8d85e945b2
There are multiple possible ways to represent the X - urem X, Y pattern. SCEV was not canonicalizing, and thus, depending on which you analyzed, you could get different results. The sub representation appears to produce strictly inferior results in practice, so I decided to canonicalize to the Y * X/Y version. The motivation here is that runtime unroll produces the sub X - (and X, Y-1) pattern when Y is a power of two. SCEV is thus unable to recognize that an unrolled loop exits because we don't figure out that the new unrolled step evenly divides the trip count of the unrolled loop. After instcombine runs, we convert the the andn form which SCEV recognizes, so essentially, this is just fixing a nasty pass ordering dependency. The ARM loop hardware interaction in the test diff is opague to me, but the comments in the review from others knowledge of the infrastructure appear to indicate these are improvements in loop recognition, not regressions. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114018
Analysis Opportunities:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:
{1,+,3,+,2}<loop>
Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as
(-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))
In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,
ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:
((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))
This could be folded to
(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//