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
This change needs to be reverted in order to revert -r278267 which cause performance regression on MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt from LNT and some other bechmarks.
See comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D18777 for details.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@279432 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
`IVVisitor::visitCast` used to have the invariant that if the
instruction it was passed was a sext or zext instruction, the result of
the instruction would be wider than the induction variable. This is no
longer true after rL275037, so this change teaches `IndVarSimplify` s
implementation of `IVVisitor::visitCast` to work with the relaxed
invariant.
A corresponding change to SimplifyIndVar to preserve the said invariant
after rL275037 would also work, but given how `IVVisitor::visitCast` is
spelled (no indication of said invariant), I figured the current fix is
cleaner.
Fixes PR28935.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@278584 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
This commit contains changes in a newly added testcase which was not included in the previous commit (which was reverted later on).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@278421 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When legal, extending trip count in the loop control logic generates better code compared to truncating IV. This is because
(1) extending trip count is a loop invariant operation (see genLoopLimit where we prove trip count is loop invariant).
(2) Scalar Evolution seems to have problems understanding trunc when computing loop trip count. So removing them allows better analysis performed in Scalar Evolution. (In particular this fixes PR 28363 which is the motivation for this change).
I am not going to perform any performance test. Any degradation caused by this should be an indication of a bug elsewhere.
To prove legality, we rely on SCEV to prove zext(trunc(IV)) == IV (or similarly for sext). If this holds, we can prove equivalence of trunc(IV)==ExitCnt (1) and IV == zext(ExitCnt). Simply take zext of boths sides of (1) and apply the proven equivalence.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23075
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@278334 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Some of these tests need to be cleaned up further to make it obvious
what they're testing, but as a first step remove all instances of
"grep".
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@277648 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
There are some rough corners, since the new pass manager doesn't have
(as far as I can tell) LoopSimplify and LCSSA, so I've updated the
tests to run them separately in the old pass manager in the lit tests.
We also don't have an equivalent for AU.setPreservesCFG() in the new
pass manager, so I've left a FIXME.
Reviewers: bogner, chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20783
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@271846 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
If we can prove that an op.with.overflow intrinsic does not overflow, we
can get rid of the intrinsic, and replace it with non-wrapping
arithmetic.
This was first checked in at r265913 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: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18685
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@271153 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@271151 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
See PR27315
r265913: "[IndVars] Eliminate op.with.overflow when possible"
r265912: "[SCEV] See through op.with.overflow intrinsics"
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@265950 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
If we can prove that an op.with.overflow intrinsic does not overflow, we
can get rid of the intrinsic, and replace it with non-wrapping
arithmetic.
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18685
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@265913 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Widening a PHI requires us to insert a trunc.
The logical place for this trunc is in the same BB as the PHI.
This is not possible if the BB is terminated by a catchswitch.
This fixes PR27133.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@264926 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
replaceCongruentIVs can break LCSSA when trying to replace IV increments
since it tries to replace all uses of a phi node with another phi node
while both of the phi nodes are not necessarily in the processed loop.
This will cause an assert in IndVars.
To fix this, we add a check to make sure that the replacement maintains
LCSSA.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18266
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263941 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The loop on IVOperand's incoming values assumes IVOperand to be an
induction variable on the loop over which `S Pred X` is invariant;
otherwise loop invariant incoming values to IVOperand are not guaranteed
to dominate the comparision.
This fixes PR26973.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263827 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@259736 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@259662 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This is a revised version of D13974, and the following quoted summary are from D13974
"This patch adds support to check if a loop has loop invariant conditions which lead to loop exits. If so, we know that if the exit path is taken, it is at the first loop iteration. If there is an induction variable used in that exit path whose value has not been updated, it will keep its initial value passing from loop preheader. We can therefore rewrite the exit value with
its initial value. This will help remove phis created by LCSSA and enable other optimizations like loop unswitch."
D13974 was committed but failed one lnt test. The bug was that we only checked the condition from loop exit's incoming block was a loop invariant. But there could be another condition from loop header to that incoming block not being a loop invariant. This would produce miscompiled code.
This patch fixes the issue by checking if the incoming block is loop header, and if not, don't perform the rewrite. The could be further improved by recursively checking all conditions leading to loop exit block, but I'd like to check in this simple version first and improve it with future patches.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16570
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@258912 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@258184 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Also add a stricter post-condition for IndVarSimplify.
Fixes PR25578. Test case by Michael Zolotukhin.
Reviewers: hfinkel, atrick, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15059
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@254977 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
(Note: the problematic invocation of hoistIVInc that caused PR24804 came
from IndVarSimplify, not from SCEVExpander itself)
Fixes PR24804. Test case by David Majnemer.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, atrick, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15058
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@254976 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@253627 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@252236 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Since now Scalar Evolution can create non-add rec expressions for PHI
nodes, it can also create SCEVConstant expressions. This will confuse
replaceCongruentPHIs, which previously relied on the fact that SCEV
could not produce constants in this case.
We will now replace the node with a constant in these cases - or avoid
processing the Phi in case of a type mismatch.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14230
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@251938 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
