The ceiling variant was recently added (due to the work towards D105216), and we're spending a lot of time trying to find optimizations for the expression. This patch brute forces the space of i8 unsigned divides and checks that we get a correct (well consistent with APInt) result for both udiv and udiv ceiling.
(This is basically what I've been doing locally in a hand rolled C++ program, and I realized there no good reason not to check it in as a unit test which directly exercises the logic on constants.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106083
Rules:
1. SCEVUnknown is a pointer if and only if the LLVM IR value is a
pointer.
2. SCEVPtrToInt is never a pointer.
3. If any other SCEV expression has no pointer operands, the result is
an integer.
4. If a SCEVAddExpr has exactly one pointer operand, the result is a
pointer.
5. If a SCEVAddRecExpr's first operand is a pointer, and it has no other
pointer operands, the result is a pointer.
6. If every operand of a SCEVMinMaxExpr is a pointer, the result is a
pointer.
7. Otherwise, the SCEV expression is invalid.
I'm not sure how useful rule 6 is in practice. If we exclude it, we can
guarantee that ScalarEvolution::getPointerBase always returns a
SCEVUnknown, which might be a helpful property. Anyway, I'll leave that
for a followup.
This is basically mop-up at this point; all the changes with significant
functional effects have landed. Some of the remaining changes could be
split off, but I don't see much point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105510
Currently, NoWrapFlags are dropped if we inline operands of SCEVAddExpr
operands. As a consequence, we always drop flags when building
expressions like `getAddExpr(A, getAddExpr(B, C, NUW), NUW)`.
We should be able to retain NUW flags common among all inlined
SCEVAddExpr and the original flags.
Reviewed By: nikic, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103877
SCEV currently tries to prove implications of x pred y by also
trying to imply ~y pred ~x. This is expensive in terms of
compile-time (in fact, the majority of isImpliedCond compile-time
is spent here) and generally not fruitful. The issue is that this
also swaps the operands and thus breaks canonical ordering. If
originally we were trying to prove an implication like
X > C1 -> Y > C2, then we'll now try to prove X > C1 -> C3 > ~Y,
which will not work.
The only real case where we can get some use out of this transform
is if the original conditions were in the form X > C1 -> Y < C2, were
then swapped to X > C1 -> C2 > Y and are then swapped again here to
X > C1 -> ~Y > C3.
As such, handle this at a higher level, where we are doing the
swapping in the first place. There's four different ways that we
can line up a predicate and a swapped predicate, so we use some
heuristics to pick some profitable way.
Because we now try this transform at a higher level
(isImpliedCondOperands rather than isImpliedCondOperandsHelper),
we can also prove additional facts. Of the added tests, one was
proven previously while the other wasn't.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90926
URem operations with constant power-of-2 second operands are modeled as
such. This patch on its own has very little impact (e.g. no changes in
CodeGen for MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 on X86 -O3 -flto), but I'll
soon post follow-up patches that make use of it to more accurately
determine the trip multiple.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89821
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
The return was due to revert of underlying patch that this one depends on.
Unit test temporarily disabled because the required logic in SCEV is switched
off due to compile time reasons.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
Reviewed By: fhahn
The initial version of the patch was reverted because it missed the check that
the predicate being proved is actually guarded by this check on 1st iteration.
If it was not executed on 1st iteration (but possibly executes after that), then
it is incorrect to use reasoning about IV start to prove it.
Added the test where the miscompile was seen. Unfortunately, my attempts
to reduce it with bugpoint did not succeed; it can further be reduced when
we understand how to do it without losing the initial bug's notion.
Returning assuming the miscompiles are now gone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88208
The logic there only considers `SLT/SGT` predicates. We can use the same logic
for proving `ULT/UGT` predicates if all involved values are non-negative.
Adding full-scale support for unsigned might be challenging because of code amount,
so we can consider this in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88087
Reviewed By: reames
If we know that some predicate is true for AddRec and an invariant
(w.r.t. this AddRec's loop), this fact is, in particular, true on the first
iteration. We can try to prove the facts we need using the start value.
The motivating example is proving things like
```
isImpliedCondOperands(>=, X, 0, {X,+,-1}, 0}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88208
Reviewed By: reames
For some expressions, we can use information from loop guards when
we are looking for a maximum. This patch applies information from
loop guards to the expression used to compute the maximum backedge
taken count in howFarToZero. It currently replaces an unknown
expression X with UMin(X, Y), if the loop is guarded by
X ult Y.
This patch is minimal in what conditions it applies, and there
are a few TODOs to generalize.
This partly addresses PR40961. We will also need an update to
LV to address it completely.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67178
This patch extends SCEVParameterRewriter to support rewriting unknown
epxressions to arbitrary SCEV expressions. It will be used by further
patches.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67176
SCEVExpander modifies the underlying function so it is more suitable in
Transforms/Utils, rather than Analysis. This allows using other
transform utils in SCEVExpander.
