This reverts commit 354fa0b48008eca701a110badd6974bf449df257.
Returning as is. The patch was reverted due to a miscompile, but
this patch is not causing it. This patch made it possible to infer
some nuw flags in code guarded by `false` condition, and then someone
else to managed to propagate the flag from dead code outside.
Returning the patch to be able to reproduce the issue.
This reverts commit 34ae308c73e4d76dbdab25a6206d3fbc5ebafdf5.
Our internal testing found a miscompile. Not sure if it's caused by
this patch or it revealed something else. Reverting while investigating.
Sometimes SCEV cannot infer nuw/nsw from something as simple as
```
len in [0, MAX_INT]
...
iv = phi(0, iv.next)
guard(iv <s len)
guard(iv <u len)
iv.next = iv + 1
```
just because flag strenthening only relies on definition and does not use local facts.
This patch adds support for the simplest case: inference of flags of `add(x, constant)`
if we can contextually prove that `x <= max_int - constant`.
In case if it has negative CT impact, we can add an option to switch it off. I woudln't
expect that though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129643
Reviewed By: apilipenko
When computing the BECount for multi-exit loops, we need to combine
individual exit counts using umin_seq rather than umin. This is
because an earlier exit may exit on the first iteration, in which
case later exit expressions will not be evaluated and could be
poisonous. We cannot propagate potential poison values from later
exits.
In particular, this avoids the introduction of "branch on poison"
UB when optimizing multi-exit loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124910
These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
We can end up with two loop exits whose exit counts are equivalent, but whose textual representation is different and non-obvious. For the sub-case where we have a series of exits which dominate one another (common), eliminate any exits which would iterate *after* a previous exit on the exiting iteration.
As noted in the TODO being removed, I'd always thought this was a good idea, but I've now seen this in a real workload as well.
Interestingly, in review, Nikita pointed out there's let another oppurtunity to leverage SCEV's reasoning. If we kept track of the min of dominanting exits so far, we could discharge exits with EC >= MDE. This is less powerful than the existing transform (since later exits aren't considered), but potentially more powerful for any case where SCEV can prove a >= b, but neither a == b or a > b. I don't have an example to illustrate that oppurtunity, but won't be suprised if we find one and return to handle that case as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69009
llvm-svn: 375379
The problem is that we can have two loop exits, 'a' and 'b', where 'a' and 'b' would exit at the same iteration, 'a' precedes 'b' along some path, and 'b' is predicated while 'a' is not. In this case (see the previously submitted test case), we causing the loop to exit through 'b' whereas it should have exited through 'a'.
This only applies to loop exits where the exit counts are not provably inequal, but that isn't as much of a restriction as it appears. If we could order the exit counts, we'd have already removed one of the two exits. In theory, we might be able to prove inequality w/o ordering, but I didn't really explore that piece. Instead, I went for the obvious restriction and ensured we didn't predicate exits following non-predicateable exits.
Credit goes to Evgeny Brevnov for figuring out the problematic case. Fuzzing probably also found it (failures seen), but due to some silly infrastructure problems I hadn't gotten to the results before Evgeny hand reduced it from a benchmark (he manually enabled the transform). Once this is fixed, I'll try to filter through the fuzzer failures to see if there's anything additional lurking.
Differential Revision https://reviews.llvm.org/D68956
llvm-svn: 375038
Credit goes to Evgeny Brevnov for figuring out the problematic case.
Fuzzing probably also found it (lots of failures), but due to some silly infrastructure problems I hadn't gotten to the results before Evgeny hand reduced it from a benchmark.
llvm-svn: 374812
This patch implements a variation of a well known techniques for JIT compilers - we have an implementation in tree as LoopPredication - but with an interesting twist. This version does not assume the ability to execute a path which wasn't taken in the original program (such as a guard or widenable.condition intrinsic). The benefit is that this works for arbitrary IR from any frontend (including C/C++/Fortran). The tradeoff is that it's restricted to read only loops without implicit exits.
This builds on SCEV, and can thus eliminate the loop varying portion of the any early exit where all exits are understandable by SCEV. A key advantage is that fixing deficiency exposed in SCEV - already found one while writing test cases - will also benefit all of full redundancy elimination (and most other loop transforms).
I haven't seen anything in the literature which quite matches this. Given that, I'm not entirely sure that keeping the name "loop predication" is helpful. Anyone have suggestions for a better name? This is analogous to partial redundancy elimination - since we remove the condition flowing around the backedge - and has some parallels to our existing transforms which try to make conditions invariant in loops.
Factoring wise, I chose to put this in IndVarSimplify since it's a generally applicable to all workloads. I could split this off into it's own pass, but we'd then probably want to add that new pass every place we use IndVars. One solid argument for splitting it off into it's own pass is that this transform is "too good". It breaks a huge number of existing IndVars test cases as they tend to be simple read only loops. At the moment, I've opted it off by default, but if we add this to IndVars and enable, we'll have to update around 20 test files to add side effects or disable this transform.
Near term plan is to fuzz this extensively while off by default, reflect and discuss on the factoring issue mentioned just above, and then enable by default. I also need to give some though to supporting widenable conditions in this framing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67408
llvm-svn: 373351
