This patch introduces API that keeps track of SCEVs users of
another SCEVs, required to handle invalidations of users along
with operands that comes in follow-up patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112295
Reviewed By: reames
The functionality of this method is already covered by
computeExitCountExhaustively() in a more general fashion. It was
added at a time when exhaustive exit count calculation did not
support constant folding loads yet. I double checked that dropping
this code causes no binary changes in test-suite.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112343
As seen in PR51869 the ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCond function might
end up spending lots of time when doing the isKnownPredicate checks.
Calling isKnownPredicate for example result in isKnownViaInduction
being called, which might result in isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond being
called, and then we might get one or more new calls to isImpliedCond.
Even if the scenario described here isn't an infinite loop, using
some random generated C programs as input indicates that those
isKnownPredicate checks quite often returns true. On the other hand,
the third condition that needs to be fulfilled in order to "prove
implications via truncation", i.e. the isImpliedCondBalancedTypes
check, is rarely fulfilled.
I also made some similar experiments to look at how often we would
get the same result when using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning instead
of isKnownPredicate. So far I haven't seen a single case when codegen
is negatively impacted by using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning. On
the other hand, it seems like we get rid of the compile time explosion
seen in PR51869 that way. Hence this patch.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112080
This patch teaches SCEV two implication rules:
x <u y && y >=s 0 --> x <s y,
x <s y && y <s 0 --> x <u y.
And all equivalents with signs/parts swapped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110517
Reviewed By: nikic
Current implementations of DFS in SCEV check unique-visited of traversed
values on pop, and not on push. As result, the same value may be pushed
multiple times just to be thrown away when popped. These operations are
meaningless and only waste time and increase memory footprint of the
worklist.
This patch reworks the DFS strategy to check uniqueness before push.
Should be NFC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111774
Reviewed By: nikic, reames
Replace check with
if ((ExitIfTrue && CI->isZero()) || (!ExitIfTrue && CI->isOne()))
with equivalent and simpler version
if (ExitIfTrue == CI->isZero())
As a brief reminder, an "exit count" is the number of times the backedge executes before some event. It can be zero if we exit before the backedge is reached. A "trip count" is the number of times the loop header is entered if we branch into the loop. In general, TC = BTC + 1 and thus a zero trip count is ill defined
There is a cornercases which we don't handle well. Let's assume i8 for our examples to keep things simple. If BTC = 255, then the correct trip count is 256. However, 256 is not representable in i8.
In theory, code which needs to reason about trip counts is responsible for checking for this cornercase, and either bailing out, or handling it correctly. Historically, we don't have a great track record about actually doing so.
When reviewing D109676, I found myself asking a basic question. Was there any good reason to preserve the current wrap-to-zero behavior when converting from backedge taken counts to trip counts? After reviewing existing code, I could not find a single case which appears to correctly and precisely handle the overflow case.
This patch changes the default behavior to extend instead of wrap. That is, if the result might be 256, we return a value of i9 type to ensure we interpret the count correctly. I did leave the legacy behavior as an option since a) loop-flatten stops triggering if I extend due to weirdly specific pattern matching I didn't understand and b) we could reasonably use the mode if we'd externally established a lack of overflow.
I want to emphasize that this change is *not* NFC. There are two call sites (one in ScalarEvolution.cpp, one in LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp) which are switched to the extend semantics. The former appears imprecise (but correct) for a constant 255 BTC. The later appears incorrect, though I don't have a test case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110587
This factors out utilities for scanning a bounded block of instructions since we have this code repeated in a bunch of places. The change to InlineFunction isn't strictly NFC as the limit mechanism there didn't handle debug instructions correctly.
When checking to see if we can apply IR flags to a SCEV, we need to identify a bound on the defining scope of the SCEV to be produced. We'd previously added support for a couple SCEVExpr types which trivially imply bounds, but hadn't handled types such as umax where the bounds come from the bounds of the operands. This does the obvious thing, and recurses through operands searching for a tighter bound on the defining scope.
I'm honestly surprised by how little this seems to mater on existing tests, but it's worth doing for completeness sake alone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111191
When determining the defining scope, avoid repeatedly querying
dominationg against the function entry instruction. This ends up
begin a very common case that we can handle more efficiently.
This patch removes a compile time restriction from isSCEVExprNeverPoison. We've strengthened our ability to reason about flags on scopes other than addrecs, and this bailout prevents us from using it. The comment is also suspect as well in that we're in the middle of constructing a SCEV for I. As such, we're going to visit all operands *anyways*.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111186
Behavior wise, this patch should be mostly NFC. The only behavior difference known is that on the isSCEVExprNeverPoison path we'll consider a bound imposed by the SCEVable operands (if any).
Algorithmically, it's an invert of the existing code. Previously, we checked for each operand if we could find a bound, then checked for must-execute given that bound. With the patch, we use dominance to refine the innermost bound, then check must execute once. The interesting case is when we have multiple unknowns within a single basic block. While both dominance and must-execute are worst-case linear walks within the block, only dominance is cached. As such, refining based on dominance should be more efficient.
Stop using APInt constructors and methods that were soft-deprecated in
D109483. This fixes all the uses I found in llvm, except for the APInt
unit tests which should still test the deprecated methods.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110807
This addresses a comment from review on D109845. The concern was raised that an unbounded scan would be expensive. Long term plan is to cache this search - likely reusing the existing mechanism for loop side effects - but let's be simple and conservative for now.
This addresses a comment from review on D109845. Even for SCEVs which we can't find true bounds without recursing through operands, entry to the function forms a trivial upper bound. In some cases, this trivial bound is enough to prove safety of flag inference.
This is a followon to D109845. With that landed, we will have fixed all known instances of pr51817, and can thus start inferring flags more aggressively with greatly reduced risk of miscompiles. This patch simply applies the same inference logic used in that patch to our other major flag inference path.
We can still do much better here (on both paths), but this is our first step.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111003
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. This is an alternate fix to D106852.
The basic problem being fixed is that we infer a set of flags which is valid at some inner scope S1 (usually by correctly propagating them from IR), and then (incorrectly) extend them to a SCEV in scope S2 where S1 != S2. This is not in general safe per the wrap flags semantics recently defined.
In this patch, I include a simple inference step to handle the case where we can prove that S2 is the preheader of the loop S1, and that entry into S2 implies execution of S1. See the code for a more detailed explanation.
One worry I have with this patch is that I might be over-fitting what shows up in tests - and thus hiding negative impact we'd see in the real world. My best defense is that the rule used here very closely follows the one used to propagate the flags from IR to the inner add to start with, and thus if one is reasonable, so probably is the other. Curious what others think about that piece.
The test diffs are roughly as expected. Mostly analysis only, with two transform changes. Oddly, the result looks better in the loop-idiom test, and I don't understand the PPC output enough to have tell. Nothing terrible looking though. (For context, without the scope inference peephole, the test delta includes a couple of vectorization tests. Again, not super concerning, but slightly more so.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109845
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. This was also noted in the (very old) PR23527.
The issue being fixed is that we assume the inbound flag on any GEP assumes that all users of *any* gep (or add) which happens to map to that SCEV would also be UB if the (other) gep overflowed. That's simply not true.
In terms of the test diffs, I don't see anything seriously problematic. The lost flags are expected (given the semantic restriction on when its legal to tag the SCEV), and there are several cases where the previously inferred flags are unsound per the new semantics.