This patch was originally committed as b8a3c34eee06, but broke the
modules build, as LoopAccessAnalysis was using the Expander.
The code-gen part of LAA was moved to lib/Transforms recently, so this
patch can be landed again.
Reviewers: sanjoy.google, efriedma, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy.google
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71537
Teach SCEV about the @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, which has exactly the same
semantics as a sub expression. This allows us to query hardware-loops, which
contain this @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, so that we can calculate iteration
counts, exit values, etc. of hardwareloops.
This "int_loop_decrement_reg" intrinsic is defined as "IntrNoDuplicate". Thus,
while hardware-loops and tripcounts now become analysable by SCEV, this
prevents the usual loop transformations from applying transformations on
hardware-loops, which is what we want at this point, for which I have added
test cases for loopunrolling and IndVarSimplify and LFTR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71563
SCEVExpander modifies the underlying function so it is more suitable in
Transforms/Utils, rather than Analysis. This allows using other
transform utils in SCEVExpander.
Reviewers: sanjoy.google, efriedma, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy.google
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71537
Without this patch computeConstantDifference returns None for cases like
these:
computeConstantDifference(%x, %x)
computeConstantDifference({%x,+,16}, {%x,+,16})
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65474
llvm-svn: 368193
This cleans up all GetElementPtr creation in LLVM to explicitly pass a
value type rather than deriving it from the pointer's element-type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57173
llvm-svn: 352913
This cleans up all LoadInst creation in LLVM to explicitly pass the
value type rather than deriving it from the pointer's element-type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57172
llvm-svn: 352911
Recommit r352791 after tweaking DerivedTypes.h slightly, so that gcc
doesn't choke on it, hopefully.
Original Message:
The FunctionCallee type is effectively a {FunctionType*,Value*} pair,
and is a useful convenience to enable code to continue passing the
result of getOrInsertFunction() through to EmitCall, even once pointer
types lose their pointee-type.
Then:
- update the CallInst/InvokeInst instruction creation functions to
take a Callee,
- modify getOrInsertFunction to return FunctionCallee, and
- update all callers appropriately.
One area of particular note is the change to the sanitizer
code. Previously, they had been casting the result of
`getOrInsertFunction` to a `Function*` via
`checkSanitizerInterfaceFunction`, and storing that. That would report
an error if someone had already inserted a function declaraction with
a mismatching signature.
However, in general, LLVM allows for such mismatches, as
`getOrInsertFunction` will automatically insert a bitcast if
needed. As part of this cleanup, cause the sanitizer code to do the
same. (It will call its functions using the expected signature,
however they may have been declared.)
Finally, in a small number of locations, callers of
`getOrInsertFunction` actually were expecting/requiring that a brand
new function was being created. In such cases, I've switched them to
Function::Create instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57315
llvm-svn: 352827
This reverts commit f47d6b38c7a61d50db4566b02719de05492dcef1 (r352791).
Seems to run into compilation failures with GCC (but not clang, where
I tested it). Reverting while I investigate.
llvm-svn: 352800
The FunctionCallee type is effectively a {FunctionType*,Value*} pair,
and is a useful convenience to enable code to continue passing the
result of getOrInsertFunction() through to EmitCall, even once pointer
types lose their pointee-type.
Then:
- update the CallInst/InvokeInst instruction creation functions to
take a Callee,
- modify getOrInsertFunction to return FunctionCallee, and
- update all callers appropriately.
One area of particular note is the change to the sanitizer
code. Previously, they had been casting the result of
`getOrInsertFunction` to a `Function*` via
`checkSanitizerInterfaceFunction`, and storing that. That would report
an error if someone had already inserted a function declaraction with
a mismatching signature.
However, in general, LLVM allows for such mismatches, as
`getOrInsertFunction` will automatically insert a bitcast if
needed. As part of this cleanup, cause the sanitizer code to do the
same. (It will call its functions using the expected signature,
however they may have been declared.)
Finally, in a small number of locations, callers of
`getOrInsertFunction` actually were expecting/requiring that a brand
new function was being created. In such cases, I've switched them to
Function::Create instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57315
llvm-svn: 352791
This patch introduces the field `ExpressionSize` in SCEV. This field is
calculated only once on SCEV creation, and it represents the complexity of
this SCEV from arithmetical point of view (not from the point of the number
of actual different SCEV nodes that are used in the expression). Roughly
saying, it is the number of operands and operations symbols when we print this
SCEV.
A formal definition is following: if SCEV `X` has operands
`Op1`, `Op2`, ..., `OpN`,
then
Size(X) = 1 + Size(Op1) + Size(Op2) + ... + Size(OpN).
Size of SCEVConstant and SCEVUnknown is one.
Expression size may be used as a universal way to limit SCEV transformations
for huge SCEVs. Currently, we have a bunch of options that represents various
limits (such as recursion depth limit) that may not make any sense from the
point of view of a LLVM users who is not familiar with SCEV internals, and all
these different options pursue one goal. A more general rule that may
potentially allow us to get rid of this redundancy in options is "do not make
transformations with SCEVs of huge size". It can apply to all SCEV traversals
and transformations that may need to visit a SCEV node more than once, hence
they are prone to combinatorial explosions.
