The patch introduces the new function in ScalarEvolution to get
all loops used in specified SCEV.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43504
llvm-svn: 326072
The patch introduces the SCEVPostIncRewriter rewriter which
is similar to SCEVInitRewriter but rewrites AddRec with post increment
value of this AddRec.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43499
llvm-svn: 326071
The patch introduces an additional parameter IgnoreOtherLoops to SCEVInitRewriter.
if it is equal to true then rewriter will not invalidate result in case
SCEV depends on other loops then specified during creation.
The patch does not change the default behavior.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43498
llvm-svn: 326067
SCEV has multiple occurences of code when we need to prove some predicate on
every iteration of a loop and do it with invocations of couple `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond`,
`isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond`. This patch factors out these two calls into a separate
method. It is a preparation step to extend this logic: it is not the only way how we can prove
such conditions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43373
llvm-svn: 325745
of turning SCEVUnknowns of PHIs into AddRecExprs.
This feature is now hidden behind the -scev-version-unknown flag.
Fixes PR36032 and PR35432.
llvm-svn: 325687
There is a more powerful but still simple function `isKnownViaSimpleReasoning ` that
does constant range check and few more additional checks. We use it some places (e.g.
when proving implications) and in some other places we only check constant ranges.
Currently, indvar simplifier fails to remove the check in following loop:
int inc = ...;
for (int i = inc, j = inc - 1; i < 200; ++i, ++j)
if (i > j) { ... }
This patch replaces all usages of `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges` with
`isKnownViaSimpleReasoning` to have smarter proofs. In particular, it fixes the
case above.
Reviewed-By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43175
llvm-svn: 325214
Making a width of GEP Index, which is used for address calculation, to be one of the pointer properties in the Data Layout.
p[address space]:size:memory_size:alignment:pref_alignment:index_size_in_bits.
The index size parameter is optional, if not specified, it is equal to the pointer size.
Till now, the InstCombiner normalized GEPs and extended the Index operand to the pointer width.
It works fine if you can convert pointer to integer for address calculation and all registered targets do this.
But some ISAs have very restricted instruction set for the pointer calculation. During discussions were desided to retrieve information for GEP index from the Data Layout.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120416.html
I added an interface to the Data Layout and I changed the InstCombiner and some other passes to take the Index width into account.
This change does not affect any in-tree target. I added tests to cover data layouts with explicitly specified index size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42123
llvm-svn: 325102
The current implementation of `getPostIncExpr` invokes `getAddExpr` for two recurrencies
and expects that it always returns it a recurrency. But this is not guaranteed to happen if we
have reached max recursion depth or refused to make SCEV simplification for other reasons.
This patch changes its implementation so that now it always returns SCEVAddRec without
relying on `getAddExpr`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42953
llvm-svn: 324866
The failures happened because of assert which was overconfident about
SCEV's proving capabilities and is generally not valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324473
Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly.
But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is
known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts
together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835
llvm-svn: 324453
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
llvm-svn: 324204
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
llvm-svn: 323077
SCEV tracks the correspondence of created SCEV to original instruction.
However during creation of SCEV it is possible that nuw/nsw/exact flags are
lost.
As a result during expansion of the SCEV the instruction with nuw/nsw/exact
will be used where it was expected and we produce poison incorreclty.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop, jbhateja
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41578
llvm-svn: 322058
This is fix for the crash caused by ScalarEvolution::getTruncateExpr.
It expects that if it checked the condition that SCEV is not in UniqueSCEVs cache in
the beginning that it will not be there inside this method.
However during recursion and transformation/simplification for sub expression,
it is possible that these modifications will end up with the same SCEV as we started from.
So we must always check whether SCEV is in cache and do not insert item if it is already there.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, craig.topper
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41380
llvm-svn: 321472
D30041 extended SCEVPredicateRewriter to improve handling of Phi nodes whose
update chain involves casts; PSCEV can now build an AddRecurrence for some
forms of such phi nodes, under the proper runtime overflow test. This means
that we can identify such phi nodes as an induction, and the loop-vectorizer
can now vectorize such inductions, however inefficiently. The vectorizer
doesn't know that it can ignore the casts, and so it vectorizes them.
This patch records the casts in the InductionDescriptor, so that they could
be marked to be ignored for cost calculation (we use VecValuesToIgnore for
that) and ignored for vectorization/widening/scalarization (i.e. treated as
TriviallyDead).
In addition to marking all these casts to be ignored, we also need to make
sure that each cast is mapped to the right vector value in the vector loop body
(be it a widened, vectorized, or scalarized induction). So whenever an
induction phi is mapped to a vector value (during vectorization/widening/
scalarization), we also map the respective cast instruction (if exists) to that
vector value. (If the phi-update sequence of an induction involves more than one
cast, then the above mapping to vector value is relevant only for the last cast
of the sequence as we allow only the "last cast" to be used outside the
induction update chain itself).
