| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
(PR28932)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23594
llvm-svn: 278999
|
|
Follow up to r278902. I had missed "fall through", with a space.
llvm-svn: 278970
|
|
stride."
This reverts commit r278731. It caused http://crbug.com/638314
llvm-svn: 278853
|
|
Patch by Pankaj Chawla
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22377
llvm-svn: 278731
|
|
No functionality change is intended.
llvm-svn: 278475
|
|
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
|
|
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
|
|
llvm-svn: 277848
|
|
expansion."
It causes Clang tests to fail after Windows self-host (PR28705).
(Also reverts follow-up r276139.)
llvm-svn: 276822
|
|
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
|
|
This is in preparation of
s/getConstantDifference/computeConstantDifference/ in a later change.
llvm-svn: 276503
|
|
The helper will get smarter in a later change, but right now this is
just code reorganization.
llvm-svn: 276467
|
|
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
|
|
llvm-svn: 274479
|
|
where possible.
No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 274431
|
|
In particular, check to see if we can compute a precise trip count by
exhaustively simulating the loop first.
llvm-svn: 274199
|
|
Only minor manual fixes. No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 273816
|
|
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
|
|
The const is unnecessary.
llvm-svn: 272759
|
|
llvm-svn: 272758
|
|
llvm-svn: 272753
|
|
Use Optional<T> to denote the absence of a solution, not
SCEVCouldNotCompute. This makes the usage of SolveQuadraticEquation
somewhat simpler.
llvm-svn: 272752
|
|
llvm-svn: 272238
|
|
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
|
|
llvm-svn: 272236
|
|
Avoids unnecessary copies. All changes audited & pass tests with asan.
No functional change intended.
llvm-svn: 272190
|
|
This is NFC as far as externally visible behavior is concerned, but will
keep us from spinning in the worklist traversal algorithm unnecessarily.
llvm-svn: 272182
|
|
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
|
|
Consolidate documentation by removing comments from the .cpp file where
the comments in the .cpp file were copy-pasted from the header.
llvm-svn: 271157
|
|
llvm-svn: 271156
|
|
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
|
|
Fix "Logic error" warnings of the type "Called C++ object pointer is
null" reported by Clang Static Analyzer on the following files:
lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp,
lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp.
Patch by Apelete Seketeli!
llvm-svn: 269424
|
|
... 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
|
|
llvm-svn: 268198
|
|
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
|
|
the cmake build to enable them.
Summary:
Historically, we had a switch in the Makefiles for turning on "expensive
checks". This has never been ported to the cmake build, but the
(dead-ish) code is still around.
This will also make it easier to turn it on in buildbots.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jyknight, mzolotukhin, RKSimon, gberry, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19723
llvm-svn: 268050
|
|
Summary:
Also adds a small comment blurb on control flow + no-wrap flags, since
that question came up a few days back on llvm-dev.
Reviewers: bjarke.roune, broune
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19209
llvm-svn: 267110
|
|
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
|
|
llvm-svn: 266149
|
|
See PR27315
r265913: "[IndVars] Eliminate op.with.overflow when possible"
r265912: "[SCEV] See through op.with.overflow intrinsics"
llvm-svn: 265950
|
|
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
|
|
and LV
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:
Fixes PR26774.
If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation"
section and jump directly to "This patch".
Motivation:
I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the
optimizer has license to discard. So transforming:
```
void f(unsigned x) {
unsigned t = 5 / x;
(void)t;
}
```
to
```
void f(unsigned x) { }
```
is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined
else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard
undefined behavior).
Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done
by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also
involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is
`undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by
definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef`
value).
Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume
that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the
behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same
function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat
linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a
differently optimized version of the same source level function.
For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is
actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in
it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original
function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and
at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with
a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two
atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only
if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine
this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the
comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a
refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the
unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since
the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the
unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate
transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function
does not write to memory.
Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking
differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic
examples that involved neither.
This patch:
This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as
`GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type
allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at
link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see
such a function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634
llvm-svn: 265762
|