The only common trend I noticed when looking at the deltas is that by not considering branch on poison as immediate UB in ValueTracking, we do miss a few cases we could reclaim. We may be able to claw some of these back with the follow ideas mentioned in PR51817.
It's worth noting that most of the changes are analysis result only changes. The two transform changes are pretty minimal. In one case, we miss the opportunity to infer a nuw (correctly). In the other, we fail to fold an exit and produce a loop invariant form instead. This one is probably over-reduced as the program appears to be undefined in practice, and neither before or after exploits that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109789
This code is attempting to prove that I must execute if we enter the defining scope of the SCEV which will be created from I. In the case where it found a defining addrec scope, it had a rather odd restriction that all of the other operands must be loop invariant in that addrec's loop.
As near as I can tell here, we really only need a upper bound on the defining scope. If we can prove the stronger property, then we must also have proven the property on the exact defining scope as well.
In practice, the actual effect of this change is narrow. The compile time restriction at the top of the routine basically limits us to I being an arithmetic in some loop L with both an addrec operand in L, and a unknown operands in L. Possible to demonstrate, but the main value of the change is removing unneeded code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110892
This reverts commit 8fdac7cb7a.
The issue causing the revert has been fixed a while ago in 60b852092c.
Original message:
Now that SCEVExpander can preserve LCSSA form,
we do not have to worry about LCSSA form when
trying to look through PHIs. SCEVExpander will take
care of inserting LCSSA PHI nodes as required.
This increases precision of the analysis in some cases.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev, bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71539
The logic in howManyLessThans is fishy. It first checks invariance of
RHS, and then uses OrigRHS as argument for isLoopEntryGuardedByCond, which
is, strictly saying, a different thing. We are seeing a very rare intermittent
failure of availability checks, and it looks like this precondition is
sometimes broken. Before we can figure out what's going on, adding asserts
that all involved values that may possibly to to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond
are available at loop entry.
If either of these asserts fails (OrigRHS is the most likely suspect), it
means that the logic here is flawed.
The implication logic for two values that are both negative or non-negative
says that it doesn't matter whether their predicate is signed and unsigned,
but only flips unsigned into signed for further inference. This patch adds
support for flipping a signed predicate into unsigned as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109959
Reviewed By: nikic
There is a piece of logic that uses the fact that signed and unsigned
versions of the same predicate are equivalent when both values are
non-negative. It's also true when both of them are negative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109957
Reviewed By: nikic
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. As noted in the original review, the NUW is legal to infer from the structure of the replacee, but a) there's no test coverage, and b) this should be done generically for all multiplies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109782
It's possible in some cases for the LHS to be a pointer where the RHS is not. This isn't directly possible for an icmp, but the analysis mixes up operands of different icmp expressions in some cases.
This does not include a test case as the smallest reduced case we've managed is extremely fragile and unlikely to test anything meaningful in the long term.
Also add an assertion to getNotSCEV() to make tracking down this sort of issue a bit easier in the future.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51787 .
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109546
This bit of code is incredibly suspicious. It allows fully unknown (but potentially negative) steps, but not steps known to be negative. The comment about scev flag inference is worrying, but also not correct to my knowledge.
At best, this might be covering up some related miscompile. However, there's no test in tree for it, the review history doesn't include obvious motivation, and the C++ example doesn't appear to give wrong results when hand translated to IR. I think it's time to remove this and see what falls out.
During review, there were concerns raised about the correctness of the corresponding signed case. This change was deliberately narrowed to the unsigned case which has been auditted and appears correct for negative values. We need to get back to the known-negative signed case, but that'll be a future patch if nothing falls out from this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104140
In general, howManyLessThans doesn't really want to work with pointers
at all; the result is an integer, and the operands of the icmp are
effectively integers. However, isLoopEntryGuardedByCond doesn't like
extra ptrtoint casts, so the arguments to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond need
to be computed without those casts.
Somehow, the values got mixed up with the recent howManyLessThans
improvements; fix the confused values, and add a better comment to
explain what's happening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109465
We were returning a tuple when all but one caller only cared about one piece of the return value. That one caller can inline the complexity, and we can simplify all other uses.
None of this logic has anything to do with SCEV's internals, it just uses the existing public APIs. As a result, we can move the code from ScalarEvolution.cpp/hpp to Delinearization.cpp/hpp with only minor changes.
This was discussed in advance on today's loop opt call. It turned out to be easy as hoped.
The basic problem being solved is that we largely give up when encountering a trip count involving an IV which is not an addrec. We will fall back to the brute force constant eval, but that doesn't have the information about the fact that we can't cycle back through the same set of values.
There's a high level design question of whether this is the right place to handle this, and if not, where that place is. The major alternative here would be to return a conservative upper bound, and then rely on two invocations of indvars to add the facts to the narrow IV, and then reconstruct SCEV. (I have not implemented the alternative and am not 100% sure this would work out.) That's arguably more in line with existing code, but I find this substantially easier to reason about. During review, no one expressed a strong opinion, so we went with this one.
Differential Revision: D108651
Follow on to D109029. I realized we had no mention of mustprogrress in the comment (as it prexisted mustprogress in the codebase). In the process of adding it, I tweaked the preconditions into something I think is more clear. Note that mustprogress is checked in the code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109091
Due to a typo, this replaced %x with umax(C1, umin(C2, %x + C3))
rather than umax(C1, umin(C2, %x)). This didn't make a difference
for the existing tests, because the result is only used for range
calculation, and %x will usually have an unknown starting range,
and the additional offset keeps it unknown. However, if %x already
has a known range, we may compute a result range that is too
small.
There's a silent bug in our reasoning about zero strides. We assume that having a single static exit implies that if that exit is not taken, then the loop must be infinite. This ignores the potential for abnormal exits via exceptions. Consider the following example:
for (uint_8 i = 0; i < 1; i += 0) {
throw_on_thousandth_call();
}
Our reasoning is such that we'd conclude this loop can't take the backedge as that would lead to a (presumed) infinite loop.
In practice, this is a silent bug because the loopIsFiniteByAssumption returns false strictly more often than the loopHaNoAbnormalExits property. We could reasonable want to change that in the future, so fixing the codeflow now is worthwhile.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109029
This extends D108921 into a generic rule applied to constructing ExitLimits along all paths. The remaining paths (primarily howFarToZero) don't have the same reasoning about UB sensitivity as the howManyLessThan ones did. Instead, the remain cause for max counts being more precise than exact counts is that we apply context sensitive loop guards on the max path, and not on the exact path. That choice is mildly suspect, but out of scope of this patch.
The MVETailPredication.cpp change deserves a bit of explanation. We were previously figuring out that two SCEVs happened to be equal because the happened to be identical. When we optimized one with context sensitive information, but not the other, we lost the ability to prove them equal. So, cover this case by subtracting and then applying loop guards again. Without this, we see changes in test/CodeGen/Thumb2/mve-blockplacement.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109015
This patch is specifically the howManyLessThan case. There will be a couple of followon patches for other codepaths.
The subtle bit is explaining why the two codepaths have a difference while both are correct. The test case with modifications is a good example, so let's discuss in terms of it.