This is the last step in addressing PR30654.
llvm-svn: 320672
CreateAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl() adds an IncrementNUSW overflow predicate
which allows the PSCEV rewriter to rewrite this scev expression:
(zext i8 {0, + , (trunc i32 step to i8)} to i32)
into
{0, +, (sext i8 (trunc i32 step to i8) to i32)}
But then it adds the wrong Equal predicate:
%step == (zext i8 (trunc i32 %step to i8) to i32).
instead of:
%step == (sext i8 (trunc i32 %step to i8) to i32)
This is fixed here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40641
llvm-svn: 320298
In this method, we invoke `SimplifyICmpOperands` which takes the `Cond` predicate
by reference and may change it along with `LHS` and `RHS` SCEVs. But then we invoke
`computeShiftCompareExitLimit` with Values from which the SCEVs have been derived,
these Values have not been modified while `Cond` could be.
One of possible outcomes of this is that we may falsely prove that an infinite loop ends
within some finite number of iterations.
In this patch, we save the original `Cond` and pass it along with original operands.
This logic may be removed in future once `computeShiftCompareExitLimit` works
with SCEVs instead of value operands.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40953
llvm-svn: 320142
Lexicographical comparison of SCEV trees is potentially expensive for big
expression trees. We can define ordering between them for AddRecs and
N-ary operations by SCEV NoWrap flags to make non-equality check
cheaper.
This change does not prevent grouping eqivalent SCEVs together and is
not supposed to have any meaningful impact on behavior of any transforms.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40645
llvm-svn: 319889
Current implementation of `compareSCEVComplexity` is being unreasonable with `SCEVUnknown`s:
every time it sees one, it creates a new value cache and tries to prove equality of two values using it.
This cache reallocates and gets lost from SCEV to SCEV.
This patch changes this behavior: now we create one cache for all values and share it between SCEVs.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40597
llvm-svn: 319880
Summary:
I don't think rL309080 is the right fix for PR33494 -- caching ExitLimit only
hides the problem[0]. The real issue is that because of how we forget SCEV
expressions ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenInfo, in the test case for PR33494
computing the backedge for any loop invalidates the trip count for every other
loop. This effectively makes the SCEV cache useless.
I've instead made the SCEV expression invalidation in
ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenInfo less aggressive to fix this issue.
[0]: One way to think about this is that rL309080 essentially augmented the
backedge-taken-count cache with another equivalent exit-limit cache. The bug
went away because we were explicitly not clearing the exit-limit cache in
getBackedgeTakenInfo. But instead of doing all of that, we can just avoid
clearing the backedge-taken-count cache.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39361
llvm-svn: 319678
These command line options are not intended for public use, and often
don't even make sense in the context of a particular tool anyway. About
90% of them are already hidden, but when people add new options they
forget to hide them, so if you were to make a brand new tool today, link
against one of LLVM's libraries, and run tool -help you would get a
bunch of junk that doesn't make sense for the tool you're writing.
This patch hides these options. The real solution is to not have
libraries defining command line options, but that's a much larger effort
and not something I'm prepared to take on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40674
llvm-svn: 319505
Currently, we use a set of pairs to cache responces like `CompareValueComplexity(X, Y) == 0`. If we had
proved that `CompareValueComplexity(S1, S2) == 0` and `CompareValueComplexity(S2, S3) == 0`,
this cache does not allow us to prove that `CompareValueComplexity(S1, S3)` is also `0`.
This patch replaces this set with `EquivalenceClasses` that merges Values into equivalence sets so that
any two values from the same set are equal from point of `CompareValueComplexity`. This, in particular,
allows us to prove the fact from example above.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40429
llvm-svn: 319153
Currently, we use a set of pairs to cache responces like `CompareSCEVComplexity(X, Y) == 0`. If we had
proved that `CompareSCEVComplexity(S1, S2) == 0` and `CompareSCEVComplexity(S2, S3) == 0`,
this cache does not allow us to prove that `CompareSCEVComplexity(S1, S3)` is also `0`.
This patch replaces this set with `EquivalenceClasses` any two values from the same set are equal from
point of `CompareSCEVComplexity`. This, in particular, allows us to prove the fact from example above.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40428
llvm-svn: 319149
Summary:
For a given loop, getLoopLatch returns a non-null value
when a loop has only one latch block. In the modified
context adding an assertion to check that both the outgoing branches of
a terminator instruction (of latch) does not target same header.
+
few minor code reorganization.
Reviewers: jbhateja
Reviewed By: jbhateja
Subscribers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40460
llvm-svn: 318997
Summary:
For a given loop, getLoopLatch returns a non-null value
when a loop has only one latch block. In the modified
context a check on both the outgoing branches of a terminator instruction (of latch) to same header is redundant.
Reviewers: jbhateja
Reviewed By: jbhateja
Subscribers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40460
llvm-svn: 318991
Given loops `L1` and `L2` with AddRecs `AR1` and `AR2` varying in them respectively.
