LLVM *loves* to convert `add` of operands with no common bits
into an `or`. But SCEV really doesn't deal with `or` that well,
so try extra hard to recognize this `or` as an `add`.
I believe, previously this wasn't being done because of the recursive
of this, but now that the `createSCEV()` is not recursive,
this should be fine. Unless this is *too* costly compile-time wise...
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/EfapCo
These limitations are too strict, and their only purpose is to avoid code
size explosion. These restrictions seem obsolete, and the size problem
is solved in other places through cheap expansion limits.
The motivation is that the old code cannot deal with comparisons against
induction variant's increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138412
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, reames
At the moment, getRangeRef may overflow the stack for very deeply nested
expressions.
This patch introduces a new getRangeRefIter function, which first builds
a worklist of N-ary expressions and phi nodes, followed by their
operands iteratively.
getRangeRef has been extended to also take a Depth argument and it
switches to use getRangeRefIter once the depth reaches a certain
threshold.
This ensures compile-time is not impacted in general. Note that
the iterative algorithm may lead to a slightly different evaluation
order, which could result in slightly worse ranges for cyclic phis.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=23c3eb7cdf3478c9db86f6cb5115821a8f0f5f40&to=e0e09fa338e77e53242bfc846e1484350ad79773&stat=instructionsFixes#49579.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130728
Additional SCEV verification highlighted a case where the cached loop
dispositions where incorrect after simplifying a phi node in IndVars.
Fix it by invalidating the phi before replacing it.
Fixes#58750
Additional SCEV verification highlighted a case where the cached loop
dispositions where incorrect after simplifying a condition in IndVars
and moving the user in LoopDeletion. Fix it by invalidating ICmp and all
its users.
Fixes#58515.
Moving an instruction can invalidate the cached block dispositions of
the corresponding SCEV. Invalidate the cached dispositions.
Also fixes a copy-paste error in forgetBlockAndLoopDispositions where
the start expression S was removed from BlockDispositions in the loop
but not the current values. This was also exposed by the new test case.
Fixes#58439.
Move LCSSA fixup from ::expandCodeForImpl to ::expand(). This has
the advantage that we directly preserve LCSSA nodes here instead of
relying on doing so in rememberInstruction. It also ensures that we
don't add the non-LCSSA-safe value to InsertedExpressions.
Alternative to D132704.
Fixes#57000.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134739
Instruction being hoisted could have nuw/nsw flags inferred from the old
context, and we cannot simply move it to the new location keeping them
because we are going to introduce new uses to them that didn't exist before.
Example in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57187 shows how
this can produce branch by poison from initially well-defined program.
This patch forcefully recomputes poison-generating flag in the new context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132022
Reviewed By: fhahn, nikic
This fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57336. It was exposed by a recent SCEV change, but appears to have been a long standing issue.
Note that the whole insert into the loop instead of a split exit edge is slightly contrived to begin with; it's there solely because IndVarSimplify preserves the CFG.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132571
Initial implementation had too weak requirements to positive/negative
range crossings. Not crossing zero with nuw is not enough for two reasons:
- If ArLHS has negative step, it may turn from positive to negative
without crossing 0 boundary from left to right (and crossing right to
left doesn't count for unsigned);
- If ArLHS crosses SINT_MAX boundary, it still turns from positive to
negative;
In fact we require that ArLHS always stays non-negative or negative,
which an be enforced by the following set of preconditions:
- both nuw and nsw;
- positive step (looks liftable);
Because of positive step, boundary crossing is only possible from left
part to the right part. And because of no-wrap flags, it is guaranteed
to never happen.
This reverts commit 354fa0b480.
Returning as is. The patch was reverted due to a miscompile, but
this patch is not causing it. This patch made it possible to infer
some nuw flags in code guarded by `false` condition, and then someone
else to managed to propagate the flag from dead code outside.
Returning the patch to be able to reproduce the issue.
This reverts commit 34ae308c73.
Our internal testing found a miscompile. Not sure if it's caused by
this patch or it revealed something else. Reverting while investigating.
Contextual knowledge may be used to prove invariance of some conditions.
For example, in this case:
```
; %len >= 0
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <s %len)
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <u %len)
```
the 2nd check always fails if `start` is negative and always passes otherwise.
It looks like there are more opportunities of this kind that are still to be
implemented in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129753
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Sometimes SCEV cannot infer nuw/nsw from something as simple as
```
len in [0, MAX_INT]
...
iv = phi(0, iv.next)
guard(iv <s len)
guard(iv <u len)
iv.next = iv + 1
```
just because flag strenthening only relies on definition and does not use local facts.
This patch adds support for the simplest case: inference of flags of `add(x, constant)`
if we can contextually prove that `x <= max_int - constant`.
In case if it has negative CT impact, we can add an option to switch it off. I woudln't
expect that though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129643
Reviewed By: apilipenko
isSafeToExpand() for addrecs depends on whether the SCEVExpander
will be used in CanonicalMode. At least one caller currently gets
this wrong, resulting in PR50506.
Fix this by a) making the CanonicalMode argument on the freestanding
functions required and b) adding member functions on SCEVExpander
that automatically take the SCEVExpander mode into account. We can
use the latter variant nearly everywhere, and thus make sure that
there is no chance of CanonicalMode mismatch.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/50506.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129630
After replacing a loop phi with the preheader value, it's usually
possible to simplify some of the using instructions, so do that as
part of replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues().
Doing this as part of IndVars is valuable, because it may make GEPs
in the loop have constant offsets and allow the following SROA run
to succeed (as demonstrated in the PhaseOrdering test).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129293
Currently we only call replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues() if
optimizeLoopExits() replaces the exit with an unconditional exit.
However, it is very common that this already happens as part of
eliminateIVComparison(), in which case we're leaving behind the
dead header phi.
Tweak the early bailout for already-constant exits to also call
replaceLoopPHINodesWithPreheaderValues().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129214
The general idea of these tests is elimination of signed and unsigned
comparison of the same values through proving non-negativity of them.
Here are some examples where SCEV is not smart enough to prove it.
When trying to prove an implied condition on a phi by proving it
for all incoming values, we need to be careful about values coming
from a backedge, as these may refer to a previous loop iteration.
A variant of this issue was fixed in D101829, but the dominance
condition used there isn't quite right: It checks that the value
dominates the incoming block, which doesn't exclude backedges
(values defined in a loop will usually dominate the loop latch,
which is the incoming block of the backedge).
Instead, we should be checking for domination of the phi block.
Any values defined inside the loop will not dominate the loop
header phi.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56242.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128640
