If a trunc has a user in a block which is not reachable from entry,
we can safely perform trunc elimination as if this user didn't exist.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@335816 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch adds logic to deal with the following constructions:
%iv = phi i64 ...
%trunc = trunc i64 %iv to i32
%cmp = icmp <pred> i32 %trunc, %invariant
Replacing it with
%iv = phi i64 ...
%cmp = icmp <pred> i64 %iv, sext/zext(%invariant)
In case if it is legal. Specifically, if `%iv` has signed comparison users, it is
required that `sext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`, and if it has unsigned comparison
uses then we require `zext(trunc(%iv)) == %iv`. The current implementation
bails if `%trunc` has other uses than `icmp`, but in theory we can handle more
cases here (e.g. if the user of trunc is bitcast).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47928
Reviewed By: reames
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@335020 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts r334428. It incorrectly marks some multiplications as nuw. Tim
Shen is working on a proper fix.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Add nuw/nsw to mul ops in StrengthenNoWrapFlags where safe.
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@335016 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
IndVarSimplify sometimes makes transforms basing on users that are trivially dead. In particular,
if DCE wasn't run before it, there may be a dead `sext/zext` in loop that will trigger widening
transforms, however it makes no sense to do it.
This patch teaches IndVarsSimplify ignore the mist trivial cases of that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47974
Reviewed By: sanjoy
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@334567 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@331841 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch teaches SCEV how to prove implications for SCEVUnknown nodes that are Phis.
If we need to prove `Pred` for `LHS, RHS`, and `LHS` is a Phi with possible incoming values
`L1, L2, ..., LN`, then if we prove `Pred` for `(L1, RHS), (L2, RHS), ..., (LN, RHS)` then we can also
prove it for `(LHS, RHS)`. If both `LHS` and `RHS` are Phis from the same block, it is sufficient
to prove the predicate for values that come from the same predecessor block.
The typical case that it handles is that we sometimes need to prove that `Phi(Len, Len - 1) >= 0`
given that `Len > 0`. The new logic was added to `isImpliedViaOperations` and only uses it and
non-recursive reasoning to prove the facts we need, so it should not hurt compile time a lot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44001
Reviewed By: anna
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@329150 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@328611 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@327822 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It is a revert of rL327362 which causes build bot failures with assert like
Assertion `isAvailableAtLoopEntry(RHS, L) && "RHS is not available at Loop Entry"' failed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@327363 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
IsKnownPredicate is updated to implement the following algorithm
proposed by @sanjoy and @mkazantsev :
isKnownPredicate(Pred, LHS, RHS) {
Collect set S all loops on which either LHS or RHS depend.
If S is non-empty
a. Let PD be the element of S which is dominated by all other elements of S
b. Let E(LHS) be value of LHS on entry of PD.
To get E(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their entry values.
Define E(RHS) in the same way.
c. Let B(LHS) be value of L on backedge of PD.
To get B(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their backedge values.
Define B(RHS) in the same way.
d. Note that E(LHS) and E(RHS) are automatically available on entry of PD,
so we can assert on that.
e. Return true if isLoopEntryGuardedByCond(Pred, E(LHS), E(RHS)) &&
isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond(Pred, B(LHS), B(RHS))
Return true if Pred, L, R is known from ranges, splitting etc.
}
This is follow-up for https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43507
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@327362 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
There is a more powerful but still simple function `isKnownViaSimpleReasoning ` that
does constant range check and few more additional checks. We use it some places (e.g.
when proving implications) and in some other places we only check constant ranges.
Currently, indvar simplifier fails to remove the check in following loop:
int inc = ...;
for (int i = inc, j = inc - 1; i < 200; ++i, ++j)
if (i > j) { ... }
This patch replaces all usages of `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges` with
`isKnownViaSimpleReasoning` to have smarter proofs. In particular, it fixes the
case above.
Reviewed-By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43175
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@325214 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly.
But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is
known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts
together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@324453 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
To bugs additionally fixed:
assert is moved after the check whether loop is not a nullptr.
Usage of isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCondOperandsViaNoOverflow
is guarded by isAvailableAtLoopEntry.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@324204 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It causes buildbot failures. New added assert is fired.
It seems not all usages of isLoopEntryGuardedByCond are fixed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@323079 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate invokes isLoopEntryGuardedByCond without check
that SCEV is available at entry point of the loop. It is incorrect and fixed by patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, anna, dorit
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42165
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@323077 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We cannot move the insertion point to header if SCEV contains div/rem
operations due to they may go over check for zero denominator.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop
Reviewed By: sebpop
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41229
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@320789 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
The function is meant to recurse until it comes upon the
phi it's looking for. However, with the current condition,
it will recurse until it finds anything _but_ the phi.
The function will even fail for simple cases like:
%i = phi i32 [ %inc, %loop ], ...
...