* The previous exact bounds for this example of (-126 + (126 smax %n))<nsw> can evaluate to either 0 or 1. Both are "correct" results, but only one of them results in a well defined loop. If %n were 127 (the only possible value producing a trip count of 1), then the loop must execute undefined behavior. As a result, we can ignore the TC computed when %n is 127. All other values produce 0.
* The max taken count computation uses the limit (i.e. the maximum value END can be without resulting in UB) to restrict the bound computation. As a result, it returns 0 which is also correct.
WARNING: The logic above only holds for a single exit loop. The current logic for max trip count would be incorrect for multiple exit loops, except that we never call computeMaxBECountForLT except when we can prove either a) no overflow occurs in this IV before exit, or b) this is the sole exit.
An alternate approach here would be to add the limit logic to the symbolic path. I haven't played with this extensively, but I'm hesitant because a) the term is optional and b) I'm not sure it'll reliably simplify away. As such, the resulting code quality from expansion might actually get worse.
This was noticed while trying to figure out why D108848 wasn't NFC, but is otherwise standalone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108921
ExposePointerBase() in SCEVExpander implements basically the same
functionality as removePointerBase() in SCEV, so reuse it.
The SCEVExpander code assumes that the pointer operand on adds is
the last one -- I'm not sure that always holds. As such this might
not be strictly NFC.
This was previously committed in 914836b, and reverted due to confusion on the status of the review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108601
If we no an addrec doesn't self-wrap, the increment is strictly positive, and the start value is the smallest representable value, then we know that the corresponding wrap type can not occur.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108601
Since then, the SCEV pointer handling as been improved,
so the assertion should now hold.
This reverts commit b96114c1e1,
relanding the assertion from commit 141e845da5.
This adjusts mayHaveSideEffect() to return true for !willReturn()
instructions. Just like other side-effects, non-willreturn calls
(aka "divergence") cannot be removed and cannot be reordered relative
to other side effects. This fixes a number of bugs where
non-willreturn calls are either incorrectly dropped or moved. In
particular, it also fixes the last open problem in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50511.
I performed a cursory review of all current mayHaveSideEffect()
uses, which convinced me that these are indeed the desired default
semantics. Places that do not want to consider non-willreturn as a
sideeffect generally do not want mayHaveSideEffect() semantics at
all. I identified two such cases, which are addressed by D106591
and D106742. Finally, there is a use in SCEV for which we don't
really have an appropriate API right now -- what it wants is
basically "would this be considered forward progress". I've just
spelled out the previous semantics there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106749
Eli pointed out the issue when reviewing D104140. The max trip count logic makes an assumption that the value of IV changes. When the step is zero, the nowrap fact becomes trivial, and thus there's nothing preventing the loop from being nearly infinite. (The "nearly" part is because mustprogress may disallow an infinite loop while still allowing 999999999 iterations before RHS happens to allow an exit.)
This is very difficult to see in practice. You need a means to produce a loop varying RHS in a mustprogress loop which doesn't allow the loop to be infinite. In most cases, LICM or SCEV are smart enough to remove the loop varying expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106327
Allow arbitrary strides, and make sure we return the correct result when
the backedge-taken count is zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106197
Wrap semantics are subtle when combined with multiple exits. This has caused several rounds of confusion during recent reviews, so try to document the subtly distinction between when wrap flags provide <u and <=u facts.
The current implementation of computeBECount doesn't account for the
possibility that adding "Stride - 1" to Delta might overflow. For almost
all loops, it doesn't, but it's not actually proven anywhere.
To deal with this, use a variety of tricks to try to prove that the
addition doesn't overflow. If the proof is impossible, use an alternate
sequence which never overflows.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216
This is split from D105216, it handles only a subset of the cases in that patch.
Specifically, the issue being fixed is that the code incorrectly assumed that (Start-Stide) < End implied that the backedge was taken at least once. This is not true when e.g. Start = 4, Stride = 2, and End = 3. Note that we often do produce the right backedge taken count despite the flawed reasoning.
The fix chosen here is to use an alternate form of uceil (ceiling of unsigned divide) lowering which is safe when max(RHS,Start) > Start - Stride. (Note that signedness of both max expression and comparison depend on the signedness of the comparison being analyzed, and that overflow in the Start - Stride expression is allowed.) Note that this is weaker than proving the backedge is taken because it allows start - stride < end < start. Some cases which can't be proven safe are sent down the generic path, and we do end up generating less optimal expressions in a few cases.
Credit for coming up with the approach goes entirely to Eli. I just split it off, tweaked the comments a bit, and did some additional testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105942
This is split from D105216, but the code is hoisted much earlier into
the path where we can actually get a zero stride flowing through. Some
fairly simple proofs handle the cases which show up in practice. The
only test changes are the cases where we really do need a non-zero
divider to produce the right result.
Recommitting with isLoopInvariant() check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105921
This is split from D105216, but the code is hoisted much earlier into the path where we can actually get a zero stride flowing through. Some fairly simple proofs handle the cases which show up in practice. The only test changes are the cases where we really do need a non-zero divider to produce the right result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105921
Split off from D105216 to simplify review. Rewritten with a lambda to be easier to follow. Comments clarified.
Sorry for no test case, this is tricky to exercise with the current structure of the code. It's about to be hit more frequently in a follow up patch, and the change itself is simple.
This is split from D105216 to reduce patch complexity. Original code by Eli with very minor modification by me.
The primary point of this patch is to add the getUDivCeilSCEV routine. I included the two callers with constant arguments as we know those must constant fold even without any of the fancy inference logic.
Rules:
1. SCEVUnknown is a pointer if and only if the LLVM IR value is a
pointer.
2. SCEVPtrToInt is never a pointer.
3. If any other SCEV expression has no pointer operands, the result is
an integer.
4. If a SCEVAddExpr has exactly one pointer operand, the result is a
pointer.
5. If a SCEVAddRecExpr's first operand is a pointer, and it has no other
pointer operands, the result is a pointer.
6. If every operand of a SCEVMinMaxExpr is a pointer, the result is a
pointer.
7. Otherwise, the SCEV expression is invalid.
I'm not sure how useful rule 6 is in practice. If we exclude it, we can
guarantee that ScalarEvolution::getPointerBase always returns a
SCEVUnknown, which might be a helpful property. Anyway, I'll leave that
for a followup.
This is basically mop-up at this point; all the changes with significant
functional effects have landed. Some of the remaining changes could be
split off, but I don't see much point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105510
In order to mirror the GetElementPtrInst::indices() API.
Wanted to use this in the IRForTarget code, and was surprised to
find that it didn't exist yet.
This reverts commit 5b350183cd (and
also "[NFC][ScalarEvolution] Cleanup howManyLessThans.",
009436e9c1, to make it apply).
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216 for discussion on various
miscompilations caused by that commit.
There are two issues with the current implementation of computeBECount:
1. It doesn't account for the possibility that adding "Stride - 1" to
Delta might overflow. For almost all loops, it doesn't, but it's not
actually proven anywhere.
2. It doesn't account for the possibility that Stride is zero. If Delta
is zero, the backedge is never taken; the value of Stride isn't
relevant. To handle this, we have to make sure that the expression
returned by computeBECount evaluates to zero.
To deal with this, add two new checks:
1. Use a variety of tricks to try to prove that the addition doesn't
overflow. If the proof is impossible, use an alternate sequence which
never overflows.
