Summary:
In non-integral address spaces, we're not allowed to introduce inttoptr/ptrtoint
intrinsics. Instead, we need to expand any pointer arithmetic as geps on the
base pointer. Luckily this is a common task for SCEV, so all we have to do here
is hook up the corresponding helper function and add test case.
Fixes PR38290
Reviewers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49832
llvm-svn: 338073
Summary:
Comment on Transforms/LoopVersioning/incorrect-phi.ll: With the change
SCEV is able to prove that the loop doesn't wrap-self (due to zext i16
to i64), disabling the entire loop versioning pass. Removed the zext and
just use i64.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: jlebar, hiraditya, javed.absar, bixia, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48409
llvm-svn: 336140
This reverts r334428. It incorrectly marks some multiplications as nuw. Tim
Shen is working on a proper fix.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Add nuw/nsw to mul ops in StrengthenNoWrapFlags where safe.
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
llvm-svn: 335016
Summary:
Specifically, we transform
zext(2^K * (trunc X to iN)) to iM ->
2^K * (zext(trunc X to i{N-K}) to iM)<nuw>
This is helpful because pulling the 2^K out of the zext allows further
optimizations.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, timshen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48158
llvm-svn: 334737
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48038
llvm-svn: 334428
Summary:
LAA can only emit run-time alias checks for pointers with affine AddRec
SCEV expressions. However, non-AddRecExprs can be now be converted to
affine AddRecExprs using SCEV predicates.
This change tries to add the minimal set of SCEV predicates in order
to enable run-time alias checking.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, mkuper, sanjoy, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: mssimpso, Ayal, dorit, roman.shirokiy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D17080
llvm-svn: 313012
proven larger than the loop-count
This fixes PR31098: Try to resolve statically data-dependences whose
compile-time-unknown distance can be proven larger than the loop-count,
instead of resorting to runtime dependence checking (which are not always
possible).
For vectorization it is sufficient to prove that the dependence distance
is >= VF; But in some cases we can prune unknown dependence distances early,
and even before selecting the VF, and without a runtime test, by comparing
the distance against the loop iteration count. Since the vectorized code
will be executed only if LoopCount >= VF, proving distance >= LoopCount
also guarantees that distance >= VF. This check is also equivalent to the
Strong SIV Test.
Reviewers: mkuper, anemet, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28044
llvm-svn: 294892
Fixed a bug in run-time checks for possible memory conflicts inside loop.
The bug is in Low <-> High boundaries calculation. The High boundary should be calculated as "last memory access pointer + element size".
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23176
llvm-svn: 279930
This is a follow-on to r274452.
The LAA with the new PM is a loop pass so we go from inner to outer loops.
Also using a CHECK-NOT didn't make much sense because we print something
in either case; whether an invariant is 'found' or 'not found'.
llvm-svn: 274935
Summary:
**Description**
This makes `WidenIV::widenIVUse` (IndVarSimplify.cpp) fail to widen narrow IV uses in some cases. The latter affects IndVarSimplify which may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility, thereby producing ineffective code.
When `WidenIV::widenIVUse` gets a NarrowUse such as `{(-2 + %inc.lcssa),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, it first tries to get a wide recurrence for it via the `getWideRecurrence` call.
`getWideRecurrence` returns recurrence like this: `{(sext i32 (-2 + %inc.lcssa) to i64),+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`.
Then a wide use operation is generated by `cloneIVUser`. The generated wide use is evaluated to `{(-2 + (sext i32 %inc.lcssa to i64))<nsw>,+,1}<nsw><%for.body3>`, which is different from the `getWideRecurrence` result. `cloneIVUser` sees the difference and returns nullptr.
This patch also fixes the broken LLVM tests by adding missing <nsw> entries introduced by the correction.
**Minimal reproducer:**
```
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
int baz();
void bar()
{
int arr[20];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
arr[i] = baz();
for (; i < 20; ++i)
arr[i] = foo(arr[i - 4], arr[i - 3], arr[i - 2]);
}
```
**Clang command line:**
```
clang++ -mllvm -debug -S -emit-llvm -O3 --target=aarch64-linux-elf test.cpp -o test.ir
```
**Expected result:**
The ` -mllvm -debug` log shows that all the IV's for the second `for` loop have been eliminated.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: atrick, asl, aemerson, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20058
llvm-svn: 270695
This patch changes the order in which we attempt to prove the independence of
strided accesses. We previously did this after we knew the dependence distance
was positive. With this change, we check for independence before handling the
negative distance case. The patch prevents LAA from reporting forward
dependences for independent strided accesses.
