Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
In rL300494 there was an attempt to deal with excessive compile time on
invocations of getSign/ZeroExtExpr using local caching. This approach only
helps if we request the same SCEV multiple times throughout recursion. But
in the bug PR33431 we see a case where we request different values all the time,
so caching does not help and the size of the cache grows enormously.
In this patch we remove the local cache for this methods and add the recursion
depth limit instead, as we do for arithmetics. This gives us a guarantee that the
invocation sequence is limited and reasonably short.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34273
llvm-svn: 306785
In LLVM IR the following code:
%r = urem <ty> %t, %b
is equivalent to:
%q = udiv <ty> %t, %b
%s = mul <ty> nuw %q, %b
%r = sub <ty> nuw %t, %q ; (t / b) * b + (t % b) = t
As UDiv, Mul and Sub are already supported by SCEV, URem can be
implemented with minimal effort this way.
Note: While SRem and SDiv are also related this way, SCEV does not
provides SDiv yet.
llvm-svn: 306695
Summary:
This patch changes getRange to getRangeRef and returns a reference to the ConstantRange object stored inside the DenseMap caches. We then take advantage of that to add new helper methods that can return min/max value of a signed or unsigned ConstantRange using that reference without first copying the ConstantRange.
getRangeRef calls itself recursively and I believe the reference return is fine for those calls.
I've left getSignedRange and getUnsignedRange returning a ConstantRange object so they will make a copy now. This is to ensure safety since the reference will be invalidated if the DenseMap changes.
I'm sure there are still more places that can take advantage of the reference and I'll submit future patches as I find them.
Reviewers: sanjoy, davide
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32978
llvm-svn: 306229
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
llvm-svn: 305882
The description of this option was copy-pasted from another one and does not
correspond to reality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34390
llvm-svn: 305782
This is a fix for PR33292 that shows a case of extremely long compilation
of a single .c file with clang, with most time spent within SCEV.
We have a mechanism of limiting recursion depth for getAddExpr to avoid
long analysis in SCEV. However, there are calls from getAddExpr to getMulExpr
and back that do not propagate the info about depth. As result of this, a chain
getAddExpr -> ... .> getAddExpr -> getMulExpr -> getAddExpr -> ... -> getAddExpr
can be extremely long, with every segment of getAddExpr's being up to max depth long.
This leads either to long compilation or crash by stack overflow. We face this situation while
analyzing big SCEVs in the test of PR33292.
This patch applies the same limit on max expression depth for getAddExpr and getMulExpr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33984
llvm-svn: 305463
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
Params DT and LI are redundant, because these values are contained in fields anyways.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33668
llvm-svn: 304204
The optimistic delinearization implemented in LLVM detects array sizes by
looking for non-linear products between parameters and induction variables.
In OpenCL code, such products often look like:
A[get_global_id(0) * N + get_global_id(1)]
Hence, the IV is hidden in the get_global_id() call and consequently
delinearization would fail as no induction variable is available that helps
us to identify N as array size parameter.
We now use a very simple heuristic to change this. We assume that each parameter
that comes directly from a function call is a hidden induction variable. As
a result, we can delinearize the access above to:
A[get_global_id(0)][get_global_id(1]
llvm-svn: 304073
The patch rL303730 was reverted because test lsr-expand-quadratic.ll failed on
many non-X86 configs with this patch. The reason of this is that the patch
makes a correctless fix that changes optimizer's behavior for this test.
Without the change, LSR was making an overconfident simplification basing on a
wrong SCEV. Apparently it did not need the IV analysis to do this. With the
change, it chose a different way to simplify (that wasn't so confident), and
this way required the IV analysis. Now, following the right execution path,
LSR tries to make a transformation relying on IV Users analysis. This analysis
is target-dependent due to this code:
// LSR is not APInt clean, do not touch integers bigger than 64-bits.
// Also avoid creating IVs of non-native types. For example, we don't want a
// 64-bit IV in 32-bit code just because the loop has one 64-bit cast.
uint64_t Width = SE->getTypeSizeInBits(I->getType());
if (Width > 64 || !DL.isLegalInteger(Width))
return false;
To make a proper transformation in this test case, the type i32 needs to be
legal for the specified data layout. When the test runs on some non-X86
configuration (e.g. pure ARM 64), opt gets confused by the specified target
and does not use it, rejecting the specified data layout as well. Instead,
it uses some default layout that does not treat i32 as a legal type
(currently the layout that is used when it is not specified does not have
legal types at all). As result, the transformation we expect to happen does
not happen for this test.