2. Use umax(Stride, 1) to handle the possibility that Stride is zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105216
Add a function removePointerBase that returns, essentially, S -
getPointerBase(S). Use it in getMinusSCEV instead of actually
subtracting pointers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105503
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
We have analogous rules in instsimplify, etc.., but were missing the same in SCEV. The fold is near trivial, but came up in the context of a larger change.
This patch extends applyLoopGuards to detect a single-cond range check
idiom that InstCombine generates.
It extends applyLoopGuards to detect conditions of the form
(-C1 + X < C2). InstCombine will create this form when combining two
checks of the form (X u< C2 + C1) and (X >=u C1).
In practice, this enables us to correctly compute a tight trip count
bounds for code as in the function below. InstCombine will fold the
minimum iteration check created by LoopRotate with the user check (< 8).
void unsigned_check(short *pred, unsigned width) {
if (width < 8) {
for (int x = 0; x < width; x++)
pred[x] = pred[x] * pred[x];
}
}
As a consequence, LLVM creates dead vector loops for the code above,
e.g. see https://godbolt.org/z/cb8eTcqEThttps://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/SHHW4d
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104741
This patch generalizes MatchBinaryAddToConst to support matching
(A + C1), (A + C2), instead of just matching (A + C1), A.
The existing cases can be handled by treating non-add expressions A as
A + 0.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104634
getPointerBase should only be looking through Add and AddRec
expressions; other expressions either aren't pointers, or can't be
looked through.
Technically, this is a functional change. For a multiply or min/max
expression, if they have exactly one pointer operand, and that operand
is the first operand, the behavior here changes. Similarly, if an AddRec
has a pointer-type step, the behavior changes. But that shouldn't be
happening in practice, and we plan to make such expressions illegal.
SCEVNAryExpr::getType() could return the wrong type for a SCEVAddExpr.
Remove it, and add getType() methods to the relevant subclasses.
NFC because nothing uses it directly, as far as I know; this is just
future-proofing.
This adds handling for signed predicates, similar to how unsigned
predicates are already handled.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104732
Currently we drop wrapping flags for expressions like (A + C1)<flags> - C2.
But we can retain flags under certain conditions:
* Adding a smaller constant is NUW if the original AddExpr was NUW.
* Adding a constant with the same sign and small magnitude is NSW, if the
original AddExpr was NSW.
This can improve results after using `SimplifyICmpOperands`, which may
subtract one in order to use stricter predicates, as is the case for
`isKnownPredicate`.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104319
A backedge-taken count doesn't refer to memory; returning a pointer type
is nonsense. So make sure we always return an integer.
The obvious way to do this would be to just convert the operands of the
icmp to integers, but that doesn't quite work out at the moment:
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond currently gets confused by ptrtoint operations.
So we perform the ptrtoint conversion late for lt/gt operations.
The test changes are mostly innocuous. The most interesting changes are
more complex SCEV expressions of the form "(-1 * (ptrtoint i8* %ptr to
i64)) + %ptr)". This is expected: we can't fold this to zero because we
need to preserve the pointer base.
The call to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in howFarToZero is less precise
because of ptrtoint operations; this shows up in the function
pr46786_c26_char in ptrtoint.ll. Fixing it here would require more
complex refactoring. It should eventually be fixed by future
improvements to isImpliedCond.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 for context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103656
The old version of this code would blindly perform arithmetic without
paying attention to whether the types involved were pointers or
integers. This could lead to weird expressions like negating a pointer.
Explicitly handle simple cases involving pointers, like "x < y ? x : y".
In all other cases, coerce the operands of the comparison to integer
types. This avoids the weird cases, while handling most of the
interesting cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103660
As per (committed without review) @reames's rGac81cb7e6dde9b0890ee1780eae94ab96743569b change,
we are now allowed to produce `ptrtoint` for non-integral pointers.
This will unblock further unbreaking of SCEV regarding int-vs-pointer type confusion.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104322
Essentially, the cover function simply combines the loop level check and the function level scope into one call. This simplifies several callers and is (subjectively) less error prone.
This addresses a performance regression reported against 3c6e4191. That change (correctly) limited a transform based on assumed finiteness to mustprogress loops, but the previous change (38540d7) which introduced the mustprogress check utility only handled function attributes, not the loop metadata form.
It turns out that clang uses the function attribute form for C++, and the loop metadata form for C. As a result, 3c6e4191 ended up being a large regression in practice for C code as loops weren't being considered mustprogress despite the language semantics.
Currently, NoWrapFlags are dropped if we inline operands of SCEVAddExpr
operands. As a consequence, we always drop flags when building
expressions like `getAddExpr(A, getAddExpr(B, C, NUW), NUW)`.
We should be able to retain NUW flags common among all inlined
SCEVAddExpr and the original flags.
Reviewed By: nikic, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103877
Noticed via code inspection. We changed the semantics of the IR when we added mustprogress, and we appear to have not updated this location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103834
The motivation here is simple loops with unsigned induction variables w/non-one steps. A toy example would be:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; i += 2) { body; }
Given C/C++ semantics, we do not get the nuw flag on the induction variable. Given that lack, we currently can't compute a bound for this loop. We can do better for many cases, depending on the contents of "body".
The basic intuition behind this patch is as follows:
* A step which evenly divides the iteration space must wrap through the same numbers repeatedly. And thus, we can ignore potential cornercases where we exit after the n-th wrap through uint32_max.
* Per C++ rules, infinite loops without side effects are UB. We already have code in SCEV which relies on this. In LLVM, this is tied to the mustprogress attribute.
Together, these let us conclude that the trip count of this loop must come before unsigned overflow unless the body would form a well defined infinite loop.
A couple notes for those reading along:
* I reused the loop properties code which is overly conservative for this case. I may follow up in another patch to generalize it for the actual UB rules.
* We could cache the n(s/u)w facts. I left that out because doing a pre-patch which cached existing inference showed a lot of diffs I had trouble fully explaining. I plan to get back to this, but I don't want it on the critical path.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103118
We might want to use it when creating SCEV proper in createSCEV(),
now that we don't `forgetValue()` in `SimplifyIndvar::strengthenOverflowingOperation()`,
which might have caused us to loose some optimization potential.
When we're remapping an AddRec, the AddRec constructed by a partial
rewrite might not make sense. This triggers an assertion complaining
it's not loop-invariant.
Instead of constructing the partially rewritten AddRec, just skip
straight to calling evaluateAtIteration.
Testcase was automatically reduced using llvm-reduce, so it's a little
messy, but hopefully makes sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102959
ExprValueMap is a map from SCEV * to a set-vector of (Value *, ConstantInt *) pair,
and while the map itself will likely be big-ish (have many keys),
it is a reasonable assumption that each key will refer to a small-ish
number of pairs.
In particular looking at n=512 case from
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50384,
the small-size of 4 appears to be the sweet spot,
it results in the least allocations while minimizing memory footprint.