When identifying loop disposition of `AR2` w.r.t. `L1`, we only say that it is varying if
`L1` contains `L2`. But there is also a possible situation where `L1` and `L2` are
consecutive sibling loops within the parent loop. In this case, `AR2` is also varying
w.r.t. `L1`, but we don't correctly identify it.
It can lead, for exaple, to attempt of incorrect folding. Consider:
AR1 = {a,+,b}<L1>
AR2 = {c,+,d}<L2>
EXAR2 = sext(AR1)
MUL = mul AR1, EXAR2
If we incorrectly assume that `EXAR2` is invariant w.r.t. `L1`, we can end up trying to
construct something like: `{a * {c,+,d}<L2>,+,b * {c,+,d}<L2>}<L1>`, which is incorrect
because `AR2` is not available on entrance of `L1`.
Both situations "`L1` contains `L2`" and "`L1` preceeds sibling loop `L2`" can be handled
with one check: "header of `L1` dominates header of `L2`". This patch replaces the old
insufficient check with this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39453
llvm-svn: 318819
I don't believe this was a problem in practice, as it's likely that the
boolean wasn't checked unless the backend condition was non-null.
llvm-svn: 318073
Summary:
If a compare instruction is same or inverse of the compare in the
branch of the loop latch, then return a constant evolution node.
This shall facilitate computations of loop exit counts in cases
where compare appears in the evolution chain of induction variables.
Will fix PR 34538
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, junryoungju
Reviewed By: sanjoy, junryoungju
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38494
llvm-svn: 318050
Max backedge taken count is always expected to be a constant; and this is
usually true by construction -- it is a SCEV expression with constant inputs.
However, if the max backedge expression ends up being computed to be a udiv with
a constant zero denominator[0], SCEV does not fold the result to a constant
since there is no constant it can fold it to (SCEV has no representation for
"infinity" or "undef").
However, in computeMaxBECountForLT we already know the denominator is positive,
and thus at least 1; and we can use this fact to avoid dividing by zero.
[0]: We can end up with a constant zero denominator if the signed range of the
stride is more precise than the unsigned range.
llvm-svn: 316615
Summary:
If a compare instruction is same or inverse of the compare in the
branch of the loop latch, then return a constant evolution node.
Currently scope of evaluation is limited to SCEV computation for
PHI nodes.
This shall facilitate computations of loop exit counts in cases
where compare appears in the evolution chain of induction variables.
Will fix PR 34538
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, junryoungju
Reviewed By: junryoungju
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38494
llvm-svn: 316054
This reverts commit r315713. It causes PR34968.
I think I know what the problem is, but I don't think I'll have time to fix it
this week.
llvm-svn: 315962
Summary:
This change uses the loop use list added in the previous change to remember the
loops that appear in the trip count expressions of other loops; and uses it in
forgetLoop. This lets us not scan every loop in the function on a forgetLoop
call.
With this change we no longer invalidate clear out backedge taken counts on
forgetValue. I think this is fine -- the contract is that SCEV users must call
forgetLoop(L) if their change to the IR could have changed the trip count of L;
solely calling forgetValue on a value feeding into the backedge condition of L
is not enough. Moreover, I don't think we can strengthen forgetValue to be
sufficient for invalidating trip counts without significantly re-architecting
SCEV. For instance, if we have the loop:
I = *Ptr;
E = I + 10;
do {
// ...
} while (++I != E);
then the backedge taken count of the loop is 9, and it has no reference to
either I or E, i.e. there is no way in SCEV today to re-discover the dependency
of the loop's trip count on E or I. So a SCEV client cannot change E to (say)
"I + 20", call forgetValue(E) and expect the loop's trip count to be updated.
Reviewers: atrick, sunfish, mkazantsev
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38435
llvm-svn: 315713
Summary:
This patch teaches SCEV to calculate the maxBECount when the end bound
of the loop can vary. Note that we cannot calculate the exactBECount.
This will only be done when both conditions are satisfied:
1. the loop termination condition is strictly LT.
2. the IV is proven to not overflow.
This provides more information to users of SCEV and can be used to
improve identification of finite loops.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, silviu.baranga, atrick
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38825
llvm-svn: 315683
Summary:
Currently we do not correctly invalidate memoized results for add recurrences
that were created directly (i.e. they were not created from a `Value`). This
change fixes this by keeping loop use lists and using the loop use lists to
determine which SCEV expressions to invalidate.
Here are some statistics on the number of uses of in the use lists of all loops
on a clang bootstrap (config: release, no asserts):
Count: 731310
Min: 1
Mean: 8.555150
50th %time: 4
95th %tile: 25
99th %tile: 53
Max: 433
Reviewers: atrick, sunfish, mkazantsev
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38434
llvm-svn: 315672
Summary:
Add LLVM_FORCE_ENABLE_DUMP cmake option, and use it along with
LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS to set LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP.
Remove NDEBUG and only use LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP to enable dump methods.
Move definition of LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP from config.h to llvm-config.h so
it'll be picked up by public headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38406
llvm-svn: 315590
