In the patch rL329547, we have lifted the over-restrictive limitation on collected range
checks, allowing to work with range checks with the end of their range not being
provably non-negative. However it appeared that the non-negativity of this value was
assumed in the utility function `ClampedSubtract`. In particular, its reasoning is based
on the fact that `0 <= SINT_MAX - X`, which is not true if `X` is negative.
The function `ClampedSubtract` is only called twice, once with `X = 0` (which is OK)
and the second time with `X = IRC.getEnd()`, where we may now see the problem if
the end is actually a negative value. In this case, we may sometimes miscompile.
This patch is the conservative fix of the miscompile problem. Rather than rejecting
non-provably non-negative `getEnd()` values, we will check it for non-negativity in
runtime. For this, we use function `smax(smin(X, 0), -1) + 1` that is equal to `1` if `X`
is non-negative and is equal to 0 if `X` is negative. If we multiply `Begin, End` of safe
iteration space by this function calculated for `X = IRC.getEnd()`, we will get the original
`[Begin, End)` if `IRC.getEnd()` was non-negative (and, thus, `ClampedSubtract` worked
correctly) and the empty range `[0, 0)` in case if ` IRC.getEnd()` was negative.
So we in fact prohibit execution of the main loop if at least one of range checks was
made against a negative value (and we figured it out in runtime). It is still better than
what we have before (non-negativity had to be proved in compile time) and prevents
us from miscompile, however it is sometiles too restrictive for unsigned range checks
against a negative value (which in fact can be eliminated).
Once we re-implement `ClampedSubtract` in a way that it handles negative `X` correctly,
this limitation can be lifted, too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46860
Reviewed By: samparker
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@332809 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@332240 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
After investigation discussed in D45439, it would seem that the nsw
flag restriction is unnecessary in most cases. So the IsInductionVar
lambda has been removed, the functionality extracted, and now only
require nsw when using eq/ne predicates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45617
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@330256 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In IRCE, we have a very old legacy check that works when we collect comparisons that we
treat as range checks. It ensures that the value against which the indvar is compared is
loop invariant and is also positive.
This latter condition remained there since the times when IRCE was only able to handle
signed latch comparison. As the optimization evolved, it now learned how to intersect
signed or unsigned ranges, and this logic has no reliance on the fact that the right border
of each range should be positive.
The old implementation of this non-negativity check was also naive enough and just looked
into ranges (while most of other IRCE logic tries to use power of SCEV implications), so this
check did not allow to deal with the most simple case that looks like follows:
int size; // not known non-negative
int length; //known non-negative;
i = 0;
if (size != 0) {
do {
range_check(i < size);
range_check(i < length);
++i;
} while (i < size)
}
In this case, even if from some dominating conditions IRCE could parse loop
structure, it could only remove the range check against `length` and simply
ignored the check against `size`.
In this patch we remove this obsolete check. It will allow IRCE to pick comparison
against `size` as a potential range check and then let Range Intersection logic
decide whether it is OK to eliminate it or not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45362
Reviewed By: samparker
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@329547 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As a follow-up to r328480, this updates the logic for the decreasing
safety checks in a similar manner:
- CanBeMax is replaced by CannotBeMaxInLoop which queries
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond on the maximum value.
- SumCanReachMin is replaced by isSafeDecreasingBound which includes
some logic from parseLoopStructure and, again, has been updated to
use isLoopEntryGuardedByCond on the given bounds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44776
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@328613 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
CanBeMin is currently used which will report true for any unknown
values, but often a check is performed outside the loop which covers
this situation:
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
...
if (N > 0)
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
...
So I've add 'LoopGuardedAgainstMin' which reports whether N is
greater than the minimum value which then allows loop with a variable
loop count to be optimised. I've also moved the increasing bound
checking into its own function and replaced SumCanReachMax is another
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond function.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@328480 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@327619 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
This patch removes assert that SCEV is able to prove that a value is
non-negative. In fact, SCEV can sometimes be unable to do this because
its cache does not update properly. This assert will be returned once this
problem is resolved.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@323309 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
Currently, IRC contains `Begin` and `Step` as SCEVs and `End` as value.
Aside from that, `End` can also be `nullptr` which can be later conditionally
converted into a non-null SCEV.
