9345ab3a4550 updated generateOverflowCheck to skip creating checks that
always evaluate to false. This in turn means that we only need to check
for overflows if the result of the multiplication is actually used.
Sink the Or for the overflow check into ComputeEndCheck, so it is only
created when there's an actual check.
Currently generateOverflowCheck always creates code for Step being
negative and positive, followed by a select at the end depending on
Step's sign.
This patch updates the code to only create either the checks for step
being positive or negative, if the sign is known.
Follow-up to D116696.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116747
This patch updates SCEVExpander::expandUnionPredicate to not create
redundant 'or false, x' instructions. While those are trivially
foldable, they can be easily avoided and hinder code that checks the
size/cost of the generated checks before further folds.
I am planning on look into a few other similar improvements to code
generated by SCEVExpander.
I remember a while ago @lebedev.ri working on doing some trivial folds
like that in IRBuilder itself, but there where concerns that such
changes may subtly break existing code.
Reviewed By: reames, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116696
Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedeef9da2109ea57e4cb372f295ff53b88.
This reverts commit 749581d21f2b3f53e4fca4eb8728c942d646893b.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e096143670e0fd396e81d43393a2dd2.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6f0969976fafd62af34730436ad5944.
While we could emit such a tautological `select`,
it will stick around until the next instsimplify invocation,
which may happen after we count the cost of this redundant `select`.
Which is precisely what happens with loop vectorization legality checks,
and that artificially increases the cost of said checks,
which is bad.
There is prior art for this in `IRBuilderBase::CreateAnd()`/`IRBuilderBase::CreateOr()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
This patch marks the induction increment of the main induction variable
of the vector loop as NUW when not folding the tail.
If the tail is not folded, we know that End - Start >= Step (either
statically or through the minimum iteration checks). We also know that both
Start % Step == 0 and End % Step == 0. We exit the vector loop if %IV +
%Step == %End. Hence we must exit the loop before %IV + %Step unsigned
overflows and we can mark the induction increment as NUW.
This should make SCEV return more precise bounds for the created vector
loops, used by later optimizations, like late unrolling.
At the moment quite a few tests still need to be updated, but before
doing so I'd like to get initial feedback to make sure I am not missing
anything.
Note that this could probably be further improved by using information
from the original IV.
Attempt of modeling of the assumption in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/H_DL_g
Part of a set of fixes required for PR50412.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103255
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
This patch updates IRBuilder to create insertelement/shufflevector using poison as a placeholder.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93793
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
