ScalarEvolution in the presence of multiple exits. Previously all
loops exits had to have identical counts for a loop trip count to be
considered computable. This pessimization was implemented by calling
getBackedgeTakenCount(L) rather than getExitCount(L, ExitingBlock)
inside of ScalarEvolution::getSmallConstantTripCount() (see the FIXME
in the comments of that function). The pessimization was added to fix
a corner case involving undefined behavior (pr/16130). This patch more
precisely handles the undefined behavior case allowing the pessimization
to be removed.
ControlsExit replaces IsSubExpr to more precisely track the case where
undefined behavior is expected to occur. Because undefined behavior is
tracked more precisely we can remove MustExit from ExitLimit. MustExit
was used to track the case where the limit was computed potentially
assuming undefined behavior even if undefined behavior didn't necessarily
occur.
llvm-svn: 219517
This adds a basic (but important) use of @llvm.assume calls in ScalarEvolution.
When SE is attempting to validate a condition guarding a loop (such as whether
or not the loop count can be zero), this check should also include dominating
assumptions.
llvm-svn: 217348
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
Summary: This patch introduces two new iterator ranges and updates existing code to use it. No functional change intended.
Test Plan: All tests (make check-all) still pass.
Reviewers: dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4481
llvm-svn: 213474
Before, we where looking at the size of the pointer type that specifies the
location from which to load the element. This did not make any sense at all.
This change fixes a bug in the delinearization where we failed to delinerize
certain load instructions.
llvm-svn: 210435
without this case we would end on an infinite recursion: the remainder is zero,
so Numerator - Remainder is equal to Numerator and so we would recursively ask
for the division of Numerator by Denominator.
llvm-svn: 209838
when ScalarEvolution::getElementSize returns nullptr it is safe to early return
in ScalarEvolution::findArrayDimensions such that we avoid later problems when
we try to divide the terms by ElementSize.
llvm-svn: 209837
This is a corner case I have stumbled upon when dealing with ARM64 type
conversions. I was not able to extract a testcase for the community codebase to
fail on. The patch conservatively discards a division that would have ended up
in an ICE due to a type mismatch when building a multiply expression. I have
also added code to a place that builds add expressions and in which we should be
careful not to pass in operands of different types.
llvm-svn: 209694
We do not need to compute the GCD anymore after we removed the constant
coefficients from the terms: the terms are now all parametric expressions and
there is no need to recognize constant terms that divide only a subset of the
terms. We only rely on the size of the terms, i.e., the number of operands in
the multiply expressions, to sort the terms and recognize the parametric
dimensions.
llvm-svn: 209693
No functional change is intended: instead of relying on the delinearization to
come up with the base pointer as a remainder of the divisions in the
delinearization, we just compute it from the array access and use that value.
We substract the base pointer from the SCEV to be delinearized and that
simplifies the work of the delinearizer.
llvm-svn: 209692
The delinearization is needed only to remove the non linearity induced by
expressions involving multiplications of parameters and induction variables.
There is no problem in dealing with constant times parameters, or constant times
an induction variable.
For this reason, the current patch discards all constant terms and multipliers
before running the delinearization algorithm on the terms. The only thing
remaining in the term expressions are parameters and multiply expressions of
parameters: these simplified term expressions are passed to the array shape
recognizer that will not recognize constant dimensions anymore: these will be
recognized as different strides in parametric subscripts.
The only important special case of a constant dimension is the size of elements.
Instead of relying on the delinearization to infer the size of an element,
compute the element size from the base address type. This is a much more precise
way of computing the element size than before, as we would have mixed together
the size of an element with the strides of the innermost dimension.
llvm-svn: 209691
This is a follow-up to r209358: PR19799: Indvars miscompile due to an
incorrect max backedge taken count from SCEV.
That fix was incomplete as pointed out by Arnold and Michael Z. The
code was also too confusing. It needed a careful rewrite with more
unit tests. This version will also happen to optimize more cases.
