Chandler Carruth 4a89b23644 [PM] Fix a silly bug in my recent update to the CG update logic.
I used the wrong variable to update. This was even covered by a unittest
I wrote, and the comments for the unittest were correct (if confusing)
but the test itself just matched the buggy behavior. =[

llvm-svn: 307764
2017-07-12 09:08:11 +00:00
..
2016-08-25 01:29:55 +00:00
2017-07-11 02:31:54 +00:00
2017-07-09 05:54:44 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2017-06-28 21:10:31 +00:00
2017-02-14 17:21:12 +00:00
2017-07-09 05:54:44 +00:00

Analysis Opportunities:

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:

  {1,+,3,+,2}<loop>

Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as

  (-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))

In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,

ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:

((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))

This could be folded to

(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//