summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/test/Transforms/IRCE/conjunctive-checks.ll
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* [SCEV] Pass NoWrapFlags when expanding an AddExprSam Parker2019-06-141-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | InsertBinop now accepts NoWrapFlags, so pass them through when expanding a simple add expression. This is the first re-commit of the functional changes from rL362687, which was previously reverted. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934 llvm-svn: 363364
* Revert "[SCEV] Use wrap flags in InsertBinop"Benjamin Kramer2019-06-061-1/+1
| | | | | | This reverts commit r362687. Miscompiles llvm-profdata during selfhost. llvm-svn: 362699
* [SCEV] Use wrap flags in InsertBinopSam Parker2019-06-061-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing instruction. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934 llvm-svn: 362687
* [SCEV] Add explicit representations of umin/sminKeno Fischer2019-05-071-19/+13
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x` is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were largely identical. Reviewed By: sanjoy Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167 llvm-svn: 360159
* Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""Eric Christopher2019-04-171-0/+110
| | | | | | | | The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory. Will be re-reverting again. llvm-svn: 358552
* Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."Eric Christopher2019-04-171-110/+0
| | | | | | | | As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton). This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda. llvm-svn: 358546
* Revert "[SCEV][NFC] Check NoWrap flags before lexicographical comparison of ↵Roman Tereshin2018-08-271-3/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SCEVs" This reverts r319889. Unfortunately, wrapping flags are not a part of SCEV's identity (they do not participate in computing a hash value or in equality comparisons) and in fact they could be assigned after the fact w/o rebuilding a SCEV. Grep for const_cast's to see quite a few of examples, apparently all for AddRec's at the moment. So, if 2 expressions get built in 2 slightly different ways: one with flags set in the beginning, the other with the flags attached later on, we may end up with 2 expressions which are exactly the same but have their operands swapped in one of the commutative N-ary expressions, and at least one of them will have "sorted by complexity" invariant broken. 2 identical SCEV's won't compare equal by pointer comparison as they are supposed to. A real-world reproducer is added as a regression test: the issue described causes 2 identical SCEV expressions to have different order of operands and therefore compare not equal, which in its turn prevents LoadStoreVectorizer from vectorizing a pair of consecutive loads. On a larger example (the source of the test attached, which is a bugpoint) I have seen even weirder behavior: adding a constant to an existing SCEV changes the order of the existing terms, for instance, getAddExpr(1, ((A * B) + (C * D))) returns (1 + (C * D) + (A * B)). Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40645 llvm-svn: 340777
* [New PM][IRCE] port of Inductive Range Check Elimination pass to the new ↵Fedor Sergeev2018-03-151-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | pass manager There are two nontrivial details here: * Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager, so the code to add new loops was factored out * BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results. Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out, so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE (skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent). Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled. Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI starts being available for loop passes. Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea Reviewed By: mkazantsev Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795 llvm-svn: 327619
* Re-enable "[SCEV] Make isLoopEntryGuardedByCond a bit smarter"Max Kazantsev2018-02-071-3/+3
| | | | | | | | | The failures happened because of assert which was overconfident about SCEV's proving capabilities and is generally not valid. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835 llvm-svn: 324473
* Revert [SCEV] Make isLoopEntryGuardedByCond a bit smarterSerguei Katkov2018-02-071-3/+3
| | | | | | | | Revert rL324453 commit which causes buildbot failures. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835 llvm-svn: 324462
* [SCEV] Make isLoopEntryGuardedByCond a bit smarterMax Kazantsev2018-02-071-3/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | Sometimes `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` cannot prove predicate `a > b` directly. But it is a common situation when `a >= b` is known from ranges and `a != b` is known from a dominating condition. Thia patch teaches SCEV to sum these facts together and prove strict comparison via non-strict one. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42835 llvm-svn: 324453
* [IRCE] Create llvm::Loop instances for cloned out loopsSanjoy Das2016-08-141-3/+3
| | | | llvm-svn: 278618
* [IRCE] Preserve loop-simplify formSanjoy Das2016-08-061-3/+13
| | | | | | | | Fixes PR28764. Right now there is no way to test this, but (as mentioned on the PR) with Michael Zolotukhin's yet to be checked in LoopSimplify verfier, 8 of the llvm-lit tests for IRCE crash. llvm-svn: 277891
* [IRCE] Don't misuse CHECK-LABEL; NFCSanjoy Das2016-07-221-2/+2
| | | | llvm-svn: 276373
* [IRCE] Optimize conjunctions of range checksSanjoy Das2016-05-261-0/+99
After this change, we do the expected thing for cases like ``` Check0Passed = /* range check IRCE can optimize */ Check1Passed = /* range check IRCE can optimize */ if (!(Check0Passed && Check1Passed)) throw_Exception(); ``` llvm-svn: 270804
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud