I don't expect `PendingLoopPredicates` to have very many
elements (e.g. when -O3'ing the sqlite3 amalgamation,
`PendingLoopPredicates` has at most 3 elements). So now we use a
`SmallPtrSet` for it instead of the more heavyweight `DenseSet`.
llvm-svn: 282511
In a previous change I collapsed two different caches into one. When
doing that I noticed that ScalarEvolution's move constructor was not
moving those caches.
To keep the previous change simple, I've moved that bugfix into this
separate change.
llvm-svn: 282376
Both `loopHasNoSideEffects` and `loopHasNoAbnormalExits` involve walking
the loop and maintaining similar sorts of caches. This commit changes
SCEV to compute both the predicates via a single walk, and maintain a
single cache instead of two.
llvm-svn: 282375
This change simplifies a data structure optimization in the
`BackedgeTakenInfo` class for loops with exactly one computable exit.
I've sanity checked that this does not regress compile time performance,
using sqlite3's amalgamated build.
llvm-svn: 282365
Enhance SCEV to compute the trip count for some loops with unknown stride.
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 281732
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
This change lets us prove things like
"{X,+,10} s< 5000" implies "{X+7,+,10} does not sign overflow"
It does this by replacing replacing getConstantDifference by
computeConstantDifference (which is smarter) in
isImpliedCondOperandsViaRanges.
llvm-svn: 276505
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 276136
When building SCEVs, if a function is known to return its argument, then we can
build the SCEV using the corresponding argument value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9381
llvm-svn: 275037
The way we elide max expressions when computing trip counts is incorrect
-- it breaks cases like this:
```
static int wrapping_add(int a, int b) {
return (int)((unsigned)a + (unsigned)b);
}
void test() {
volatile int end_buf = 2147483548; // INT_MIN - 100
int end = end_buf;
unsigned counter = 0;
for (int start = wrapping_add(end, 200); start < end; start++)
counter++;
print(counter);
}
```
Note: the `NoWrap` variable that was being tested has little to do with
the values flowing into the max expression; it is a property of the
induction variable.
test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/nsw-tripcount.ll was added to solely test
functionality I'm reverting in this change, so I've deleted the test
fully.
llvm-svn: 273079
Use Optional<T> to denote the absence of a solution, not
SCEVCouldNotCompute. This makes the usage of SolveQuadraticEquation
somewhat simpler.
llvm-svn: 272752
We can safely rely on a NoWrap add recurrence causing UB down the road
only if we know the loop does not have a exit expressed in a way that is
opaque to ScalarEvolution (e.g. by a function call that conditionally
calls exit(0)).
I believe with this change PR28012 is fixed.
Note: I had to change some llvm-lit tests in LoopReroll, since it looks
like they were depending on this incorrect behavior.
llvm-svn: 272237
This is NFC as far as externally visible behavior is concerned, but will
keep us from spinning in the worklist traversal algorithm unnecessarily.
llvm-svn: 272182
Absence of may-unwind calls is not enough to guarantee that a
UB-generating use of an add-rec poison in the loop latch will actually
cause UB. We also need to guard against calls that terminate the thread
or infinite loop themselves.
This partially addresses PR28012.
llvm-svn: 272181
The worklist algorithm introduced in rL271151 didn't check to see if the
direct users of the post-inc add recurrence propagates poison. This
change fixes the problem and makes the code structure more obvious.
Note for release managers: correctness wise, this bug wasn't a
regression introduced by rL271151 -- the behavior of SCEV around
post-inc add recurrences was strictly improved (in terms of correctness)
in rL271151.
llvm-svn: 272179
Consolidate documentation by removing comments from the .cpp file where
the comments in the .cpp file were copy-pasted from the header.
llvm-svn: 271157
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
This was first checked in at r265912 but reverted in r265950 because it
exposed some issues around how SCEV handled post-inc add recurrences.
Those issues have now been fixed.
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 271152
Fixes PR27315.
The post-inc version of an add recurrence needs to "follow the same
rules" as a normal add or subtract expression. Otherwise we miscompile
programs like
```
int main() {
int a = 0;
unsigned a_u = 0;
volatile long last_value;
do {
a_u += 3;
last_value = (long) ((int) a_u);
if (will_add_overflow(a, 3)) {
// Leave, and don't actually do the increment, so no UB.
printf("last_value = %ld\n", last_value);
exit(0);
}
a += 3;
} while (a != 46);
return 0;
}
```
This patch changes SCEV to put no-wrap flags on post-inc add recurrences
only when the poison from a potential overflow will go ahead to cause
undefined behavior.
To avoid regressing performance too much, I've assumed infinite loops
without side effects is undefined behavior to prove poison<->UB
equivalence in more cases. This isn't ideal, but is not new to LLVM as
a whole, and far better than the situation I'm trying to fix.
llvm-svn: 271151
Summary:
**Description**
This makes `WidenIV::widenIVUse` (IndVarSimplify.cpp) fail to widen narrow IV uses in some cases. The latter affects IndVarSimplify which may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility, thereby producing ineffective code.
