- ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges duplicates some
logic already present in ConstantRange, use ConstantRange for those
bits.
- In some cases ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges
returns `false` to mean "definitely false" (e.g. see the
`LHSRange.getSignedMin().sge(RHSRange.getSignedMax())` case for
`ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT`), but for `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges`,
`false` actually means "don't know". Get rid of this extra bit of
code to avoid confusion.
llvm-svn: 259401
Summary:
The previous form, taking opcode and type, is moved to an internal
helper and the new form, taking an instruction, is a wrapper around this
helper.
Although this is a slight cleanup on its own, the main motivation is to
refactor the constant folding API to ease migration to opaque pointers.
This will be follow-up work.
Reviewers: eddyb
Subscribers: dblaikie, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16383
llvm-svn: 258391
In some cases, the max backedge taken count can be more conservative
than the exact backedge taken count (for instance, because
ScalarEvolution::getRange is not control-flow sensitive whereas
computeExitLimitFromICmp can be). In these cases,
computeExitLimitFromCond (specifically the bit that deals with `and` and
`or` instructions) can create an ExitLimit instance with a
`SCEVCouldNotCompute` max backedge count expression, but a computable
exact backedge count expression. This violates an implicit SCEV
assumption: a computable exact BE count should imply a computable max BE
count.
This change
- Makes the above implicit invariant explicit by adding an assert to
ExitLimit's constructor
- Changes `computeExitLimitFromCond` to be more robust around
conservative max backedge counts
llvm-svn: 258184
Summary:
GEPOperator: provide getResultElementType alongside getSourceElementType.
This is made possible by adding a result element type field to GetElementPtrConstantExpr, which GetElementPtrInst already has.
GEP: replace get(Pointer)ElementType uses with get{Source,Result}ElementType.
Reviewers: mjacob, dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16275
llvm-svn: 258145
The way `getLoopBackedgeTakenCounts` is written right now isn't
correct. It will try to compute and store the BE counts of a Loop
#{child loop} number of times (which may be zero).
llvm-svn: 256338
Clang has better diagnostics in this case. It is not necessary therefore
to change the destructor to avoid what is effectively an invalid warning
in gcc. Instead, better handle the warning flags given to the compiler.
llvm-svn: 255905
ScalarEvolution.h, in order to avoid cyclic dependencies between the Transform
and Analysis modules:
[LV][LAA] Add a layer over SCEV to apply run-time checked knowledge on SCEV expressions
Summary:
This change creates a layer over ScalarEvolution for LAA and LV, and centralizes the
usage of SCEV predicates. The SCEVPredicatedLayer takes the statically deduced knowledge
by ScalarEvolution and applies the knowledge from the SCEV predicates. The end goal is
that both LAA and LV should use this interface everywhere.
This also solves a problem involving the result of SCEV expression rewritting when
the predicate changes. Suppose we have the expression (sext {a,+,b}) and two predicates
P1: {a,+,b} has nsw
P2: b = 1.
Applying P1 and then P2 gives us {a,+,1}, while applying P2 and the P1 gives us
sext({a,+,1}) (the AddRec expression was changed by P2 so P1 no longer applies).
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains the order of transformations by feeding back
the results of previous transformations into new transformations, and therefore
avoiding this issue.
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains a cache to remember the results of previous
SCEV rewritting results. This also has the benefit of reducing the overall number
of expression rewrites.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet
Subscribers: jmolloy, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14296
llvm-svn: 255122
Reduces the scope over which the struct is visible, making its usages
obvious. I did not move structs in cases where this wasn't a clear
win (the struct is too large, or is grouped in some other interesting
way).
llvm-svn: 255003
It is not enough to simply make the destructor virtual since there is a g++ 4.7
issue (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613) that throws the
error "looser throw specifier for ... overridding ~SCEVPredicate() noexcept".
llvm-svn: 254592
The nuw constraint will not be satisfied unless <expr> == 0.
This bug has been around since r102234 (in 2010!), but was uncovered by
r251052, which introduced more aggressive optimization of nuw scev expressions.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14850
llvm-svn: 253627
The bug: I missed adding break statements in the switch / case.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Teach SCEV some axioms about non-wrapping arithmetic
Summary:
- A s< (A + C)<nsw> if C > 0
- A s<= (A + C)<nsw> if C >= 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s< A if C < 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s<= A if C <= 0
Right now `C` needs to be a constant, but we can later generalize it to
be a non-constant if needed.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13686
llvm-svn: 252236
Summary:
SCEV Predicates represent conditions that typically cannot be derived from
static analysis, but can be used to reduce SCEV expressions to forms which are
usable for different optimizers.