This change was requested in the review of D19984.
llvm-svn: 270072
Summary:
This implements a new method of run-time checking the NoWrap
SCEV predicates, which should be easier to optimize and nicer
for targets that don't correctly handle multiplication/addition
of large integer types (like i128).
If the AddRec is {a,+,b} and the backedge taken count is c,
the idea is to check that |b| * c doesn't have unsigned overflow,
and depending on the sign of b, that:
a + |b| * c >= a (b >= 0) or
a - |b| * c <= a (b <= 0)
where the comparisons above are signed or unsigned, depending on
the flag that we're checking.
The advantage of doing this is that we avoid extending to a larger
type and we avoid the multiplication of large types (multiplying
i128 can be expensive).
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19266
llvm-svn: 267389
Summary:
Add a print method to Predicated Scalar Evolution which prints all interesting
transformations done by PSE.
Loop Access Analysis will now print this as part of the analysis output.
We now use this to check the exact expression transformations that were done
by PSE in LAA.
The additional checking also acts as white-box testing for the getAsAddRec method.
Reviewers: anemet, sanjoy
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18792
llvm-svn: 266334
We used to only allow SCEVAddRecExpr for pointer expressions in order to
be able to compute the bounds. However this is also trivially possible
for loop-invariant addresses (scUnknown) since then the bounds are the
address itself.
Interestingly, we used allow this for the special case when the
loop-invariant address happens to also be an SCEVAddRecExpr (in an outer
loop).
There are a couple more loops that are vectorized in SPEC after this.
My guess is that the main reason we don't see more because for example a
loop-invariant load is vectorized into a splat vector with several
vector-inserts. This is likely to make the vectorization unprofitable.
I.e. we don't notice that a later LICM will move all of this out of the
loop so the cost estimate should really be 0.
llvm-svn: 264243
sanitizer issue. The PredicatedScalarEvolution's copy constructor
wasn't copying the Generation value, and was leaving it un-initialized.
Original commit message:
[SCEV][LAA] Add no wrap SCEV predicates and use use them to improve strided pointer detection
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260112
We shouldn't assert when there are no memchecks, since we
can have SCEV checks. There is already an assert covering
the case where there are no SCEV checks or memchecks.
This also changes the LAA pointer wrapping versioning test
to use the loop versioning pass (this was how I managed to
trigger the assert in the loop versioning pass).
llvm-svn: 260086
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260085
The early return seems to be missed. This causes a radical and wrong loop
optimization on powerpc. It isn't reproducible on x86_64, because
"UseInterleaved" is false.
Patch by Tim Shen.
llvm-svn: 257134
Summary:
GetUnderlyingObjects() can return "null" among its list of objects,
we don't want to deduce that two pointers can point to the same
memory in this case, so filter it out.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: dexonsmith, llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 252149
Summary:
We now collect all types of dependences including lexically forward
deps not just "interesting" ones.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13256
llvm-svn: 251985
Summary:
When the dependence distance in zero then we have a loop-independent
dependence from the earlier to the later access.
No current client of LAA uses forward dependences so other than
potentially hitting the MaxDependences threshold earlier, this change
shouldn't affect anything right now.
This and the previous patch were tested together for compile-time
regression. None found in LNT/SPEC.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13255
llvm-svn: 251973
Summary:
Before this change, we didn't use to collect forward dependences since
none of the current clients (LV, LDist) required them.
The motivation to also collect forward dependences is a new pass
LoopLoadElimination (LLE) which discovers store-to-load forwarding
opportunities across the loop's backedge. The pass uses both lexically
forward or backward loop-carried dependences to detect these
opportunities.
The new pass also analyzes loop-independent (forward) dependences since
they can conflict with the loop-carried dependences in terms of how the
data flows through memory.
The newly added test only covers loop-carried forward dependences
because loop-independent ones are currently categorized as NoDep. The
next patch will fix this.
The two patches were tested together for compile-time regression. None
found in LNT/SPEC.
Note that with this change LAA provides all dependences rather than just
"interesting" ones. A subsequent NFC patch will remove the now trivial
isInterestingDependence and rename the APIs.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: jmolloy, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13254
llvm-svn: 251972
This is effectively an NFC but we can no longer print the index of the
pointer group so instead I print its address. This still lets us
cross-check the section that list the checks against the section that
list the groups (see how I modified the test).
