summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/test/Transforms/IRCE/unsigned_comparisons_ult.ll
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* [SCEV] Pass NoWrapFlags when expanding an AddExprSam Parker2019-06-141-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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 Kramer2019-06-061-2/+2
| | | | | | This reverts commit r362687. Miscompiles llvm-profdata during selfhost. llvm-svn: 362699
* [SCEV] Use wrap flags in InsertBinopSam Parker2019-06-061-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | 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 Fischer2019-05-071-4/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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/+391
| | | | | | | | The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory. Will be re-reverting again. llvm-svn: 358552
* Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."Eric Christopher2019-04-171-391/+0
| | | | | | | | As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton). This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda. llvm-svn: 358546
* [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
* [IRCE] Fix intersection between signed and unsigned rangesMax Kazantsev2017-10-251-1/+83
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | IRCE for unsigned latch conditions was temporarily disabled by rL314881. The motivating example contained an unsigned latch condition and a signed range check. One of the safe iteration ranges was `[1, SINT_MAX + 1]`. Its right border was incorrectly interpreted as a negative value in `IntersectRange` function, this lead to a miscompile under which we deleted a range check without inserting a postloop where it was needed. This patch brings back IRCE for unsigned latch conditions. Now we treat range intersection more carefully. If the latch condition was unsigned, we only try to consider a range check for deletion if: 1. The range check is also unsigned, or 2. Safe iteration range of the range check lies within `[0, SINT_MAX]`. The same is done for signed latch. Values from `[0, SINT_MAX]` are unambiguous, these values are non-negative under any interpretation, and all values of a range intersected with such range are also non-negative. We also use signed/unsigned min/max functions for range intersection depending on type of the latch condition. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38581 llvm-svn: 316552
* [IRCE] Temporarily disable unsigned latch conditions by defaultMax Kazantsev2017-10-041-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | We have found some corner cases connected to range intersection where IRCE makes a bad thing when the latch condition is unsigned. The fix for that will go as a follow up. This patch temporarily disables IRCE for unsigned latch conditions until the issue is fixed. The unsigned latch conditions were introduced to IRCE by rL310027. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38529 llvm-svn: 314881
* [IRCE] Recognize loops with unsigned latch conditionsMax Kazantsev2017-08-041-0/+308
This patch enables recognition of loops with ult/ugt latch conditions. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35302 llvm-svn: 310027
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud