In general, the meaning of fastmath flags on a call during inlining
is that the call's operation flags must be ignored. For user functions
that means that the fastmath flags used for the function definition
override any call site's fastmath flags. For intrinsic functions
we can use the call site's fastmath flags, but we have to make sure
that the call sites with different flags produce/use different
simplified versions of the same intrinsic function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138048
Create simplified functions for each rank with "x<rank>" suffix
that implement multidimensional reductions. To enable this I had to fix
an issue with taking incorrect box shape in cases of sliced embox/rebox.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133820
The SUM function does appear to be safe to use, so remove the
experimental flag for the SUM operation.
Reviewed By: vzakhari, awarzynski
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132567
Add simplifcation pass for MAXVAL intrinsic function
This refactors some of the code to allow variation on the
initialization value and operation performed within the loop,
reusing the majority of code for both SUM and MAXVAL.
Adding tests for the test-cases that produce different output
than the SUM function.
Reviewed By: vzakhari
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132234
Under some conditions, the defining op may be NULL, so
accept that rahter than try to use it and crash!
Adds test to prevent regression
Fixes github issue #57201
Reviewed By: vzakhari
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132238
The current code may not always work correctly, e.g.:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57201
I added 'enable-experimental' pass option so that SUM simplification
may be enabled in LIT tests, but it is not enabled when the pass
is added to the passes pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131640
Fix one encountered (issue #57072) and two potential scenarios where the
code would ask for an operand that isn't there.
Add test for the encountered case.
Reviewed By: vzakhari
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131671
Fortran runtime supports mixed types by casting the loaded values
to the result type, so DOT_PRODUCT simplification has to do the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131726
Find calls to FortranASum{Real8,Integer4}, check for dim and mask
arguments being absent - then produce an inlineable simple
version of the sum function.
(No longer a prototype, please review for push to llvm/main - not sure how to make Phabricator update the review with actual commit message)
Reviewed By: peixin, awarzynski
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125407