E.g. before we printed this:
Run-time memory checks:
Check 0:
Comparing group 0:
%arrayidxC = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind
%arrayidxC1 = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind_inc
Against group 1:
%arrayidxA = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %ind
%arrayidxA1 = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %add
...
Grouped accesses:
Group 0:
(Low: %c High: (78 + %c))
Member: {%c,+,4}<%for.body>
Member: {(2 + %c),+,4}<%for.body>
Now we print this (changes are underlined):
Run-time memory checks:
Check 0:
Comparing group (0x7f9c6040c320):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%arrayidxC1 = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind_inc
%arrayidxC = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind
Against group (0x7f9c6040c358):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%arrayidxA1 = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %add
%arrayidxA = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %ind
...
Grouped accesses:
Group 0x7f9c6040c320:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Low: %c High: (78 + %c))
Member: {(2 + %c),+,4}<%for.body>
Member: {%c,+,4}<%for.body>
llvm-svn: 243354
Summary:
The checking pointer grouping algorithm assumes that the
starts/ends of the pointers are well formed (start <= end).
The runtime memory checking algorithm also assumes this by doing:
start0 < end1 && start1 < end0
to detect conflicts. This check only works if start0 <= end0 and
start1 <= end1.
This change correctly orders the interval ends by either checking
the stride (if it is constant) or by using min/max SCEV expressions.
Reviewers: anemet, rengolin
Subscribers: rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11149
llvm-svn: 242400
Summary:
The iteration order within a member of DepCands is deterministic
and therefore we don't have to sort the accesses within a member.
We also don't have to copy the indices of the pointers into a
vector, since we can iterate over the members of the class.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11145
llvm-svn: 242033
Summary:
We were missing a corner case where DepCands was not available,
but we were using DepCands to compute the checking pointer
groups.
This adds a test for that regression.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11068
llvm-svn: 241818
Summary:
The checking pointer group construction algorithm relied on the iteration on DepCands.
We would need the same leaders across runs and the same iteration order over the underlying std::set for determinism.
This changes the algorithm to process the pointers in the order in which they were added to the runtime check, which is deterministic.
We need to update the tests, since the order in which pointers appear has changed.
No new tests were added, since it is impossible to test for non-determinism.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11064
llvm-svn: 241809
This commit ([LAA] Fix estimation of number of memchecks) regressed the
logic a bit. We shouldn't quit the analysis if we encounter a pointer
without known bounds *unless* we actually need to emit a memcheck for
it.
The original code was using NumComparisons which is now computed
differently. Instead I compute NeedRTCheck from NumReadPtrChecks and
NumWritePtrChecks.
As side note, I find the separation of NeedRTCheck and CanDoRT
confusing, so I will try to merge them in a follow-up patch.
llvm-svn: 241756
Summary:
Often filter-like loops will do memory accesses that are
separated by constant offsets. In these cases it is
common that we will exceed the threshold for the
allowable number of checks.
However, it should be possible to merge such checks,
sice a check of any interval againt two other intervals separated
by a constant offset (a,b), (a+c, b+c) will be equivalent with
a check againt (a, b+c), as long as (a,b) and (a+c, b+c) overlap.
Assuming the loop will be executed for a sufficient number of
iterations, this will be true. If not true, checking against
(a, b+c) is still safe (although not equivalent).
As long as there are no dependencies between two accesses,
we can merge their checks into a single one. We use this
technique to construct groups of accesses, and then check
the intervals associated with the groups instead of
checking the accesses directly.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10386
llvm-svn: 241673
Summary:
Scalar evolution does not propagate the non-wrapping flags to values
that are derived from a non-wrapping induction variable because
the non-wrapping property could be flow-sensitive.
This change is a first attempt to establish the non-wrapping property in
some simple cases. The main idea is to look through the operations
defining the pointer. As long as we arrive to a non-wrapping AddRec via
a small chain of non-wrapping instruction, the pointer should not wrap
either.
I believe that this essentially is what Andy described in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/220731 as the way
forward.
Reviewers: aschwaighofer, nadav, sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10472
llvm-svn: 240798
Summary:
We need to add a runtime memcheck for pair of accesses (x,y) where at least one of x and y
are writes.