ScalarEvolution now has the rewriteUsingPredicate method which can simplify a
SCEV expression using a SCEVPredicateSet. The normal workflow of a pass using
SCEVPredicates would be to hold a SCEVPredicateSet and every time assumptions
need to be made a new SCEV Predicate would be created and added to the set.
Each time after calling getSCEV, the user will call the rewriteUsingPredicate
method.
We add two types of predicates
SCEVPredicateSet - implements a set of predicates
SCEVEqualPredicate - tests for equality between two SCEV expressions
We use the SCEVEqualPredicate to re-implement stride versioning. Every time we
version a stride, we will add a SCEVEqualPredicate to the context.
Instead of adding specific stride checks, LoopVectorize now adds a more
generic SCEV check.
We only need to add support for this in the LoopVectorizer since this is the
only pass that will do stride versioning.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, hfinkel, rengolin, jmolloy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13595
llvm-svn: 251800
Have `getConstantEvolutionLoopExitValue` work correctly with multiple
entry loops.
As far as I can tell, `getConstantEvolutionLoopExitValue` never did the
right thing for multiple entry loops; and before r249712 it would
silently return an incorrect answer. r249712 changed SCEV to fail an
assert on a multiple entry loop, and this change fixes the underlying
issue.
llvm-svn: 251770
Prevent `createNodeFromSelectLikePHI` from creating SCEV expressions
that break LCSSA.
A better fix for the same issue is to teach SCEVExpander to not break
LCSSA by inserting PHI nodes at appropriate places. That's planned for
the future.
Fixes PR25360.
llvm-svn: 251756
Summary:
When forming expressions for phi nodes having an incoming value from
outside the loop A and a value coming from the previous iteration B
we were forming an AddRec if:
- B was an AddRec
- the value A was equal to the value for B at iteration -1 (or equal
to the value of B shifted by one iteration, at iteration 0)
In this case, we were computing the expression to be the expression of
B, shifted by one iteration.
This changes generalizes the logic above by removing the restriction that
B needs to be an AddRec. For this we introduce two expression rewriters
that allow us to
- shift an expression by one iteration
- get the value of an expression at iteration 0
This allows us to get SCEV expressions for PHI nodes when these expressions
are not AddRecExprs.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14175
llvm-svn: 251700
This teaches SCEV to compute //max// backedge taken counts for loops
like
for (int i = k; i != 0; i >>>= 1)
whatever();
SCEV yet cannot represent the exact backedge count for these loops, and
this patch does not change that. This is really geared towards teaching
SCEV that loops like the above are *not* infinite.
llvm-svn: 251558
The loop idiom creating a ConstantRange is repeated twice in the
codebase, time to give it a name and a home.
The loop is also repeated in `rangeMetadataExcludesValue`, but using
`getConstantRangeFromMetadata` there would not be an NFC -- the range
returned by `getConstantRangeFromMetadata` may contain a value that none
of the subranges did.
llvm-svn: 251180
Instead of checking `(FlagsPresent & ExpectedFlags) != 0`, check
`(FlagsPresent & ExpectedFlags) == ExpectedFlags`. Right now they're
equivalent since `ExpectedFlags` can only be either `FlagNUW` or
`FlagNSW`, but if we ever pass in `ExpectedFlags` as `FlagNUW | FlagNSW`
then checking `(FlagsPresent & ExpectedFlags) != 0` would be wrong.
llvm-svn: 251142
I could not come up a way to test this -- I think this bug is latent
today, and will not actually result in a miscompile.
In `getPreStartForExtend`, SCEV constructs `PreStart` as a sum of all of
`SA`'s operands except `Op`. It also uses `SA`'s no-wrap flags, and
this is problematic because removing an element from an add expression
can make it signed-wrap. E.g. if `SA` was `(127 + 1 + -1)`, then it
could safely be `<nsw>` (since `sext(127) + sext(1) + sext(-1)` ==
`sext(127 + 1 + -1)`), but `(127 + 1)` (== `PreStart` if `Op` is `-1`)
is not `<nsw>`.
Transferring `<nuw>` from `SA` to `PreStart` is safe, as far as I can
tell.
llvm-svn: 251097
Summary:
An unsigned comparision is equivalent to is corresponding signed version
if both the operands being compared are positive. Teach SCEV to use
this fact when profitable.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13687
llvm-svn: 251051
Summary:
- A s< (A + C)<nsw> if C > 0
- A s<= (A + C)<nsw> if C >= 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s< A if C < 0
- (A + C)<nsw> s<= A if C <= 0
Right now `C` needs to be a constant, but we can later generalize it to
be a non-constant if needed.
Reviewers: atrick, hfinkel, reames, nlewycky
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13686
llvm-svn: 251050
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
Sanjoy Das