Summary:
When SCEVRewriteVisitor traverses the SCEV DAG, it may visit the same SCEV
multiple times if this SCEV is referenced by multiple other SCEVs. This has
exponential time complexity in the worst case. Memoizing the results will
avoid re-visiting the same SCEV. Add a map to save the results, and override
the visit function of SCEVVisitor. Now SCEVRewriteVisitor only visit each
SCEV once and thus returns the same result for the same input SCEV.
This patch fixes PR18606, PR18607.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25810
llvm-svn: 284868
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
This is to avoid inlining too many multiplication operands into a SCEV, which could
take exponential time in the worst case.
Reviewers: Sanjoy Das, Mehdi Amini, Michael Zolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25794
llvm-svn: 284784
In loops that look something like
i = n;
do {
...
} while(i++ < n+k);
where k is a constant, the maximum backedge count is k (in fact the backedge
count will be either 0 or k, depending on whether n+k wraps). More generally
for LHS < RHS if RHS-(LHS of first comparison) is a constant then the loop will
iterate either 0 or that constant number of times.
This allows for more loop unrolling with the recent upper bound loop unrolling
changes, and I'm working on a patch that will let loop unrolling additionally
make use of the loop being executed either 0 or k times (we need to retain the
loop comparison only on the first unrolled iteration).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25607
llvm-svn: 284465
Enhance SCEV to compute the trip count for some loops with unknown stride.
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 281732
value is a pointer.
This patch is to fix PR30213. When expanding an expr based on ValueOffsetPair,
if the value is of pointer type, we can only create a getelementptr instead
of sub expr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24088
llvm-svn: 281439
when unroll runtime iteration loop.
In llvm::UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder, if the loop to be unrolled is the inner
loop inside a loop nest, the scalar evolution needs to be dropped for its
parent loop which is done by ScalarEvolution::forgetLoop. However, we can
postpone forgetLoop to the end of UnrollRuntimeLoopRemainder so TripCountSC
expansion can still reuse existing value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23572
llvm-svn: 279748
The patch is to fix the bug in PR28705. It was caused by setting wrong return
value for SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion. The return values of findExistingExpansion
have different meanings when the function is used in different ways so it is easy to make
mistake. The fix creates two new interfaces to replace SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion,
and specifies where each interface is expected to be used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22942
llvm-svn: 278161
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
This change lets us prove things like
"{X,+,10} s< 5000" implies "{X+7,+,10} does not sign overflow"
It does this by replacing replacing getConstantDifference by
computeConstantDifference (which is smarter) in
isImpliedCondOperandsViaRanges.
llvm-svn: 276505
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 276136
When building SCEVs, if a function is known to return its argument, then we can
build the SCEV using the corresponding argument value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9381
llvm-svn: 275037
The way we elide max expressions when computing trip counts is incorrect
-- it breaks cases like this:
```
static int wrapping_add(int a, int b) {
return (int)((unsigned)a + (unsigned)b);
}
void test() {
volatile int end_buf = 2147483548; // INT_MIN - 100
int end = end_buf;
unsigned counter = 0;
for (int start = wrapping_add(end, 200); start < end; start++)
counter++;
print(counter);
}
```
Note: the `NoWrap` variable that was being tested has little to do with
the values flowing into the max expression; it is a property of the
induction variable.
test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/nsw-tripcount.ll was added to solely test
functionality I'm reverting in this change, so I've deleted the test
fully.
llvm-svn: 273079
We can safely rely on a NoWrap add recurrence causing UB down the road
only if we know the loop does not have a exit expressed in a way that is
opaque to ScalarEvolution (e.g. by a function call that conditionally
calls exit(0)).
I believe with this change PR28012 is fixed.
Note: I had to change some llvm-lit tests in LoopReroll, since it looks
like they were depending on this incorrect behavior.
llvm-svn: 272237
Absence of may-unwind calls is not enough to guarantee that a
UB-generating use of an add-rec poison in the loop latch will actually
cause UB. We also need to guard against calls that terminate the thread
or infinite loop themselves.
This partially addresses PR28012.
llvm-svn: 272181
The worklist algorithm introduced in rL271151 didn't check to see if the
direct users of the post-inc add recurrence propagates poison. This
change fixes the problem and makes the code structure more obvious.
Note for release managers: correctness wise, this bug wasn't a
regression introduced by rL271151 -- the behavior of SCEV around
post-inc add recurrences was strictly improved (in terms of correctness)
in rL271151.
llvm-svn: 272179
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
This was first checked in at r265912 but reverted in r265950 because it
exposed some issues around how SCEV handled post-inc add recurrences.
Those issues have now been fixed.
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 271152
Fixes PR27315.