To make this logic more transparent, this patch makes `End` a SCEV and
calculates it early, so that it is never a null.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39590
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@322364 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In rL316552, we ban intersection of unsigned latch range with signed range check and vice
versa, unless the entire range check iteration space is known positive. It was a correct
functional fix that saved us from dealing with ambiguous values, but it also appeared
to be a very restrictive limitation. In particular, in the following case:
loop:
%iv = phi i32 [ 0, %preheader ], [ %iv.next, %latch]
%iv.offset = add i32 %iv, 10
%rc = icmp slt i32 %iv.offset, %len
br i1 %rc, label %latch, label %deopt
latch:
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 11
%cond = icmp i32 ult %iv.next, 100
br it %cond, label %loop, label %exit
Here, the unsigned iteration range is `[0, 100)`, and the safe range for range
check is `[-10, %len - 10)`. For unsigned iteration spaces, we use unsigned
min/max functions for range intersection. Given this, we wanted to avoid dealing
with `-10` because it is interpreted as a very big unsigned value. Semantically, range
check's safe range goes through unsigned border, so in fact it is two disjoint
ranges in IV's iteration space. Intersection of such ranges is not trivial, so we prohibited
this case saying that we are not allowed to intersect such ranges.
What semantics of this safe range actually means is that we can start from `-10` and go
up increasing the `%iv` by one until we reach `%len - 10` (for simplicity let's assume that
`%len - 10` is a reasonably big positive value).
In particular, this safe iteration space includes `0, 1, 2, ..., %len - 11`. So if we were able to return
safe iteration space `[0, %len - 10)`, we could safely intersect it with IV's iteration space. All
values in this range are non-negative, so using signed/unsigned min/max for them is unambiguous.
In this patch, we alter the algorithm of safe range calculation so that it returnes a subset of the
original safe space which is represented by one continuous range that does not go through wrap.
In order to reach this, we use modified SCEV substraction function. It can be imagined as a function
that substracts by `1` (or `-1`) as long as the further substraction does not cause a wrap in IV iteration
space. This allows us to perform IRCE in many situations when we deal with IV space and range check
of different types (in terms of signed/unsigned).
We apply this approach for both matching and not matching types of IV iteration space and the
range check. One implication of this is that now IRCE became smarter in detection of empty safe
ranges. For example, in this case:
loop:
%iv = phi i32 [ %begin, %preheader ], [ %iv.next, %latch]
%iv.offset = sub i32 %iv, 10
%rc = icmp ult i32 %iv.offset, %len
br i1 %rc, label %latch, label %deopt
latch:
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 11
%cond = icmp i32 ult %iv.next, 100
br it %cond, label %loop, label %exit
If `%len` was less than 10 but SCEV failed to trivially prove that `%begin - 10 >u %len- 10`,
we could end up executing entire loop in safe preloop while the main loop was still generated,
but never executed. Now, cutting the ranges so that if both `begin - 10` and `%len - 10` overflow,
we have a trivially empty range of `[0, 0)`. This in some cases prevents us from meaningless optimization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39954
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@318639 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The logic of replacing of a couple `RANGE_CHECK_LOWER + RANGE_CHECK_UPPER`
into `RANGE_CHECK_BOTH` in fact duplicates the logic of range intersection which
happens when we calculate safe iteration space. Effectively, the result of intersection of
these ranges doesn't differ from the range of merged range check.
We chose to remove duplicating logic in favor of code simplicity.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39589
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@318508 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When expanding exit conditions for pre- and postloops, we may end up expanding a
recurrency from the loop to in its loop's preheader. This produces incorrect IR.
This patch ensures that IRCE uses SCEVExpander correctly and only expands code which
is safe to expand in this particular location.
Differentian Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39234
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@318381 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch reverts rL311205 that was initially a wrong fix. The real problem
was in intersection of signed and unsigned ranges (see rL316552), and the
patch being reverted masked the problem instead of fixing it.
By now, the test against which rL311205 was made works OK even without this
code. This revert patch also contains a test case that demonstrates incorrect
behavior caused by rL311205: it is caused by incorrect choise of signed max
instead of unsigned.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@317088 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
IRCE for unsigned latch conditions was temporarily disabled by rL314881. The motivating
example contained an unsigned latch condition and a signed range check. One of the safe
iteration ranges was `[1, SINT_MAX + 1]`. Its right border was incorrectly interpreted as a negative
value in `IntersectRange` function, this lead to a miscompile under which we deleted a range check
without inserting a postloop where it was needed.