When `WidenIV::widenIVUse` gets a NarrowUse such as `{(-2 + %inc.lcssa),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, it first tries to get a wide recurrence for it via the `getWideRecurrence` call.
`getWideRecurrence` returns recurrence like this: `{(sext i32 (-2 + %inc.lcssa) to i64),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`.
Then a wide use operation is generated by `cloneIVUser`. The generated wide use is evaluated to `{(-2 + (sext i32 %inc.lcssa to i64))<nsw>,+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, which is different from the `getWideRecurrence` result. `cloneIVUser` sees the difference and returns nullptr.
This patch also fixes the broken LLVM tests by adding missing <nsw> entries introduced by the correction.
**Minimal reproducer:**
```
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
int baz();
void bar()
{
int arr[20];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
arr[i] = baz();
for (; i < 20; ++i)
arr[i] = foo(arr[i - 4], arr[i - 3], arr[i - 2]);
}
```
**Clang command line:**
```
clang++ -mllvm -debug -S -emit-llvm -O3 --target=aarch64-linux-elf test.cpp -o test.ir
```
**Expected result:**
The ` -mllvm -debug` log shows that all the IV's for the second `for` loop have been eliminated.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: atrick, asl, aemerson, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20058
llvm-svn: 270695
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is the NUW variant of r269211 and fixes PR27691.
(Note: PR27691 is not a correct or stability bug, it was created to
track a pending task).
llvm-svn: 269790
Fix "Logic error" warnings of the type "Called C++ object pointer is
null" reported by Clang Static Analyzer on the following files:
lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp,
lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp.
Patch by Apelete Seketeli!
llvm-svn: 269424
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is not a problem for "normal" loops[0] that don't have
guards or assumes, but helps in cases where we have guards or assumes in
the loop that can be used to constrain incoming values over the backedge.
This partially fixes PR27691 (we still don't handle the NUW case).
[0]: for "normal" loops, in the cases where we'd be able to prove
no-wrap via isKnownPredicate, we'd also be able to compute a max
tripcount.
llvm-svn: 269211
We can use calls to @llvm.experimental.guard to prove predicates,
relying on the fact that in all locations domianted by a call to
@llvm.experimental.guard the predicate it is guarding is known to be
true.
llvm-svn: 268997
In the "LoopDispositions:" section:
- Instead of printing out a list, print out a "dictionary" to make it
obvious by inspection which disposition is for which loop. This is
just a cosmetic change.
- Print dispositions for parent _and_ sibling loops. I will use this
to write a test case.
llvm-svn: 268405
There are currently some bugs in tree around SCEV caching an incorrect
loop disposition. Printing out loop dispositions will let us write
whitebox tests as those are fixed.
The dispositions are printed as a list in "inside out" order,
i.e. innermost loop first.
llvm-svn: 268177
Summary:
Historically, we had a switch in the Makefiles for turning on "expensive
checks". This has never been ported to the cmake build, but the
(dead-ish) code is still around.
This will also make it easier to turn it on in buildbots.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jyknight, mzolotukhin, RKSimon, gberry, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19723
llvm-svn: 268050
Summary:
Also adds a small comment blurb on control flow + no-wrap flags, since
that question came up a few days back on llvm-dev.
Reviewers: bjarke.roune, broune
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19209
llvm-svn: 267110
Summary:
Add a print method to Predicated Scalar Evolution which prints all interesting
transformations done by PSE.
Loop Access Analysis will now print this as part of the analysis output.
We now use this to check the exact expression transformations that were done
by PSE in LAA.
The additional checking also acts as white-box testing for the getAsAddRec method.
Reviewers: anemet, sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18792
llvm-svn: 266334
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 265912
This re-commits r265535 which was reverted in r265541 because it
broke the windows bots. The problem was that we had a PointerIntPair
which took a pointer to a struct allocated with new. The problem
was that new doesn't provide sufficient alignment guarantees.
This pattern was already present before r265535 and it just happened
to work. To fix this, we now separate the PointerToIntPair from the
ExitNotTakenInfo struct into a pointer and a bool.
Original commit message:
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265786
Summary:
Fixes PR26774.
If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation"
section and jump directly to "This patch".
Motivation:
I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the
optimizer has license to discard. So transforming:
```
void f(unsigned x) {
unsigned t = 5 / x;
(void)t;
}
```
to
```
void f(unsigned x) { }
```
is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined
else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard
undefined behavior).
Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done
by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also
involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is
`undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by
definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef`
value).
Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume
that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the
behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same
function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat
linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a
differently optimized version of the same source level function.
For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is
actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in
it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original
function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and
at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with
a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two
atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only
if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine
this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the
comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a
refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the
unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since
the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the
unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate
transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function
does not write to memory.
Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking
differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic
examples that involved neither.
This patch:
This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as
`GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type
allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at
link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see
such a function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634
llvm-svn: 265762
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265535
This way once we teach MatchBinaryOp to map more things into arithmetic,
the non-wrapping add recurrence construction would understand it too.
