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 c6ca26c0bfedb8f80d6f8cb9adde25b1d6aac1c5.
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 0dda6333175c1749f12be660456ecedade3bcf21, 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 a10a64e7e334dc878d281aba9a46f751fe606567.
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 1fb610429308a7c29c5065f5cc35dcc3fd69c8b1,
7324616660fc0995fa8c166e3c392361222d5dbc,
aaafe350bb65dfc24c2cdad4839059ac81899fbe,
e92a8e0c743f83552fac37ecf21e625ba3a4b11e.
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 1c021c64caef83cccb719c9bf0a2554faa6563af which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a12f815052d56a17ef738cf246a2d9a 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 1c021c64caef83cccb719c9bf0a2554faa6563af.
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 8fdac7cb7abb
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
