Similar to b3a33553aec7, but this shows a TODO and a potential
miscompile is already present.
We are tracking an FP instruction that does *not* have FMF (reassoc)
properties, so calling that "Unsafe" seems opposite of the common
reading.
I also removed one getter method by rolling the null check into
the access. Further simplification may be possible.
The motivation is to clean up the interactions between FMF and
function-level attributes in these classes and their callers.
The new test shows that there is an existing bug somewhere in
the callers. We assumed that the original code was fully 'fast'
and so we produced IR with 'fast' even though it was just 'reassoc'.
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb610429308a7c29c5065f5cc35dcc3fd69c8b1,
7324616660fc0995fa8c166e3c392361222d5dbc,
aaafe350bb65dfc24c2cdad4839059ac81899fbe,
e92a8e0c743f83552fac37ecf21e625ba3a4b11e.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
Summary:
Currently InductionBinOps are only saved for FP induction variables, the PR extends it with non FP induction variable, so user of IVDescriptors can query the InductionBinOps for integer induction variables.
The changes in hasUnsafeAlgebra() and getUnsafeAlgebraInst() are required for the existing LIT test cases to pass. As described in the comment of the two functions, one of the requirement to return true is it is a FP induction variable. The checks was not needed because InductionBinOp was not set on non FP cases before.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60565 depends on the patch.
Committed on behalf of @Whitney (Whitney Tsang).
Reviewers: jdoerfert, kbarton, fhahn, hfinkel, dmgreen, Meinersbur
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, jsji, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61329
llvm-svn: 360671
