(The change was landed in r230280 and caused the regression PR22674.
This version contains a fix and a test-case for PR22674).
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic)
manifestation of the bug can be seen in
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
llvm-svn: 230533
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic) manifestation
of the bug can be seen in Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
NOTE: this change was landed with an incorrect commit message in
rL230275 and was reverted for that reason in rL230279. This commit
message is the correct one.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
llvm-svn: 230280
230275 got committed with an incorrect commit message due to a mixup
on my side. Will re-land in a few moments with the correct commit
message.
llvm-svn: 230279
The bug was a result of getPreStartForExtend interpreting nsw/nuw
flags on an add recurrence more strongly than is legal. {S,+,X}<nsw>
implies S+X is nsw only if the backedge of the loop is taken at least
once.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7808
llvm-svn: 230275
Sanjoy Das