<rdar://17005101> PR19799: Indvars miscompile...
llvm-svn: 209545
ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate() can wrongly reduce a comparison
when both the LHS and RHS are SCEVAddRecExprs. This checks that both
LHS and RHS are guarded in the case when both are SCEVAddRecExprs.
The test case is against indvars because I could not find a way to
directly test SCEV.
Patch by Sanjay Patel!
llvm-svn: 209487
This has to do with the trip count computation for loops with multiple
exits, which is quite subtle. Most passes just ask for a single trip
count number, so we must be conservative assuming any exit could be
taken. Normally, we rely on the "exact" trip count, which was
correctly given as "unknown". However, SCEV also gives a "max"
back-edge taken count. The loops max BE taken count is conservatively
a maximum over the max of each exit's non-exiting iterations
count. Note that some exit tests can be skipped so the max loop
back-edge taken count can actually exceed the max non-exiting
iterations for some exits. However, when we know the loop *latch*
cannot be skipped, we can directly use its max taken count
disregarding other exits. I previously took the minimum here without
checking whether the other exit could be skipped. The correct, and
simpler thing to do here is just to directly use the loop latch's max
non-exiting iterations as the loops max back-edge count.
In the problematic test case, the first loop exit had a max of zero
non-exiting iterations, but could be skipped. The loop latch was known
not to be skipped but had max of one non-exiting iteration. We
incorrectly claimed the loop back-edge could be taken zero times, when
it is actually taken one time.
Fixes Loop %for.body.i: <multiple exits> Unpredictable backedge-taken count.
Loop %for.body.i: max backedge-taken count is 1.
llvm-svn: 209358
we do not use the information from SCEVAddRecExpr to compute the shape of the array,
so a better place for this function is in ScalarEvolution.
llvm-svn: 208456
Sorry for the commit spam. My clang-format crashed on me and the vim
plugin did not print an error, but instead just left the formatting
untouched.
llvm-svn: 208358
To compute the dimensions of the array in a unique way, we split the
delinearization analysis in three steps:
- find parametric terms in all memory access functions
- compute the array dimensions from the set of terms
- compute the delinearized access functions for each dimension
The first step is executed on all the memory access functions such that we
gather all the patterns in which an array is accessed. The second step reduces
all this information in a unique description of the sizes of the array. The
third step is delinearizing each memory access function following the common
description of the shape of the array computed in step 2.
This rewrite of the delinearization pass also solves a problem we had with the
previous implementation: because the previous algorithm was by induction on the
structure of the SCEV, it would not correctly recognize the shape of the array
when the memory access was not following the nesting of the loops: for example,
see polly/test/ScopInfo/multidim_only_ivs_3d_reverse.ll
; void foo(long n, long m, long o, double A[n][m][o]) {
;
; for (long i = 0; i < n; i++)
; for (long j = 0; j < m; j++)
; for (long k = 0; k < o; k++)
; A[i][k][j] = 1.0;
Starting with this patch we no longer delinearize access functions that do not
contain parameters, for example in test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/GCD.ll
;; for (long int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
;; for (long int j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
;; A[2*i - 4*j] = i;
;; *B++ = A[6*i + 8*j];
these accesses will not be delinearized as the upper bound of the loops are
constants, and their access functions do not contain SCEVUnknown parameters.
llvm-svn: 208232
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
If we have a loop of the form
for (unsigned n = 0; n != (k & -32); n += 32) {}
then we know that n is always divisible by 32 and the loop must
terminate. Even if we have a condition where the loop counter will
overflow it'll always hold this invariant.
PR19183. Our loop vectorizer creates this pattern and it's also
occasionally formed by loop counters derived from pointers.
llvm-svn: 204728
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
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
business.
This header includes Function and BasicBlock and directly uses the
interfaces of both classes. It has to do with the IR, it even has that
in the name. =] Put it in the library it belongs to.
This is one step toward making LLVM's Support library survive a C++
modules bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 202814