```
$ for i in $(ls heaptrack.opt.*.gz); do echo $i; heaptrack_print $i | tail -n 6; echo ""; done
heaptrack.opt.0-orig.gz
total runtime: 14.32s.
calls to allocation functions: 8222442 (574192/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2419000 (168924/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 190.98MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 239.65MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
heaptrack.opt.1-n1.gz
total runtime: 13.72s.
calls to allocation functions: 7184188 (523705/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2419017 (176338/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 191.38MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 239.64MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
heaptrack.opt.2-n2.gz
total runtime: 12.24s.
calls to allocation functions: 6146827 (502355/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2418997 (197695/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 163.31MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 211.01MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
heaptrack.opt.3-n4.gz
total runtime: 12.28s.
calls to allocation functions: 6068532 (494260/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2418985 (197017/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 155.43MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 201.77MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
heaptrack.opt.4-n8.gz
total runtime: 12.06s.
calls to allocation functions: 6068042 (503321/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2418992 (200646/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 166.03MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 213.55MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
heaptrack.opt.5-n16.gz
total runtime: 12.14s.
calls to allocation functions: 6067993 (499958/s)
temporary memory allocations: 2418999 (199307/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 187.24MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 233.69MB
total memory leaked: 67.58KB
```
While that test may be an edge worst-case scenario,
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=dee85d47d9f15fc268f7b18f279dac2774836615&to=98a57e31b1947d5bcdf4a5605ac2ab32b4bd5f63&stat=instructions
agrees that this also results in improvements in the usual situations.
This patch implements getSmallConstantTripMultiple(L) correctly for multiple exit loops. The previous implementation was both imprecise, and violated the specified behavior of the method. This was fine in practice, because it turns out the function was both dead in real code, and not tested for the multiple exit case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103189
This came up in review for another patch, see https://reviews.llvm.org/D102982#2782407 for full context.
I've reviewed the callers to make sure they can handle multiple exit loops w/non-zero returns. There's two cases in target cost models where results might change (Hexagon and PowerPC), but the results looked legal and reasonable. If a target maintainer wishes to back out the effect of the costing change, they should explicitly check for multiple exit loops and handle them as desired.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103182
When memoized values for a SCEV expressions are dropped, we also
drop all BECounts that make use of the SCEV expression. This is done
by iterating over all the ExitNotTaken counts and (recursively)
checking whether they use the SCEV expression. If there are many
exits, this will take a lot of time.
This patch improves the situation by pre-computing a set of all
used operands, so that we can determine whether a certain BEInfo
needs to be invalidated using a simple set lookup. Will still need
to loop over all BEInfos though.
This makes for a mild improvement on non-degenerate cases:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=b661a55a253f4a1cf5a0fbcb86e5ba7b9fb1387b&to=be1393f450e594c53f0ad7e62339a6bc831b16f6&stat=instructions
For the degenerate case from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50384,
for n=128 I'm seeing run time drop from 1.6s to 1.1s.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102796
We already apply loop-guards when computing the maximum with unitary
steps. This extends the code to also do so when dealing with non-unitary
steps.
This allows us to infer a tighter maximum in some cases.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102267
applyLoopGuards() already combines conditions from multiple nested
guards. However, it cannot use multiple conditions on the same guard,
combined using and/or. Add support for this by recursing into either
`and` or `or`, depending on the direction of the branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101692
I think currently isImpliedViaMerge can incorrectly return true for phis
in a loop/cycle, if the found condition involves the previous value of
Consider the case in exit_cond_depends_on_inner_loop.
At some point, we call (modulo simplifications)
isImpliedViaMerge(<=, %x.lcssa, -1, %call, -1).
The existing code tries to prove IncV <= -1 for all incoming values
InvV using the found condition (%call <= -1). At the moment this succeeds,
but only because it does not compare the same runtime value. The found
condition checks the value of the last iteration, but the incoming value
is from the *previous* iteration.
Hence we incorrectly determine that the *previous* value was <= -1,
which may not be true.
I think we need to be more careful when looking at the incoming values
here. In particular, we need to rule out that a found condition refers to
any value that may refer to one of the previous iterations. I'm not sure
there's a reliable way to do so (that also works of irreducible control
flow).
So for now this patch adds an additional requirement that the incoming
value must properly dominate the phi block. This should ensure the
values do not change in a cycle. I am not entirely sure if will catch
all cases and I appreciate a through second look in that regard.
Alternatively we could also unconditionally bail out in this case,
instead of checking the incoming values
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101829
This seems to be a leftover from when the BackedgeTakenInfo
stored multiple exit counts with manual memory management. At
some point this was switchted to a simple vector, and there should
be no need to micro-manage the clearing anymore. We can simply
drop the loop from the map and the the destructor do its job.
Straight forward extension to the recently added infrastructure which was pioneered with shl. This was originally posted as part of D99687, but split off for ease of review.
(I also decided to exclude the unknown start sign case explicitly for simplicity of understanding.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101181
These can be handled the same way as ule/ult, just using umax
instead of umin. This is useful in cases where the umax prevents
the upper bound from overflowing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101196
ICMP_NE predicates directly overwrote the rewritten result,
instead of chaining it with previous rewrites, as was done for
ICMP_ULT and ICMP_ULE. This means that some guards were effectively
discarded, depending on their order.
Adding the switches to reduce diffs. I'm about to split that into an lshr part and an ashr part, doing the NFC part first makes it easier to maintain both diffs.
As being discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100721,
this modelling is lossy, we can't reconstruct `ash`/`ashr exact`
from it, which means that whenever we actually expand the IR,
we've just pessimized the code..
It would be good to model this pattern, after all it comes up every time
you want to compute a distance between two pointers, but not at this cost.
This reverts commit ec54867df5.
I've run into some cases where a large fraction of compile-time is
spent invalidating SCEV. One of the causes is forgetLoop(), which
walks all values that are def-use reachable from the loop header
phis. When invalidating a topmost loop, that might be close to all
values in a function. Additionally, it's fairly common for there to
not actually be anything to invalidate, but we'll still be performing
this walk again and again.
My first thought was that we don't need to continue walking the uses
if the current value doesn't have a SCEV expression. However, this
isn't quite right, because SCEV construction can skip over values
(e.g. for a chain of adds, we might only create a SCEV expression
for the final value).
What this patch does instead is to only walk the (full) def-use chain
of loop phis that have a SCEV expression. If there's no expression
for a phi, then we also don't have any dependent expressions to
invalidate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100264
"Does the predicate hold between two ranges?"
Not very surprisingly, some places were already doing this check,
without explicitly naming the algorithm, cleanup them all.
"Does the predicate hold between two ranges?"
Not very surprisingly, some places were already doing this check,
without explicitly naming the algorithm, cleanup them all.
A value from reachable block may come to a Phi node as its input from
unreachable block. This may confuse matchSimpleRecurrence which
has no access to DomTree and can falsely recognize something as a recurrency
because of this effect, as the attached test shows.
Patch `ae7b1e` deals with half of this problem, but it only accounts from
the case when an unreachable instruction comes to Phi as an input.
This patch provides a generalization by checking that no Phi block's
predecessor is unreachable (no matter what the input is).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99929
Reviewed By: reames
This fixes an issue introduced with my change d4648e, and reported in pr49768.
The root problem is that dominance collapses in unreachable code, and that LoopInfo explicitly only models reachable code. Since the recurrence matcher doesn't filter by reachability (and can't easily because not all consumers have domtree), we need to bailout before assuming that finding a recurrence implies we found a loop.
SCEV currently tries to prove implications of x pred y by also
trying to imply ~y pred ~x. This is expensive in terms of
compile-time (in fact, the majority of isImpliedCond compile-time
is spent here) and generally not fruitful. The issue is that this
also swaps the operands and thus breaks canonical ordering. If
originally we were trying to prove an implication like
X > C1 -> Y > C2, then we'll now try to prove X > C1 -> C3 > ~Y,
which will not work.
