| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 337075
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit r336140. Our tests shows that LSR assert fails with it.
llvm-svn: 336473
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Comment on Transforms/LoopVersioning/incorrect-phi.ll: With the change
SCEV is able to prove that the loop doesn't wrap-self (due to zext i16
to i64), disabling the entire loop versioning pass. Removed the zext and
just use i64.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: jlebar, hiraditya, javed.absar, bixia, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48409
llvm-svn: 336140
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts r334428. It incorrectly marks some multiplications as nuw. Tim
Shen is working on a proper fix.
Original commit message:
[SCEV] Add nuw/nsw to mul ops in StrengthenNoWrapFlags where safe.
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
llvm-svn: 335016
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Previously we would do this simplification only if it did not introduce
any new truncs (excepting new truncs which replace other cast ops).
This change weakens this condition: If the number of truncs stays the
same, but we're able to transform trunc(X + Y) to X + trunc(Y), that's
still simpler, and it may open up additional transformations.
While we're here, also clean up some duplicated code.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48160
llvm-svn: 334736
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Previously we would add them for adds, but not multiplies.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48038
llvm-svn: 334428
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Given loops `L1` and `L2` with AddRecs `AR1` and `AR2` varying in them respectively.
When identifying loop disposition of `AR2` w.r.t. `L1`, we only say that it is varying if
`L1` contains `L2`. But there is also a possible situation where `L1` and `L2` are
consecutive sibling loops within the parent loop. In this case, `AR2` is also varying
w.r.t. `L1`, but we don't correctly identify it.
It can lead, for exaple, to attempt of incorrect folding. Consider:
AR1 = {a,+,b}<L1>
AR2 = {c,+,d}<L2>
EXAR2 = sext(AR1)
MUL = mul AR1, EXAR2
If we incorrectly assume that `EXAR2` is invariant w.r.t. `L1`, we can end up trying to
construct something like: `{a * {c,+,d}<L2>,+,b * {c,+,d}<L2>}<L1>`, which is incorrect
because `AR2` is not available on entrance of `L1`.
Both situations "`L1` contains `L2`" and "`L1` preceeds sibling loop `L2`" can be handled
with one check: "header of `L1` dominates header of `L2`". This patch replaces the old
insufficient check with this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39453
llvm-svn: 318819
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The patch rL303730 was reverted because test lsr-expand-quadratic.ll failed on
many non-X86 configs with this patch. The reason of this is that the patch
makes a correctless fix that changes optimizer's behavior for this test.
Without the change, LSR was making an overconfident simplification basing on a
wrong SCEV. Apparently it did not need the IV analysis to do this. With the
change, it chose a different way to simplify (that wasn't so confident), and
this way required the IV analysis. Now, following the right execution path,
LSR tries to make a transformation relying on IV Users analysis. This analysis
is target-dependent due to this code:
// LSR is not APInt clean, do not touch integers bigger than 64-bits.
// Also avoid creating IVs of non-native types. For example, we don't want a
// 64-bit IV in 32-bit code just because the loop has one 64-bit cast.
uint64_t Width = SE->getTypeSizeInBits(I->getType());
if (Width > 64 || !DL.isLegalInteger(Width))
return false;
To make a proper transformation in this test case, the type i32 needs to be
legal for the specified data layout. When the test runs on some non-X86
configuration (e.g. pure ARM 64), opt gets confused by the specified target
and does not use it, rejecting the specified data layout as well. Instead,
it uses some default layout that does not treat i32 as a legal type
(currently the layout that is used when it is not specified does not have
legal types at all). As result, the transformation we expect to happen does
not happen for this test.
This re-enabling patch does not have any source code changes compared to the
original patch rL303730. The only difference is that the failing test is
moved to X86 directory and now has requirement of running on x86 only to comply
with the specified target triple and data layout.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33543
llvm-svn: 303971
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit r303730 because it broke all the buildbots.
llvm-svn: 303747
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When folding arguments of AddExpr or MulExpr with recurrences, we rely on the fact that
the loop of our base recurrency is the bottom-lost in terms of domination. This assumption
may be broken by an expression which is treated as invariant, and which depends on a complex
Phi for which SCEVUnknown was created. If such Phi is a loop Phi, and this loop is lower than
the chosen AddRecExpr's loop, it is invalid to fold our expression with the recurrence.
Another reason why it might be invalid to fold SCEVUnknown into Phi start value is that unlike
other SCEVs, SCEVUnknown are sometimes position-bound. For example, here:
for (...) { // loop
phi = {A,+,B}
}
X = load ...
Folding phi + X into {A+X,+,B}<loop> actually makes no sense, because X does not exist and cannot
exist while we are iterating in loop (this memory can be even not allocated and not filled by this moment).
It is only valid to make such folding if X is defined before the loop. In this case the recurrence {A+X,+,B}<loop>
may be existant.
This patch prohibits folding of SCEVUnknown (and those who use them) into the start value of an AddRecExpr,
if this instruction is dominated by the loop. Merging the dominating unknown values is still valid. Some tests that
relied on the fact that some SCEVUnknown should be folded into AddRec's are changed so that they no longer
expect such behavior.
llvm-svn: 303730
|
|
|
The existing sorting order in defined CompareSCEVComplexity sorts AddRecExprs
by loop depth, but does not pay attention to dominance of loops. This can
lead us to the following buggy situation:
for (...) { // loop1
op1 = {A,+,B}
}
for (...) { // loop2
op2 = {A,+,B}
S = add op1, op2
}
In this case there is no guarantee that in operand list of S the op2 comes
before op1 (loop depth is the same, so they will be sorted just
lexicographically), so we can incorrectly treat S as a recurrence of loop1,
which is wrong.
This patch changes the sorting logic so that it places the dominated recs
before the dominating recs. This ensures that when we pick the first recurrency
in the operands order, it will be the bottom-most in terms of domination tree.
The attached test set includes some tests that produce incorrect SCEV
estimations and crashes with oldlogic.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33121
llvm-svn: 303148
|