The post-inc version of an add recurrence needs to "follow the same
rules" as a normal add or subtract expression. Otherwise we miscompile
programs like
```
int main() {
int a = 0;
unsigned a_u = 0;
volatile long last_value;
do {
a_u += 3;
last_value = (long) ((int) a_u);
if (will_add_overflow(a, 3)) {
// Leave, and don't actually do the increment, so no UB.
printf("last_value = %ld\n", last_value);
exit(0);
}
a += 3;
} while (a != 46);
return 0;
}
```
This patch changes SCEV to put no-wrap flags on post-inc add recurrences
only when the poison from a potential overflow will go ahead to cause
undefined behavior.
To avoid regressing performance too much, I've assumed infinite loops
without side effects is undefined behavior to prove poison<->UB
equivalence in more cases. This isn't ideal, but is not new to LLVM as
a whole, and far better than the situation I'm trying to fix.
llvm-svn: 271151
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
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is the NUW variant of r269211 and fixes PR27691.
(Note: PR27691 is not a correct or stability bug, it was created to
track a pending task).
llvm-svn: 269790
SCEVExpander::replaceCongruentIVs assumes the backedge value of an
SCEV-analysable PHI to always be an instruction, when this is not
necessarily true. For now address this by bailing out of the
optimization if the backedge value of the PHI is a non-Instruction.
llvm-svn: 269213
`SCEVExpander::replaceCongruentIVs` bypasses `hoistIVInc` if both the
original and the isomorphic increments are PHI nodes. Doing this can
break SSA if the isomorphic increment is not dominated by the original
increment. Get rid of the bypass, and let `hoistIVInc` do the right
thing.
Fixes PR27232 (compile time crash/hang).
llvm-svn: 269212
... for AddRec's in loops for which SCEV is unable to compute a max
tripcount. This is not a problem for "normal" loops[0] that don't have
guards or assumes, but helps in cases where we have guards or assumes in
the loop that can be used to constrain incoming values over the backedge.
This partially fixes PR27691 (we still don't handle the NUW case).
[0]: for "normal" loops, in the cases where we'd be able to prove
no-wrap via isKnownPredicate, we'd also be able to compute a max
tripcount.
llvm-svn: 269211
We can use calls to @llvm.experimental.guard to prove predicates,
relying on the fact that in all locations domianted by a call to
@llvm.experimental.guard the predicate it is guarding is known to be
true.
llvm-svn: 268997
In the "LoopDispositions:" section:
- Instead of printing out a list, print out a "dictionary" to make it
obvious by inspection which disposition is for which loop. This is
just a cosmetic change.
- Print dispositions for parent _and_ sibling loops. I will use this
to write a test case.
llvm-svn: 268405
There are currently some bugs in tree around SCEV caching an incorrect
loop disposition. Printing out loop dispositions will let us write
whitebox tests as those are fixed.
The dispositions are printed as a list in "inside out" order,
i.e. innermost loop first.
llvm-svn: 268177
Summary:
(... while still not using a PostDomTree)
The way we use isKnownNotFullPoison from SCEV today, the new CFG walking
logic will not trigger for any realistic cases -- it will kick in only
for situations where we could have merged the contiguous basic blocks
anyway[0], since the poison generating instruction dominates all of its
non-PHI uses (which are the only uses we consider right now).
However, having this change in place will allow a later bugfix to break
fewer llvm-lit tests.
[0]: i.e. cases where block A branches to block B and B is A's only
successor and A is B's only predecessor.
Reviewers: broune, bjarke.roune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19212
llvm-svn: 267175
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 265912
This re-commits r265535 which was reverted in r265541 because it
broke the windows bots. The problem was that we had a PointerIntPair
which took a pointer to a struct allocated with new. The problem
was that new doesn't provide sufficient alignment guarantees.
This pattern was already present before r265535 and it just happened
to work. To fix this, we now separate the PointerToIntPair from the
ExitNotTakenInfo struct into a pointer and a bool.
Original commit message:
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265786
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265535
Building on the previous change, this generalizes
ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work with
{Ext(C?A:B)+k0,+,Ext(C?A:B)+k1} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation, and k0 and k1 are constants.
llvm-svn: 262979
This change generalizes ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work
with {Ext(C?A:B),+,Ext(C?A:B)} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation.
llvm-svn: 262978
After r262438 we can have provably positive NSW SCEV expressions whose
zero extensions cannot be simplified (since r262438 makes SCEV better at
computing constant ranges). This means demoting sexts of positive add
recurrences eagerly can result in an unsimplified zero extension where
we could have had a simplified sign extension. This change fixes the
issue by teaching SCEV to demote sext of a positive SCEV expression to a
zext only if the sext could not be simplified.
llvm-svn: 262638
Have ScalarEvolution::getRange re-consider cases like "{C?A:B,+,C?P:Q}"
by factoring out "C" and computing RangeOf{A,+,P} union RangeOf({B,+,Q})
instead.
The latter can be easier to compute precisely in cases like
"{C?0:N,+,C?1:-1}" N is the backedge taken count of the loop; since in
such cases the latter form simplifies to [0,N+1) union [0,N+1).
llvm-svn: 262438