Assuming we have w writes and r reads, currently this number is estimated as being
w* (w+r-1). This estimation will count (write,write) pairs twice and will overestimate
the number of checks required.
This change adds a getNumberOfChecks method to RuntimePointerCheck, which
will count the number of runtime checks needed (similar in implementation to
needsAnyChecking) and uses it to produce the correct number of runtime checks.
Test Plan:
llvm test suite
spec2k
spec2k6
Performance results: no changes observed (not surprising since the formula for 1 writer is basically the same, which would covers most cases - at least with the current check limit).
Reviewers: anemet
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10217
llvm-svn: 239295
When dependence analysis encounters a non-constant distance between
memory accesses it aborts the analysis and falls back to run-time checks
only. In this case we weren't resetting the array of dependences.
llvm-svn: 237574
"Store to invariant address..." is moved as the last line. This is not
the prime result of the analysis. Plus it simplifies some of the tests.
llvm-svn: 237573
Specifically, if a pointer accesses different underlying objects in each
iteration, don't look through the phi node defining the pointer.
The motivating case is the underlyling-objects-2.ll testcase. Consider
the loop nest:
int **A;
for (i)
for (j)
A[i][j] = A[i-1][j] * B[j]
This loop is transformed by Load-PRE to stash away A[i] for the next
iteration of the outer loop:
Curr = A[0]; // Prev_0
for (i: 1..N) {
Prev = Curr; // Prev = PHI (Prev_0, Curr)
Curr = A[i];
for (j: 0..N)
Curr[j] = Prev[j] * B[j]
}
Since A[i] and A[i-1] are likely to be independent pointers,
getUnderlyingObjects should not assume that Curr and Prev share the same
underlying object in the inner loop.
If it did we would try to dependence-analyze Curr and Prev and the
analysis of the corresponding SCEVs would fail with non-constant
distance.
To fix this, the getUnderlyingObjects API is extended with an optional
LoopInfo parameter. This is effectively what controls whether we want
the above behavior or the original. Currently, I only changed to use
this approach for LoopAccessAnalysis.
The other testcase is to guard the opposite case where we do want to
look through the loop PHI. If we step through an array by incrementing
a pointer, the underlying object is the incoming value of the phi as the
loop is entered.
Fixes rdar://problem/19566729
llvm-svn: 235634
Fix oversight in -analyze output. PtrRtCheck contains the pointers that
need to be checked against each other and not whether memchecks are
necessary.
For instance in the testcase PtrRtCheck has four elements but all
no-alias so no checking is necessary.
llvm-svn: 234833
(Re-apply r234361 with a fix and a testcase for PR23157)
Both run-time pointer checking and the dependence analysis are capable
of dealing with uniform addresses. I.e. it's really just an orthogonal
property of the loop that the analysis computes.
Run-time pointer checking will only try to reason about SCEVAddRec
pointers or else gives up. If the uniform pointer turns out the be a
SCEVAddRec in an outer loop, the run-time checks generated will be
correct (start and end bounds would be equal).
In case of the dependence analysis, we work again with SCEVs. When
compared against a loop-dependent address of the same underlying object,
the difference of the two SCEVs won't be constant. This will result in
returning an Unknown dependence for the pair.
When compared against another uniform access, the difference would be
constant and we should return the right type of dependence
(forward/backward/etc).
The changes also adds support to query this property of the loop and
modify the vectorizer to use this.
Patch by Ashutosh Nema!
llvm-svn: 234424
Both run-time pointer checking and the dependence analysis are capable
of dealing with uniform addresses. I.e. it's really just an orthogonal
property of the loop that the analysis computes.
Run-time pointer checking will only try to reason about SCEVAddRec
pointers or else gives up. If the uniform pointer turns out the be a
SCEVAddRec in an outer loop, the run-time checks generated will be
correct (start and end bounds would be equal).
In case of the dependence analysis, we work again with SCEVs. When
compared against a loop-dependent address of the same underlying object,
the difference of the two SCEVs won't be constant. This will result in
returning an Unknown dependence for the pair.
When compared against another uniform access, the difference would be
constant and we should return the right type of dependence
(forward/backward/etc).
The changes also adds support to query this property of the loop and
modify the vectorizer to use this.
Patch by Ashutosh Nema!
llvm-svn: 234361
The dependences are now expose through the new getInterestingDependences
API so we can use that with -analyze too and fix the FIXME.
This lets us remove the test that relied on -debug to check the
dependences.
llvm-svn: 231807
