Extract complex logic of Binary Operator's flag strengthening to a separate
method in order to reuse it.
Patch by Aleksandr Popov!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143562
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Reapply with checks for instructions in unreachable blocks. A test
case for this was added in 1ee4a93b15bb.
-----
This is a recurring pattern: We want to find the nearest common
dominator (instruction) for two instructions, but currently only
provide an API for the nearest common dominator of two basic blocks.
Add an overload that accepts and return instructions.
This reverts commit 7f0de9573f758f5f9108795850337a5acbd17eef.
This is missing handling for !isReachableFromEntry() blocks, which
may be relevant for some callers. Revert for now.
This is a recurring pattern: We want to find the nearest common
dominator (instruction) for two instructions, but currently only
provide an API for the nearest common dominator of two basic blocks.
Add an overload that accepts and return instructions.
This is a follow-up from discussion in D138412. Sometimes we want to evaluate
the cost of expansion of several SCEVs together with same budget. For example,
if one of them is a bit above cheap limit, and the second one is free, then
we still want to expand. Checking each of them with "cheap" limit is a bit more
pessimistic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138475
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This patch mechanically replaces None with std::nullopt where the
compiler would warn if None were deprecated. The intent is to reduce
the amount of manual work required in migrating from Optional to
std::optional.
This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716
These limitations are too strict, and their only purpose is to avoid code
size explosion. These restrictions seem obsolete, and the size problem
is solved in other places through cheap expansion limits.
The motivation is that the old code cannot deal with comparisons against
induction variant's increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138412
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, reames
Additional SCEV verification highlighted a case where the cached loop
dispositions where incorrect after simplifying a condition in IndVars
and moving the user in LoopDeletion. Fix it by invalidating ICmp and all
its users.
Fixes#58515.
Initial implementation had too weak requirements to positive/negative
range crossings. Not crossing zero with nuw is not enough for two reasons:
- If ArLHS has negative step, it may turn from positive to negative
without crossing 0 boundary from left to right (and crossing right to
left doesn't count for unsigned);
- If ArLHS crosses SINT_MAX boundary, it still turns from positive to
negative;
In fact we require that ArLHS always stays non-negative or negative,
which an be enforced by the following set of preconditions:
- both nuw and nsw;
- positive step (looks liftable);
Because of positive step, boundary crossing is only possible from left
part to the right part. And because of no-wrap flags, it is guaranteed
to never happen.
Contextual knowledge may be used to prove invariance of some conditions.
For example, in this case:
```
; %len >= 0
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <s %len)
guard(%iv = {start,+,1}<nuw> <u %len)
```
the 2nd check always fails if `start` is negative and always passes otherwise.
It looks like there are more opportunities of this kind that are still to be
implemented in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129753
Reviewed By: apilipenko
I happened to notice a two places where the enum was being pass
directly to the bool IsSigned argument of createExtendInst. This
was functionally ok since SignExtended in the enum has value
of 1, but the code shouldn't rely on that.
Using an enum class prevents the enum from being convertible to bool,
but does make writing the enum values more verbose. Since we now
have to write ExtendKind:: in front of them, I've shortened the
names of ZeroExtended and SignExtended.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129733
isSafeToExpand() for addrecs depends on whether the SCEVExpander
will be used in CanonicalMode. At least one caller currently gets
this wrong, resulting in PR50506.
Fix this by a) making the CanonicalMode argument on the freestanding
functions required and b) adding member functions on SCEVExpander
that automatically take the SCEVExpander mode into account. We can
use the latter variant nearly everywhere, and thus make sure that
there is no chance of CanonicalMode mismatch.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/50506.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129630
The IV widening code currently asserts that terminators aren't SCEVable
-- however, this is not the case for invokes with a returned attribute.
As far as I can tell, this assertions is not necessary -- even if we
have a critical edge (the second test case), the trunc gets inserted
in a legal position.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55925.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127288
Evaluation odering in function call arguments is implementation-dependent.
In fact, gcc evaluates bottom-top and clang does top-bottom.
Fixes#55283 partially.
Part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D125627
Add void casts to mark the variables used, next to the places where
they are used in assert or `LLVM_DEBUG()` expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123117
We might want to use it when creating SCEV proper in createSCEV(),
now that we don't `forgetValue()` in `SimplifyIndvar::strengthenOverflowingOperation()`,
which might have caused us to loose some optimization potential.
When SimplifyIndVars infers IR nowrap flags from SCEV, this may
happen in two ways: Either nowrap flags were already present in
SCEV and just get transferred to IR. Or zero/sign extension of
addrecs infers additional nowrap flags, and those get transferred
to IR. In the latter case, calling forgetValue() ensures that the
newly inferred nowrap flags get propagated to any other SCEV
expressions based on the addrec. However, the invalidation can
also have a major compile-time effect in some cases. For
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50384 with n=512 compile-
time drops from 7.1s to 0.8s without this invalidation. At the
same time, removing the invalidation doesn't affect any codegen
in test-suite.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103424
When eliminating comparisons, we can use common dominator of
all its users as context. This gives better results when ICMP is not
computed right before the branch that uses it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98924
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
We can prove more predicates when we have a context when eliminating ICmp.
As first (and very obvious) approximation we can use the ICmp instruction itself,
though in the future we are going to use a common dominator of all its users.
Need some refactoring before that.
Observed ~0.5% negative compile time impact.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98697
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This reverts commit 4bd35cdc3ae1874c6d070c5d410b3f591de54ee6.
The patch was reverted during the investigation. The investigation
shown that the patch did not cause any trouble, but just exposed
the existing problem that is addressed by the previous patch
"[IndVars] Quick fix LHS/RHS bug". Returning without changes.
The code relies on fact that LHS is the NarrowDef but never
really checks it. Adding the conservative restrictive check,
will follow-up with handling of case where RHS is a NarrowDef.
This reverts commit 0c9c6ddf17bb01ae350a899b3395bb078aa0c62e.
We are seeing some failures with this patch locally. Not clear
if it's causing them or just triggering a problem in another
place. Reverting while investigating.
If we decided to widen IV with zext, then unsigned comparisons
should not prevent widening (same for sext/sign comparisons).
The result of comparison in wider type does not change in this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92207
Reviewed By: nikic
When widening an IndVar that has LCSSA Phi users outside
the loop, we can safely widen it as usual and then truncate
the result outside the loop without hurting the performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91593
Reviewed By: skatkov
When deciding to widen narrow use, we may need to prove some facts
about it. For proof, the context is used. Currently we take the instruction
being widened as the context.
However, we may be more precise here if we take as context the point that
dominates all users of instruction being widened.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90456
Reviewed By: skatkov