Right now MatchBinaryOp still only understands arithmetic, so this is
solely a code-reorganization change.
llvm-svn: 264994
MatchBinaryOp abstracts out the IR instructions from the operations they
represent. While this change is NFC, we will use this factoring later
to map things like `(extractvalue 0 (sadd.with.overflow X Y))` to `(add
X Y)`.
llvm-svn: 264747
Summary:
This changes the conversion functions from SCEV * to SCEVAddRecExpr from
ScalarEvolution and PredicatedScalarEvolution to return a SCEVAddRecExpr*
instead of a SCEV* (which removes the need of most clients to do a
dyn_cast right after calling these functions).
We also don't add new predicates if the transformation was not successful.
This is not entirely a NFC (as it can theoretically remove some predicates
from LAA when we have an unknown dependece), but I couldn't find an obvious
regression test for it.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18368
llvm-svn: 264161
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
work in the face of the limitations of DLLs and templated static
variables.
This requires passes that use the AnalysisBase mixin provide a static
variable themselves. So as to keep their APIs clean, I've made these
private and befriended the CRTP base class (which is the common
practice).
I've added documentation to AnalysisBase for why this is necessary and
at what point we can go back to the much simpler system.
This is clearly a better pattern than the extern template as it caught
*numerous* places where the template magic hadn't been applied and
things were "just working" but would eventually have broken
mysteriously.
llvm-svn: 263216
Building on the previous change, this generalizes
ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work with
{Ext(C?A:B)+k0,+,Ext(C?A:B)+k1} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation, and k0 and k1 are constants.
llvm-svn: 262979
This change generalizes ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work
with {Ext(C?A:B),+,Ext(C?A:B)} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation.
llvm-svn: 262978
After r262438 we can have provably positive NSW SCEV expressions whose
zero extensions cannot be simplified (since r262438 makes SCEV better at
computing constant ranges). This means demoting sexts of positive add
recurrences eagerly can result in an unsimplified zero extension where
we could have had a simplified sign extension. This change fixes the
issue by teaching SCEV to demote sext of a positive SCEV expression to a
zext only if the sext could not be simplified.
llvm-svn: 262638
For some reason MSVC seems to think I'm calling getConstant() from a
static context. Try to avoid this issue by explicitly specifying
'this->' (though I'm not confident that this will actually work).
llvm-svn: 262451
Have ScalarEvolution::getRange re-consider cases like "{C?A:B,+,C?P:Q}"
by factoring out "C" and computing RangeOf{A,+,P} union RangeOf({B,+,Q})
instead.
The latter can be easier to compute precisely in cases like
"{C?0:N,+,C?1:-1}" N is the backedge taken count of the loop; since in
such cases the latter form simplifies to [0,N+1) union [0,N+1).
llvm-svn: 262438
analyses in the new pass manager.
These just handle really basic stuff: turning a type name into a string
statically that is nice to print in logs, and getting a static unique ID
for each analysis.
Sadly, the format of passes in anonymous namespaces makes using their
names in tests really annoying so I've customized the names of the no-op
passes to keep tests sane to read.
This is the first of a few simplifying refactorings for the new pass
manager that should reduce boilerplate and confusion.
llvm-svn: 262004
Rename makeNoWrapRegion to a more obvious makeGuaranteedNoWrapRegion,
and add a comment about the counter-intuitive aspects of the function.
This is to help prevent cases like PR26628.
llvm-svn: 261532
Before this patch simplified SCEV expressions for PHI nodes were only returned
the very first time getSCEV() was called, but later calls to getSCEV always
returned the non-simplified value, which had "temporarily" been stored in the
ValueExprMap, but was never removed and consequently blocked the caching of the
simplified PHI expression.
llvm-svn: 261485
sanitizer issue. The PredicatedScalarEvolution's copy constructor
wasn't copying the Generation value, and was leaving it un-initialized.
Original commit message:
[SCEV][LAA] Add no wrap SCEV predicates and use use them to improve strided pointer detection
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260112
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260085
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
The original commit triggered regressions in Polly tests. The regressions
exposed two problems which have been fixed in current version.
1. Polly will generate a new function based on the old one. To generate an
instruction for the new function, it builds SCEV for the old instruction,
applies some tranformation on the SCEV generated, then expands the transformed
SCEV and insert the expanded value into new function. Because SCEV expansion
may reuse value cached in ExprValueMap, the value in old function may be
inserted into new function, which is wrong.
In SCEVExpander::expand, there is a logic to check the cached value to
be used should dominate the insertion point. However, for the above
case, the check always passes. That is because the insertion point is
in a new function, which is unreachable from the old function. However
for unreachable node, DominatorTreeBase::dominates thinks it will be
dominated by any other node.
The fix is to simply add a check that the cached value to be used in
expansion should be in the same function as the insertion point instruction.
2. When the SCEV is of scConstant type, expanding it directly is cheaper than
reusing a normal value cached. Although in the cached value set in ExprValueMap,
there is a Constant type value, but it is not easy to find it out -- the cached
Value set is not sorted according to the potential cost. Existing reuse logic
in SCEVExpander::expand simply chooses the first legal element from the cached
value set.
The fix is that when the SCEV is of scConstant type, don't try the reuse
logic. simply expand it.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259736
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259662
- 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