The only real case where we can get some use out of this transform
is if the original conditions were in the form X > C1 -> Y < C2, were
then swapped to X > C1 -> C2 > Y and are then swapped again here to
X > C1 -> ~Y > C3.
As such, handle this at a higher level, where we are doing the
swapping in the first place. There's four different ways that we
can line up a predicate and a swapped predicate, so we use some
heuristics to pick some profitable way.
Because we now try this transform at a higher level
(isImpliedCondOperands rather than isImpliedCondOperandsHelper),
we can also prove additional facts. Of the added tests, one was
proven previously while the other wasn't.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90926
This patch exploits the knowledge that we may be running many fewer than bitwidth iterations of the loop, and may be able to disallow the overflow case. This patch specifically implements only the shl case, but this can be generalized to ashr and lshr without difficulty.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98222
By definition of Implication operator, `false -> true` and `false -> false`. It means that
`false` implies any predicate, no matter true or false. We don't need to go any further
trying to prove the statement we need and just always say that `false` implies it in this case.
In practice it means that we are trying to prove something guarded by `false` condition,
which means that this code is unreachable, and we can safely prove any fact or perform any
transform in this code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98706
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Provides API that allows to check predicate for being true or
false with one call. Current implementation is naive and just
calls isKnownPredicate twice, but further we can rework this
logic trying to use one check to prove both facts.
One of (and primary) callers of isBasicBlockEntryGuardedByCond is
isKnownPredicateAt, which makes isKnownPredicate check before it.
It already makes non-recursive check inside. So, on this execution
path this check is made twice. The only other caller is
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond. Moving the check there should save some
compile time.
This reverts commit 329aeb5db4,
and relands commit 61f006ac65.
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
This is a continuation of D89456.
As it was suggested there, now that SCEV models `PtrToInt`,
we can try to improve SCEV's pointer handling.
In particular, i believe, i will need this in the future
to further fix `SCEVAddExpr`operation type handling.
This removes special handling of `ConstantPointerNull`
from `ScalarEvolution::createSCEV()`, and add constant folding
into `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`.
This way, `null` constants stay as such in SCEV's,
but gracefully become zero integers when asked.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98147
This was suggested by lebedev.ri over on D96534. You'll note lack of tests. During review, we weren't actually able to find a case which exercises it, but both I and lebedev.ri feel it's a reasonable change, straight forward, and near free.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97064
When computing a range for a SCEVUnknown, today we use computeKnownBits for unsigned ranges, and computeNumSignBots for signed ranges. This means we miss opportunities to improve range results.
One common missed pattern is that we have a signed range of a value which CKB can determine is positive, but CNSB doesn't convey that information. The current range includes the negative part, and is thus double the size.
Per the removed comment, the original concern which delayed using both (after some code merging years back) was a compile time concern. CTMark results (provided by Nikita, thanks!) showed a geomean impact of about 0.1%. This doesn't seem large enough to avoid higher quality results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96534
This reverts commit b7d870eae7 and the
subsequent fix "[Polly] Fix build after AssumptionCache change (D96168)"
(commit e6810cab09).
It caused indeterminism in the output, such that e.g. the
polly-x86_64-linux buildbot failed accasionally.
The AssumptionCache mechanism is used to feed assumes into known bits computations. Most places in SCEV passed it in, but one place appears to have been missed.
Spotted via inspection, don't have a test case which actually exercises this, but it seemed like an obvious fixit.
PR49043 exposed a problem when it comes to RAUW llvm.assumes. While
D96106 would fix it for GVNSink, it seems a more general concern. To
avoid future problems this patch moves away from the vector of weak
reference model used in the assumption cache. Instead, we track the
llvm.assume calls with a callback handle which will remove itself from
the cache if the call is deleted.
Fixes PR49043.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96168
Extend applyLoopGuards() to take into account conditions/assumes proving some
value %v to be divisible by D by rewriting %v to (%v / D) * D. This lets the
loop unroller and the loop vectorizer identify more loops as not requiring
remainder loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95521
We use `EquivalenceClasses` to cache the notion that two SCEVs are equivalent,
so save time in situation when `A` is equivalent to `B` and `B` is equivalent to `C`,
making check "if `A` is equivalent to `C`?" cheaper.
We also return `0` in the comparator when we reach max analysis depth to save
compile time. After doing this, we also cache them as being equivalent.
Now, imagine the following situation:
- `A` is proved equivalent to `B`;
- `C` is proved equivalent to `D`;
- Comparison of `A` against `D` is proved non-zero;
- Comparison of `B` against `C` reaches max depth (and gets cached as equivalence).
Now, before the invocation of compare(`B`, `C`), `A` and `D` belonged
to different equivalence classes, and their comparison returned non-zero.
After the the invocation of compare(`B`, `C`), equivalence classes get merged
and `A`, `B`, `C` and `D` all fall into the same equivalence class. So the comparator
will change its behavior for couple `A` and `D`, with weird consequences following it.
This comparator is finally used in `std::stable_sort`, and this behavior change
makes it crash (looks like it's causing a memory corruption).
Solution: this patch changes `CompareSCEVComplexity` to return `None`
when the max depth is reached. So in this case, we do not cache these SCEVs
(and their parents in the tree) as being equivalent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94654
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
In computeLoadConstantCompareExitLimit, the addrec used to compute the
exit count should be from the loop which the exiting block belongs to.
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92367
Let getTruncateExpr() short-circuit to zero when the value being truncated is
known to have at least as many trailing zeros as the target type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93973
This patch makes SCEV recognize 'select A, B, false' and 'select A, true, B'.
This is a performance improvement that will be helpful after unsound select -> and/or transformation is removed, as discussed in D93065.
SCEV's answers for the select form should be a bit more conservative than the equivalent `and A, B` / `or A, B`.
Take this example: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NsP9ue .
To check whether it is valid for SCEV's computeExitLimit to return min(n, m) as ExactNotTaken value, I put llvm.assume at tgt.
It fails because the exit limit becomes poison if n is zero and m is poison. This is problematic if e.g. the exit value of i is replaced with min(n, m).
If either n or m is constant, we can revive the analysis again. I added relevant tests and put alive2 links there.
If and is used instead, this is okay: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/K9rbJk . Hence the existing analysis is sound.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93882
Reverted because the compile time impact is still too high.
isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning is used twice, we can do it just once.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92152
Previously we tried to using isKnownPredicateAt, but it makes an
extra query to isKnownPredicate, which has negative impact on compile
time. Let's try to use more lightweight isBasicBlockEntryGuardedByCond.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92152
A piece of code in `isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond` basically duplicates
the dominators traversal from `isBlockEntryGuardedByCond` called from
`isKnownPredicateAt`, but it's less powerful because it does not give context
to `isImpliedCond`. This patch reuses the `isKnownPredicateAt `function there,
reducing the amount of code duplication and making it more powerful.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92152
Reviewed By: skatkov
Use more context to prove contextual facts about the last iteration. It is
only executed when the backedge is taken, so we can use `isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond`
to make this check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91535
Reviewed By: skatkov
The TypeSize warning would occur because RuntimePointerChecking::insert
was not scalable vector aware. The fix is to use
ScalarEvolution::getSizeOfExpr to grab the size of types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90171
This reverts commit 7dcc889917.
