condition is ult.
See the review or the LoopPredication.cpp header for the details about the
problem and the new implementation.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37569
llvm-svn: 313981
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
llvm-svn: 296345
This patch introduces guard based loop predication optimization. The new LoopPredication pass tries to convert loop variant range checks to loop invariant by widening checks across loop iterations. For example, it will convert
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(i < len);
...
}
to
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(n - 1 < len);
...
}
After this transformation the condition of the guard is loop invariant, so loop-unswitch can later unswitch the loop by this condition which basically predicates the loop by the widened condition:
if (n - 1 < len)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
...
}
else
deoptimize
This patch relies on an NFC change to make ScalarEvolution::isMonotonicPredicate public (revision 293062).
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29034
llvm-svn: 293064
Philip Reames