[LoopAccesses] Allow analysis to complete in the presence of uniform stores

(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

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
index ae561d7a26a..23429335dea 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
@@ -1044,16 +1044,8 @@ void LoopAccessInfo::analyzeLoop(const ValueToValueMap &Strides) {
   for (I = Stores.begin(), IE = Stores.end(); I != IE; ++I) {
     StoreInst *ST = cast<StoreInst>(*I);
     Value* Ptr = ST->getPointerOperand();
-
-    if (isUniform(Ptr)) {
-      emitAnalysis(
-          LoopAccessReport(ST)
-          << "write to a loop invariant address could not be vectorized");
-      DEBUG(dbgs() << "LAA: We don't allow storing to uniform addresses\n");
-      CanVecMem = false;
-      return;
-    }
-
+    // Check for store to loop invariant address.
+    StoreToLoopInvariantAddress |= isUniform(Ptr);
     // If we did *not* see this pointer before, insert it to  the read-write
     // list. At this phase it is only a 'write' list.
     if (Seen.insert(Ptr).second) {
@@ -1314,7 +1306,8 @@ LoopAccessInfo::LoopAccessInfo(Loop *L, ScalarEvolution *SE,
                                const ValueToValueMap &Strides)
     : DepChecker(SE, L), NumComparisons(0), TheLoop(L), SE(SE), DL(DL),
       TLI(TLI), AA(AA), DT(DT), NumLoads(0), NumStores(0),
-      MaxSafeDepDistBytes(-1U), CanVecMem(false) {
+      MaxSafeDepDistBytes(-1U), CanVecMem(false),
+      StoreToLoopInvariantAddress(false) {
   if (canAnalyzeLoop())
     analyzeLoop(Strides);
 }
@@ -1327,6 +1320,10 @@ void LoopAccessInfo::print(raw_ostream &OS, unsigned Depth) const {
       OS.indent(Depth) << "Memory dependences are safe with run-time checks\n";
   }
 
+  OS.indent(Depth) << "Store to invariant address was "
+                   << (StoreToLoopInvariantAddress ? "" : "not ")
+                   << "found in loop.\n";
+
   if (Report)
     OS.indent(Depth) << "Report: " << Report->str() << "\n";