This patch introduced a logical error that breaks whole logic of this analysis.
All checks we are making are supposed to be loop-independent, so that we could
safely remove the range check. The 'nw' fact is loop-dependent, so we can remove
the check basing on facts from this very check.
Motivating examples will follow-up.
This reverts commit 2734a9ebf4.
This patch appeared to not be a NFC. It introduced an execution path where
monotonicity check on limited space started relying in existing nsw/nuw
flags, which is illegal. The motivating test will follow-up.
SCEV makes a logical mistake when handling EitherMayExit in
case when both conditions must be met to exit the loop. The
mistake looks like follows: "if condition `A` fails within at most `X` first
iterations, and `B` fails within at most `Y` first iterations, then `A & B`
fails at most within `min (X, Y)` first iterations". This is wrong, because
both of them must fail at the same time.
Simple example illustrating this is following: we have an IV with step 1,
condition `A` = "IV is even", condition `B` = "IV is odd". Both `A` and `B`
will fail within first two iterations. But it doesn't mean that both of them
will fail within first two first iterations at the same time, which would mean
that IV is neither even nor odd at the same time within first 2 iterations.
We can only do so for known exact BE counts, but not for max.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91942
Reviewed By: nikic
Handling of `and` and `or` vastly uses copy-paste. Factored out into
a helper function as preparation step for further fix (see PR48225).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91864
Reviewed By: nikic
This is a cut down version of 1ec6e1 which was reverted due to a compile time issue. The key changes made from that patch: 1) only infer the flags needed along each path, 2) be careful to preserve order of checks, and 3) avoid computing NW flags at all since we need to prove the stronger property (does not cross 0) in the caller anyways.
Assuming this doesn't trip regressions, I'm going to try weakening (1). My end objective is to move flag inference into addrec construction. If I can't weaken (1) without compile time impact, I'll have a problem.
In an effort to make code around flag determination more readable, and (possibly) prepare for a follow up change, factor out some of the flag detection logic. In the process, reduce the number of locations we mutate wrap flags by a couple.
Note that this isn't NFC. The old code tried for NSW xor (NUW || NW). This is, two different paths computed different sets of wrap flags. The new code will try for all three. The result is that some expressions end up with a few extra flags set.
The SCEV code for constructing GEP expressions currently assumes
that the addition of the base and all the offsets is nsw if the GEP
is inbounds. While the addition of the offsets is indeed nsw, the
addition to the base address is not, as the base address is
interpreted as an unsigned value.
Fix the GEP expression code to not assume nsw for the base+offset
calculation. However, do assume nuw if we know that the offset is
non-negative. With this, we use the same behavior as the
construction of GEP addrecs does. (Modulo the fact that we
disregard SCEV unification, as the pre-existing FIXME points out).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90648
A piece of logic of `isLoopInvariantExitCondDuringFirstIterations` is actually
a generalized predicate monotonicity check. This patch moves it into the
corresponding method and generalizes it a bit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90395
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Lift limitation on step being `+/- 1`. In fact, the only thing it is needed for
is proving no-self-wrap. We can instead check this flag directly.
Theoretically it can increase the scope of the transform, but I could not
construct such test easily.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91126
Reviewed By: apilipenko
This changes the definition of t2DoLoopStart from
t2DoLoopStart rGPR
to
GPRlr = t2DoLoopStart rGPR
This will hopefully mean that low overhead loops are more tied together,
and we can more reliably generate loops without reverting or being at
the whims of the register allocator.
This is a fairly simple change in itself, but leads to a number of other
required alterations.
- The hardware loop pass, if UsePhi is set, now generates loops of the
form:
%start = llvm.start.loop.iterations(%N)
loop:
%p = phi [%start], [%dec]
%dec = llvm.loop.decrement.reg(%p, 1)
%c = icmp ne %dec, 0
br %c, loop, exit
- For this a new llvm.start.loop.iterations intrinsic was added, identical
to llvm.set.loop.iterations but produces a value as seen above, gluing
the loop together more through def-use chains.
- This new instrinsic conceptually produces the same output as input,
which is taught to SCEV so that the checks in MVETailPredication are not
affected.
- Some minor changes are needed to the ARMLowOverheadLoop pass, but it has
been left mostly as before. We should now more reliably be able to tell
that the t2DoLoopStart is correct without having to prove it, but
t2WhileLoopStart and tail-predicated loops will remain the same.
- And all the tests have been updated. There are a lot of them!
This patch on it's own might cause more trouble that it helps, with more
tail-predicated loops being reverted, but some additional patches can
hopefully improve upon that to get to something that is better overall.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89881
Our range computation methods benefit from no-wrap flags. But if the ranges
were first computed before the flags were set, the cached range will be too
pessimistic.
We need to drop cached ranges whenever we sharpen AddRec's no wrap flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89847
Reviewed By: fhahn
Strengthening nowrap flags is relatively expensive. Make sure we
only do it if we're actually going to use the flags -- we don't
use them for many recursive invocations. Additionally, if we're
reusing an existing SCEV node, there's no point in trying to
strengthen the flags if we don't have any new baseline facts.
This change falls slightly short of being NFC, because the way
flags during add+addrec / mul+addrec folding are handled may be
more precise (as less operands are included in the calculation).
Instead of performing a sequence of pairwise additions, directly
construct a multi-operand add expression.
This should be NFC modulo any SCEV canonicalization deficiencies.
This is functionally-identical to the previous implementation,
just using a generic interface to do that instead of hand-rolled one,
with caching as a bonus. Thought the sinking is still recursive..
Note that SCEVRewriteVisitor<>'s default implementations
don't preserve NoWrap flags on Add/Mul (but does on AddRec!),
but here we know we can preserve them,
so `visitAddExpr()`/`visitMulExpr()` are specialized.
If we've got an SCEVPtrToIntExpr(op), where op is not an SCEVUnknown,
we want to sink the SCEVPtrToIntExpr into an operand,
so that the operation is performed on integers,
and eventually we end up with just an `SCEVPtrToIntExpr(SCEVUnknown)`.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89692
And use it to model LLVM IR's `ptrtoint` cast.
This is essentially an alternative to D88806, but with no chance for
all the problems it caused due to having the cast as implicit there.
(see rG7ee6c402474a2f5fd21c403e7529f97f6362fdb3)
As we've established by now, there are at least two reasons why we want this:
* It will allow SCEV to actually model the `ptrtoint` casts
and their operands, instead of treating them as `SCEVUnknown`
* It should help with initial problem of PR46786 - this should eventually allow us
to not loose pointer-ness of an expression in more cases
As discussed in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 | PR46786 ]], in principle,
we could just extend `SCEVUnknown` with a `is ptrtoint` cast, because `ScalarEvolution::getPtrToIntExpr()`
should sink the cast as far down into the expression as possible,
so in the end we should always end up with `SCEVPtrToIntExpr` of `SCEVUnknown`.
But i think that it isn't the best solution, because it doesn't really matter
from memory consumption side - there probably won't be *that* many `SCEVPtrToIntExpr`s
for it to matter, and it allows for much better discoverability.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89456
URem operations with constant power-of-2 second operands are modeled as
such. This patch on its own has very little impact (e.g. no changes in
CodeGen for MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 on X86 -O3 -flto), but I'll
soon post follow-up patches that make use of it to more accurately
determine the trip multiple.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89821
This reverts commit e038b60d91.