%inc = add i32 %i, 1
because the base condition will not happen when the phi
is recursed to, and the recursion will end with a 'false'
result since the previous instruction is a phi.
Reviewers: sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, bjope, llvm-commits
Committing on behalf of: Bevin Hansson (bevinh)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40946
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@320700 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Turns out we can have comparisons which are indirect users of the induction variable that we can make invariant. In this case, there is no loop invariant value contributing and we'd fail an assert.
The test case was found by a java fuzzer and reduced. It's a real cornercase. You have to have a static loop which we've already proven only executes once, but haven't broken the backedge on, and an inner phi whose result can be constant folded by SCEV using exit count reasoning but not proven by isKnownPredicate. To my knowledge, only the fuzzer has hit this case.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@319583 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As noted in the nice block comment, the previous code didn't actually handle multi-entry loops correctly, it just assumed SCEV didn't analyze such loops. Given SCEV has comments to the contrary, that seems a bit suspect. More importantly, the pass actually requires loopsimplify form which ensures a loop-preheader is available. Remove the excessive generaility and shorten the code greatly.
Note that we do successfully analyze many multi-entry loops, but we do so by converting them to single entry loops. See the added test case.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@316976 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The type of a SCEVConstant may not match the corresponding LLVM Value.
In this case, we skip the constant folding for now.
TODO: Replace ConstantInt Zero by ConstantPointerNull
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@314531 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch tries to transform cases like:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = (i & 0x1) == 0;
bool c1 = ((i + 1) & 0x1) == 1;
}
To
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) {
bool c0 = true;
bool c1 = true;
}
This commit also update test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/replace-srem-by-urem.ll to prevent constant folding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38272
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@314266 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If SCEV can prove that the backedge taken count for a loop is zero, it does not
need to "understand" a recursive PHI to compute its exiting value.
This should fix PR33885.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@309758 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The patch was reverted due to a bug. The bug was that if the IV is the 2nd operand of the icmp
instruction, then the "Pred" variable gets swapped and differs from the instruction's predicate.
In this patch we use the original predicate to do the transformation.
Also added a test case that exercises this situation.
Differentian Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35107
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@307477 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It appears that the problem is still there. Needs more analysis to understand why
SaturatedMultiply test fails.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@307249 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It seems that the patch was reverted by mistake. Clang testing showed failure of the
MathExtras.SaturatingMultiply test, however I was unable to reproduce the issue on the
fresh code base and was able to confirm that the transformation introduced by the change
does not happen in the said test. This gives a strong confidence that the actual reason of
the failure of the initial patch was somewhere else, and that problem now seems to be
fixed. Re-submitting the change to confirm that.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@307244 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This adds exact flags to AShr/LShr flags where we can statically
prove it is valid using the range of induction variables. This
allows further optimisations to remove extra loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34207
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@307157 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
-If there is a IndVar which is known to be non-negative, and there is a value which is also non-negative,
then signed and unsigned comparisons between them produce the same result. Both of those can be
seen in the same loop. To allow other optimizations to simplify them, we turn all instructions like
%c = icmp slt i32 %iv, %b
to
%c = icmp ult i32 %iv, %b
if both %iv and %b are known to be non-negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34979
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@307126 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
MulOpsInlineThreshold option of SCEV is defaulted to 1000, which is inadequately high.
When constructing SCEVs of expressions like:
x1 = a * a
x2 = x1 * x1
x3 = x2 * x2
...
We actually have huge SCEVs with max allowed amount of operands inlined.
Such expressions are easy to get from unrolling of loops looking like
x = a
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
x = x * x
Or more tricky cases where big powers are involved. If some non-linear analysis
tries to work with a SCEV that has 1000 operands, it may lead to excessively long
compilation. The attached test does not pass within 1 minute with default threshold.
This patch decreases its default value to 32, which looks much more reasonable if we
use analyzes with complexity O(N^2) or O(N^3) working with SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34397
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@305882 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This change adds an option disable-lftr to be able to disable Linear Function Test Replace optimization.
By default option is off so current behavior is not changed.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, wmi, andreadb, apilipenko
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33979
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@305055 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/2011-10-27-lftrnull will fail if this regresses.
Transforms/GVN/PRE/2011-06-01-NonLocalMemdepMiscompile.ll has been changed to still test what it was
trying to test.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@302446 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Currently the default C calling convention functions are treated
the same as compute kernels. Make this explicit so the default
calling convention can be changed to a non-kernel.
Converted with perl -pi -e 's/define void/define amdgpu_kernel void/'
on the relevant test directories (and undoing in one place that actually
wanted a non-kernel).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@298444 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Previously we used to return a bogus result, 0, for IR like `ashr %val,
-1`.
I've also added an assert checking that `ComputeNumSignBits` at least
returns 1. That assert found an already checked in test case where we
were returning a bad result for `ashr %val, -1`.
Fixes PR32045.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel, majnemer
Subscribers: efriedma, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30311
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@286987 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@284629 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
