Changes since initial commit:
* Wrapping a pointer in an SCEV unknown hides the base, and SCEV is only able to compute a subtraction when the bases are known to be equal. This results in a SCEVCouldNotCompute flowing forward and triggering asserts. Test case added in d767b392.
* isLoopInvariant returns true for instructions outside the loop, but not necessarily *above* the loop. Since this code is allowed to visit uses of an IV outside of a loop, we have to make sure the operands of the compare are both invariant and dominating the header. Test case added in 2aed3cdb.
Original commit message follows...
The ICmpZero matching is checking to see if the expression is loop invariant per SCEV and expandable. This allows expressions inside the loop which can be made loop invariant to be seamlessly expanded, but is overly conservative for expressions which already *are* loop invariant.
As a simple justification for why this is correct, consider a loop invariant urem as RHS vs an alternate function with that same urem wrapped inside a helper call. Why would it be legal to match the later, but not the former?
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129793
The ICmpZero matching is checking to see if the expression is loop invariant per SCEV and expandable. This allows expressions inside the loop which can be made loop invariant to be seamlessly expanded, but is overly conservative for expressions which already *are* loop invariant.
As a simple justification for why this is correct, consider a loop invariant urem as RHS vs an alternate function with that same urem wrapped inside a helper call. Why would it be legal to match the later, but not the former?
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129793
Follow up to 3bc09c7da5 - remove a fixme I forgot to remove, and add test cases showing remaining work.
Note that scaled vscales show up in vectorized code from a couple of sources:
* Element types smaller than vector block size (i.e. everything under i64)
* Unrolling
* LMUL > 1
The largest scaling we can currently have is 256 (e8 in every possible vector register). More practically useful scales are in the 2-16 range.
Motivation here is to unblock LSRs ability to use ICmpZero uses - the major effect of which is to enable count down IVs. The test changes reflect this goal, but the potential impact is much broader since this isn't a change in LSR at all.
SCEVExpander needs(*) to prove that expanding the expression is safe anywhere the SCEV expression is valid. In general, we can't expand any node which might fault (or exhibit UB) unless we can either a) prove it won't fault, or b) guard the faulting case. We'd been allowing non-zero constants here; this change extends it to non-zero values.
vscale is never zero. This is already implemented in ValueTracking, and this change just adds the same logic in SCEV's range computation (which in turn drives isKnownNonZero). We should common up some logic here, but let's do that in separate changes.
(*) As an aside, "needs" is such an interesting word here. First, we don't actually need to guard this at all; we could choose to emit a select for the RHS of ever udiv and remove this code entirely. Secondly, the property being checked here is way too strong. What the client actually needs is to expand the SCEV at some particular point in some particular loop. In the examples, the original urem dominates that loop and yet we completely ignore that information when analyzing legality. I don't plan to actively pursue either direction, just noting it for future reference.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129710
For the moment, we're pretty conservative here. My motivating case is the vscale one (as that is idiomatic for scalable vectorized loops on RISCV). There are two obvious approaches to fixing this, and I tried to add reasonable coverage for both even though I'll likely only fix one.