This re-enabling patch does not have any source code changes compared to the
original patch rL303730. The only difference is that the failing test is
moved to X86 directory and now has requirement of running on x86 only to comply
with the specified target triple and data layout.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33543
llvm-svn: 303971
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
When folding arguments of AddExpr or MulExpr with recurrences, we rely on the fact that
the loop of our base recurrency is the bottom-lost in terms of domination. This assumption
may be broken by an expression which is treated as invariant, and which depends on a complex
Phi for which SCEVUnknown was created. If such Phi is a loop Phi, and this loop is lower than
the chosen AddRecExpr's loop, it is invalid to fold our expression with the recurrence.
Another reason why it might be invalid to fold SCEVUnknown into Phi start value is that unlike
other SCEVs, SCEVUnknown are sometimes position-bound. For example, here:
for (...) { // loop
phi = {A,+,B}
}
X = load ...
Folding phi + X into {A+X,+,B}<loop> actually makes no sense, because X does not exist and cannot
exist while we are iterating in loop (this memory can be even not allocated and not filled by this moment).
It is only valid to make such folding if X is defined before the loop. In this case the recurrence {A+X,+,B}<loop>
may be existant.
This patch prohibits folding of SCEVUnknown (and those who use them) into the start value of an AddRecExpr,
if this instruction is dominated by the loop. Merging the dominating unknown values is still valid. Some tests that
relied on the fact that some SCEVUnknown should be folded into AddRec's are changed so that they no longer
expect such behavior.
llvm-svn: 303730
This is a re-application of a r303497 that was reverted in r303498.
I thought it had broken a bot when it had not (the breakage did not
go away with the revert).
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303531
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303497
Replace two places that duplicate the code of isLoopInvariant method with
the invocation of this method.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33313
llvm-svn: 303336
Sorting of AddRecExprs by loop nesting does not make sense since we only invoke
the CompareSCEVComplexity for AddRecExprs that are used by one SCEV. This
guarantees that there is always a dominance relationship between them. This
patch removes the sorting by nesting which is a dead code in current usage of
this function.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33228
llvm-svn: 303235
The existing sorting order in defined CompareSCEVComplexity sorts AddRecExprs
by loop depth, but does not pay attention to dominance of loops. This can
lead us to the following buggy situation:
for (...) { // loop1
op1 = {A,+,B}
}
for (...) { // loop2
op2 = {A,+,B}
S = add op1, op2
}
In this case there is no guarantee that in operand list of S the op2 comes
before op1 (loop depth is the same, so they will be sorted just
lexicographically), so we can incorrectly treat S as a recurrence of loop1,
which is wrong.
This patch changes the sorting logic so that it places the dominated recs
before the dominating recs. This ensures that when we pick the first recurrency
in the operands order, it will be the bottom-most in terms of domination tree.
The attached test set includes some tests that produce incorrect SCEV
estimations and crashes with oldlogic.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33121
llvm-svn: 303148
This patch adds min/max population count, leading/trailing zero/one bit counting methods.
The min methods return answers based on bits that are known without considering unknown bits. The max methods give answers taking into account the largest count that unknown bits could give.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32931
llvm-svn: 302925
Summary: This makes setRange take ConstantRange by rvalue reference since most callers were passing an unnamed temporary ConstantRange. We can then move that ConstantRange into the DenseMap caches. For the callers that weren't passing a temporary, I've added std::move to to the local variable being passed.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, efriedma
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: takuto.ikuta, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32943
llvm-svn: 302371
This changes one parameter to be a const APInt& since we only read from it. Use std::move on local APInts once they are no longer needed so we can reuse their allocations. Lastly, use operator+=(uint64_t) instead of adding 1 to an APInt twice creating a new APInt each time.
llvm-svn: 302335
Summary:
The existing implementation creates a symbolic SCEV expression every
time we analyze a phi node and then has to remove it, when the analysis
is finished. This is very expensive, and in most of the cases it's also
unnecessary. According to the data I collected, ~60-70% of analyzed phi
nodes (measured on SPEC) have the following form:
PN = phi(Start, OP(Self, Constant))
Handling such cases separately significantly speeds this up.
Reviewers: sanjoy, pete
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32663
llvm-svn: 302096
Summary:
programUndefinedIfPoison makes more sense, given what the function
does; and I'm about to add a function with a name similar to
isKnownNotFullPoison (so do the rename to avoid confusion).
Reviewers: broune, majnemer, bjarke.roune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30444
llvm-svn: 301776
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