This patch brings back IRCE for unsigned latch conditions. Now we treat range intersection more
carefully. If the latch condition was unsigned, we only try to consider a range check for deletion if:
1. The range check is also unsigned, or
2. Safe iteration range of the range check lies within `[0, SINT_MAX]`.
The same is done for signed latch.
Values from `[0, SINT_MAX]` are unambiguous, these values are non-negative under any interpretation,
and all values of a range intersected with such range are also non-negative.
We also use signed/unsigned min/max functions for range intersection depending on type of the
latch condition.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38581
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@316552 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
For a SCEV range, this patch replaces the naive emptiness check for SCEV ranges
which looks like `Begin == End` with a SCEV check. The range is guaranteed to be
empty of `Begin >= End`. We should filter such ranges out and do not try to perform
IRCE for them.
For example, we can get such range when intersecting range `[A, B)` and `[C, D)`
where `A < B < C < D`. The resulting range is `[max(A, C), min(B, D)) = [C, B)`.
This range is empty, but its `Begin` does not match with `End`.
Making IRCE for an empty range is basically safe but unprofitable because we
never actually get into the main loop where the range checks are supposed to
be eliminated. This patch uses SCEV mechanisms to treat loops with proved
`Begin >= End` as empty.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39082
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@316550 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
IRCE should not apply when the safe iteration range is proved to be empty.
In this case we do unneeded job creating pre/post loops and then never
go to the main loop.
This patch makes IRCE not apply to empty safe ranges, adds test for this
situation and also modifies one of existing tests where it used to happen
slightly.
Reviewed By: anna
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38577
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@315437 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We have found some corner cases connected to range intersection where IRCE makes
a bad thing when the latch condition is unsigned. The fix for that will go as a follow up.
This patch temporarily disables IRCE for unsigned latch conditions until the issue is fixed.
The unsigned latch conditions were introduced to IRCE by rL310027.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38529
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@314881 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
And now that we no longer have to explicitly free() the Loop instances, we can
(with more ease) use the destructor of LoopBase to do what LoopBase::clear() was
doing.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38201
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@314375 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Revert the patch causing the functional failures.
The patch owner is notified with test cases which fail.
Test case has been provided to Maxim offline.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@313857 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Current implementation of parseLoopStructure interprets the latch comparison as a
comarison against `iv.next`. If the actual comparison is made against the `iv` current value
then the loop may be rejected, because this misinterpretation leads to incorrect evaluation
of the latch start value.
This patch teaches the IRCE to distinguish this kind of loops and perform the optimization
for them. Now we use `IndVarBase` variable which can be either next or current value of the
induction variable (previously we used `IndVarNext` which was always the value on next iteration).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36215
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@312221 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Clamp function was too optimistic when choosing signed or unsigned min/max function for calculations.
In fact, `!IsSignedPredicate` guarantees us that `Smallest` and `Greatest` can be compared safely using unsigned
predicates, but we did not check this for `S` which can in theory be negative.
This patch makes Clamp use signed min/max for cases when it fails to prove `S` being non-negative,
and it adds a test where such situation may lead to incorrect conditions calculation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36873
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@311205 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
One more assertion of this kind. It is a preparation step for generalizing
to the case of stride not equal to +1/-1.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@309663 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We should never return zero steps, ensure this fact by adding
a sanity check when we are analyzing the induction variable.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@309661 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When iterating through loop
for (int i = INT_MAX; i > 0; i--)
We fail to generate the pre-loop for it. It happens because we use the
overflown value in a comparison predicate when identifying whether or not
we need it.
In old logic, we used SLE predicate against Greatest value which exceeds all
seen values of the IV and might be overflown. Now we use the GreatestSeen
value of this IV with SLT predicate.
Also added a test that ensures that a pre-loop is generated for such loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35347
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@308001 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
We were canonizalizing the pre loop (into loop-simplify form) before
the post loop blocks were added into parent loop. This is incorrect when IRCE is
done on a subloop. The post-loop blocks are created, but not yet added to the
parent loop. So, loop-simplification on the pre-loop incorrectly updates
LoopInfo.
This patch corrects the ordering so that pre and post loop blocks are added to
parent loop (if any), and then the loops are canonicalized to LCSSA and
LoopSimplifyForm.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, apilipenko
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33846
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@304800 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@304787 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
