Determining the bounds of x/ -1 would start off with us dividing it by
INT_MIN. Suffice to say, this would not work very well.
Instead, handle it upfront by checking for -1 and mapping it to the
range: [INT_MIN + 1, INT_MAX. This means that the result of our
division can be any value other than INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 212981
Summary:
When calculating the upper bound of X / -8589934592, we would perform
the following calculation: Floor[INT_MAX / 8589934592]
However, flooring the result would make us wrongly come to the
conclusion that 1073741824 was not in the set of possible values.
Instead, use the ceiling of the result.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4502
llvm-svn: 212976
When INT_MIN is the numerator in a sdiv, we would not properly handle
overflow when calculating the bounds of possible values; abs(INT_MIN) is
not a meaningful number.
Instead, check and handle INT_MIN by reasoning that the largest value is
INT_MIN/-2 and the smallest value is INT_MIN.
This fixes PR20199.
llvm-svn: 212307
Summary:
Analyze the range of values produced by ashr/lshr cst, %V when it is
being used in an icmp.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3774
llvm-svn: 209000
Summary:
The dividend in an sdiv tells us the largest and smallest possible
results. Use this fact to optimize comparisons against an sdiv with a
constant dividend.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3795
llvm-svn: 208999
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
This is safe per C++11 18.6.1.1p3: [operator new returns] a non-null pointer to
suitably aligned storage (3.7.4), or else throw a bad_alloc exception. This
requirement is binding on a replacement version of this function.
Brings us a tiny bit closer to eliminating more vector push_backs.
llvm-svn: 191310
Overflow doesn't affect the correctness of equalities. Computing this is cheap,
we just reuse the computation for the inbounds case and try to peel of more
non-inbounds GEPs. This pattern is unlikely to ever appear in code generated by
Clang, but SCEV occasionally produces it.
llvm-svn: 191200
All libm floating-point rounding functions, except for round(), had their own
ISD nodes. Recent PowerPC cores have an instruction for round(), and so here I'm
adding ISD::FROUND so that round() can be custom lowered as well.
For the most part, this is straightforward. I've added an intrinsic
and a matching ISD node just like those for nearbyint() and friends. The
SelectionDAG pattern I've named frnd (because ISD::FP_ROUND has already claimed
fround).
This will be used by the PowerPC backend in a follow-up commit.
llvm-svn: 187926
Prepare it for vectors of pointers and handle simple cases. We don't handle
complicated cases because accumulateConstantOffset bails on pointer vectors.
Fixes selfhost on i386.
llvm-svn: 174179
remaining use of AliasAnalysis concepts such as isIdentifiedObject to
prove pointer inequality.
@external_compare in test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll shows a simple
case where a noalias argument can be equal to a global variable address, and
while AliasAnalysis can get away with saying that these pointers don't alias,
instsimplify cannot say that they are not equal.
llvm-svn: 174122
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
constant folding calls. Add the initial tests for this which show that
now instsimplify can simplify blindingly obvious code patterns expressed
with both intrinsics and library calls.
llvm-svn: 171194
are nice and decomposed so that we can simplify synthesized calls as
easily as actually call instructions. The internal utility still has the
same behavior, it just now operates on a more generic interface so that
I can extend the set of call simplifications that instsimplify knows
about.
llvm-svn: 171189
In a previous thread it was pointed out that isPowerOfTwo is not a very precise
name since it can return false for powers of two if it is unable to show that
they are powers of two.
llvm-svn: 170093
been used in the first place. It simply was passed to the function and to the
recursive invocations. Simply drop the parameter and update the callers for the
new signature.
Patch by Saleem Abdulrasool!
llvm-svn: 169988
fsub X, +0 ==> X
fsub X, -0 ==> X, when we know X is not -0
fsub +/-0.0, (fsub -0.0, X) ==> X
fsub nsz +/-0.0, (fsub +/-0.0, X) ==> X
fsub nnan ninf X, X ==> 0.0
fadd nsz X, 0 ==> X
fadd [nnan ninf] X, (fsub [nnan ninf] 0, X) ==> 0
where nnan and ninf have to occur at least once somewhere in this expression
fmul X, 1.0 ==> X
llvm-svn: 169940
instead of the instruction. I've left a forwarding wrapper for the
instruction so users with the instruction don't need to create
a GEPOperator themselves.
This lets us remove the copy of this code in instsimplify.
I've looked at most of the other copies of similar code, and this is the
only one I've found that is actually exactly the same. The one in
InlineCost is very close, but it requires re-mapping non-constant
indices through the cost analysis value simplification map. I could add
direct support for this to the generic routine, but it seems overly
specific.
llvm-svn: 169853
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
Added in first optimization using fast-math flags to serve as an example for following optimizations. SimplifyInstruction will now try to optimize an fmul observing its FastMathFlags to see if it can fold multiply by zero when 'nnan' and 'nsz' flags are set.
llvm-svn: 168648