This reverts commit a0d84d8031.
This revert was a mistake. The reason of the failures was
"Use uint64_t for branch weights instead of uint32_t"
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
The return was due to revert of underlying patch that this one depends on.
Unit test temporarily disabled because the required logic in SCEV is switched
off due to compile time reasons.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Switched off by default, can be turned on by flag.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, nikic
This reverts commit c6ca26c0bf.
This breaks stage2 builds due to hitting this assert:
```
Assertion failed: (WeightSum <= UINT32_MAX && "Expected weights to scale down to 32 bits"), function calcMetadataWeights
```
when compiling AArch64RegisterBankInfo.cpp in LLVM.
Even if the exact exit count is unknown, we can still prove that this
exit will not be taken. If we can prove that the predicate is monotonic,
fulfilled on first & last iteration, and no overflow happened in between,
then the check can be removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Same change as 0dda633317, but for
mul expressions. We want to first fold any constant operans and
then strengthen the nowrap flags, as we can compute more precise
flags at that point.
Establish parity with the handling of add expressions, by always
constant folding mul expression operands before checking the depth
limit (this is a non-recursive simplification). The code was already
unconditionally constant folding the case where all operands were
constants, but was not folding multiple constant operands together
if there were also non-constant operands.
This requires picking out a different demonstration for depth-based
folding differences in the limit-depth.ll test.
Separate out the code handling constant folding into a separate
block, that is independent of other folds that need a constant
first operand. Also make some minor adjustments to make the
constant folding look nearly identical to the same code in
getAddExpr().
The only reason this change is not strictly NFC is that the
C1*(C2+V) fold is moved below the constant folding, which means
that it now also applies to C1*C2*(C3+V), as it should.
We should first try to constant fold the add expression and only
strengthen nowrap flags afterwards. This allows us to determine
stronger flags if e.g. only two operands are left after constant
folding (and thus "guaranteed no wrap region" code applies) or the
resulting operands are non-negative and thus nsw->nuw strengthening
applies.
We want to have a caching version of symbolic BE exit count
rather than recompute it every time we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89954
Reviewed By: nikic, efriedma
When we need to prove implication of expressions of different type width,
the default strategy is to widen everything to wider type and prove in this
type. This does not interact well with AddRecs with negative steps and
unsigned predicates: such AddRec will likely not have a `nuw` flag, and its
`zext` to wider type will not be an AddRec. In contraty, `trunc` of an AddRec
in some cases can easily be proved to be an `AddRec` too.
This patch introduces an alternative way to handling implications of different
type widths. If we can prove that wider type values actually fit in the narrow type,
we truncate them and prove the implication in narrow type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89548
Reviewed By: fhahn
This reverts commit a10a64e7e3.
It broke polly/test/ScopInfo/NonAffine/non-affine-loop-condition-dependent-access_3.ll
The difference suggests that this may be a serious issue.
Fixed wrapping range case & proof methods reduced to constant range
checks to save compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
The main tricky thing here is forward-declaring the enum:
we have to specify it's underlying data type.
In particular, this avoids the danger of switching over the SCEVTypes,
but actually switching over an integer, and not being notified
when some case is not handled.
I have updated most of such switches to be exaustive and not have
a default case, where it's pretty obvious to be the intent,
however not all of them.
All existing SCEV cast types operate on integers.
D89456 will add SCEVPtrToIntExpr cast expression type.
I believe this is best for consistency.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89455
It's not pretty, but probably better than modelling it
as an opaque SCEVUnknown, i guess.
It is relevant e.g. for the loop that was brought up in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c26
as an example of what we'd be able to better analyze
once SCEV handles `ptrtoint` (D89456).
But as it is evident, even if we deal with `ptrtoint` there,
we also fail to model such an `ashr`.
Also, modeling of mul-of-exact-shr/div could use improvement.
As per alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tnfZKd
```
define i8 @src(i8 %0) {
%2 = ashr exact i8 %0, 4
ret i8 %2
}
declare i8 @llvm.abs(i8, i1)
declare i8 @llvm.smin(i8, i8)
declare i8 @llvm.smax(i8, i8)
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x) {
%abs_x = call i8 @llvm.abs(i8 %x, i1 false)
%div = udiv exact i8 %abs_x, 16
%t0 = call i8 @llvm.smax(i8 %x, i8 -1)
%t1 = call i8 @llvm.smin(i8 %t0, i8 1)
%r = mul nsw i8 %div, %t1
ret i8 %r
}
```
Transformation seems to be correct!
It was reverted because of negative compile time impact. In this version,
less powerful proof methods are used (non-recursive reasoning only), and
scope limited to constant End values to avoid explision of complex proofs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: efriedma
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
As being pointed out by @efriedma in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGaaafe350bb65#inline-4883
of course we can't just call ptrtoint in sign-extending case
and be done with it, because it will zero-extend.
I'm not sure what i was thinking there.
This is very much not an NFC, however looking at the user of
BuildConstantFromSCEV() i'm not sure how to actually show that
it results in a different constant expression.
Much similar to the ZExt/Trunc handling.
Thanks goes to Alexander Richardson for nudging towards noticing this one proactively.
The appropriate (currently crashing) test coverage added.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
We cannot guarantee that the replacement expression is loop-invariant in
all AddRecs in the source expression. Use a rewriter that skips
AddRecExpr for now.
Fixes PR47776.
The initial version of the patch was reverted because it missed the check that
the predicate being proved is actually guarded by this check on 1st iteration.
If it was not executed on 1st iteration (but possibly executes after that), then
it is incorrect to use reasoning about IV start to prove it.
Added the test where the miscompile was seen. Unfortunately, my attempts
to reduce it with bugpoint did not succeed; it can further be reduced when
we understand how to do it without losing the initial bug's notion.
Returning assuming the miscompiles are now gone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88208
The logic there only considers `SLT/SGT` predicates. We can use the same logic
for proving `ULT/UGT` predicates if all involved values are non-negative.
Adding full-scale support for unsigned might be challenging because of code amount,
so we can consider this in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88087
Reviewed By: reames
If we know that some predicate is true for AddRec and an invariant
(w.r.t. this AddRec's loop), this fact is, in particular, true on the first
iteration. We can try to prove the facts we need using the start value.
The motivating example is proving things like
```
isImpliedCondOperands(>=, X, 0, {X,+,-1}, 0}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88208
Reviewed By: reames
This check helps to guard against cases where expressions referring to
invalidated/deleted loops are not properly invalidated.
The additional check is motivated by the reproducer shared for 8fdac7cb7a
and I think in general make sense as a sanity check.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88166
Currently, we have `isLoopEntryGuardedByCond` method in SCEV, which
checks that some fact is true if we enter the loop. In fact, this is just a
particular case of more general concept `isBasicBlockEntryGuardedByCond`
applied to given loop's header. In fact, the logic if this code is largely
independent on the given loop and only cares code above it.
This patch makes this generalization. Now we can query it for any block,
and `isBasicBlockEntryGuardedByCond` is just a particular case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87828
Reviewed By: fhahn
Similar to collecting information from branches guarding a loop, we can
also collect information from assumes dominating the loop header.
Fixes PR47247.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87854
Max Kazantsev