This patch only introduces SCEV sizes calculation as NFC, its utilization will
be introduced in follow-up patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35989
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 351725
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
We have a lot of various bugs that are caused by misuse of SCEV (in particular in LV),
all of them can simply be described as "we ask SCEV to prove some fact on invalid IR".
Some of examples of those are PR36311, PR37221, PR39160.
The problem is that these failues manifest differently (what we saw was failure of various
asserts across SCEV, but there can also be miscompiles). This patch adds an assert into two
SCEV methods that strongly rely on correctness of the IR and are involved in known failues.
This will at least allow us to have a clear indication of what was wrong in this case.
This patch also fixes a unit test with incorrect IR that fails this verification.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52930
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 346389
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
InsertBinop tries to find an appropriate instruction instead of
creating a new instruction. When it checks whether instruction is
the same as we need to create it ignores nuw/nsw/exact flags.
It leads to invalid behavior when poison instruction can be used
when it was not expected. Specifically, for example Expander
expands the SCEV built for instruction
%a = add i32 %v, 1
It is possible that InsertBinop can find an instruction
% b = add nuw nsw i32 %v, 1
and will use it instead of version w/o nuw nsw.
It is incorrect.
The patch conservatively ignores all instructions with any of
poison flags installed.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, sebpop, jbhateja
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41576
llvm-svn: 321475
This function checks that:
1) It is safe to expand a SCEV;
2) It is OK to materialize it at the specified location.
For example, attempt to expand a loop's AddRec to the same loop's preheader should fail.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39236
llvm-svn: 318377
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:
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:
This patch fixes an error in the patch to ScalarEvolution::createAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl
made in D37265. In that patch we handle the cases where the either the start or accum values can be
zero after truncation. But, we assume that the start value must be a constant if the accum is
zero. This is clearly an erroneous assumption. This change removes that assumption.
Reviewers: sanjoy, dorit, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38814
llvm-svn: 315491
Summary:
A SCEV such as:
{%v2,+,((-1 * (trunc i64 (-1 * %v1) to i32)) + (-1 * (trunc i64 %v1 to i32)))}<%loop>
can be folded into, simply, {%v2,+,0}. However, the current code in ::getAddExpr()
will not try to apply the simplification m*trunc(x)+n*trunc(y) -> trunc(trunc(m)*x+trunc(n)*y)
because it only keys off having a non-multiplied trunc as the first term in the simplification.
This patch generalizes this code to try to do a more generic fold of these trunc
expressions.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37888
llvm-svn: 313988
Summary:
See comment for why I think this is a good idea.
This change also:
- Removes an SCEV test case. The SCEV test was not testing anything useful (most of it was `#if 0` ed out) and it would need to be updated to deal with a private ~Loop::Loop.
- Updates the loop pass manager test case to deal with a private ~Loop::Loop.
- Renames markAsRemoved to markAsErased to contrast with removeLoop, via the usual remove vs. erase idiom we already have for instructions and basic blocks.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37996
llvm-svn: 313695
Summary:
When constructing the predicate P1 in ScalarEvolution::createAddRecFromPHIWithCastsImpl() it is possible
for the PHISCEV from which the predicate is constructed to be a SCEVConstant instead of a SCEVAddRec. If
this happens, then the cast<SCEVAddRec>(PHISCEV) in the code will assert.
Such a PHISCEV is possible if either the start value or the accumulator value is a constant value
that not equal to its truncated value, and if the truncated value is zero.
This patch adds tests that demonstrate the cast<> assertion, and fixes this problem by checking
whether the PHISCEV is a constant before constructing the P1 predicate; if it is, then P1 is
equivalent to one of P2 or P3. Additionally, if we know that the start value or accumulator
value are constants then we check whether the P2 and/or P3 predicates are known false at compile
time; if either is, then we bail out of constructing the AddRec.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, silviu.baranga
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: mkazantsev, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37265
llvm-svn: 312568
The patch rL309080 was reverted because it did not clean up the cache on "forgetValue"
method call. This patch re-enables this change, adds the missing check and introduces
two new unit tests that make sure that the cache is cleaned properly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36087
llvm-svn: 309925
clang-format (https://reviews.llvm.org/D33932) to keep primary headers
at the top and handle new utility headers like 'gmock' consistently with
other utility headers.
No other change was made. I did no manual edits, all of this is
clang-format.
This should allow other changes to have more clear and focused diffs,
and is especially motivated by moving some headers into more focused
libraries.
llvm-svn: 304786
Summary:
This fixes introduction of an incorrect inttoptr/ptrtoint pair in
the included test case which makes use of non-integral pointers. I
suspect there are more cases like this left, but this takes care of
the one I was seeing at the moment.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33129
llvm-svn: 304058
