Revert "[LoopVectorize] Added address space check when analysing interleaved accesses"

This reverts r295038. The buildbot clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu failed.
I'm reverting to investigate.

llvm-svn: 295042

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
index 84935d6a408..401b942d307 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
@@ -5997,12 +5997,6 @@ void InterleavedAccessInfo::analyzeInterleaving(
       if (DesA.Stride != DesB.Stride || DesA.Size != DesB.Size)
         continue;
 
-      // Ignore A if the memory object of A and B don't belong to the same
-      // address space
-      if (DesA.Scev->getType()->getPointerAddressSpace() !=
-          DesB.Scev->getType()->getPointerAddressSpace())
-        continue;
-
       // Calculate the distance from A to B.
       const SCEVConstant *DistToB = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(
           PSE.getSE()->getMinusSCEV(DesA.Scev, DesB.Scev));
@@ -6046,35 +6040,35 @@ void InterleavedAccessInfo::analyzeInterleaving(
       releaseGroup(Group);
 
   // Remove interleaved groups with gaps (currently only loads) whose memory
-  // accesses may wrap around. We have to revisit the getPtrStride analysis,
-  // this time with ShouldCheckWrap=true, since collectConstStrideAccesses does
+  // accesses may wrap around. We have to revisit the getPtrStride analysis, 
+  // this time with ShouldCheckWrap=true, since collectConstStrideAccesses does 
   // not check wrapping (see documentation there).
-  // FORNOW we use Assume=false;
-  // TODO: Change to Assume=true but making sure we don't exceed the threshold
+  // FORNOW we use Assume=false; 
+  // TODO: Change to Assume=true but making sure we don't exceed the threshold 
   // of runtime SCEV assumptions checks (thereby potentially failing to
-  // vectorize altogether).
+  // vectorize altogether). 
   // Additional optional optimizations:
-  // TODO: If we are peeling the loop and we know that the first pointer doesn't
+  // TODO: If we are peeling the loop and we know that the first pointer doesn't 
   // wrap then we can deduce that all pointers in the group don't wrap.
-  // This means that we can forcefully peel the loop in order to only have to
-  // check the first pointer for no-wrap. When we'll change to use Assume=true
+  // This means that we can forcefully peel the loop in order to only have to 
+  // check the first pointer for no-wrap. When we'll change to use Assume=true 
   // we'll only need at most one runtime check per interleaved group.
   //
   for (InterleaveGroup *Group : LoadGroups) {
 
     // Case 1: A full group. Can Skip the checks; For full groups, if the wide
-    // load would wrap around the address space we would do a memory access at
-    // nullptr even without the transformation.
-    if (Group->getNumMembers() == Group->getFactor())
+    // load would wrap around the address space we would do a memory access at 
+    // nullptr even without the transformation. 
+    if (Group->getNumMembers() == Group->getFactor()) 
       continue;
 
-    // Case 2: If first and last members of the group don't wrap this implies
+    // Case 2: If first and last members of the group don't wrap this implies 
     // that all the pointers in the group don't wrap.
     // So we check only group member 0 (which is always guaranteed to exist),
-    // and group member Factor - 1; If the latter doesn't exist we rely on
+    // and group member Factor - 1; If the latter doesn't exist we rely on 
     // peeling (if it is a non-reveresed accsess -- see Case 3).
     Value *FirstMemberPtr = getPointerOperand(Group->getMember(0));
-    if (!getPtrStride(PSE, FirstMemberPtr, TheLoop, Strides, /*Assume=*/false,
+    if (!getPtrStride(PSE, FirstMemberPtr, TheLoop, Strides, /*Assume=*/false, 
                       /*ShouldCheckWrap=*/true)) {
       DEBUG(dbgs() << "LV: Invalidate candidate interleaved group due to "
                       "first group member potentially pointer-wrapping.\n");