Chandler Carruth c5d211ef2c [PM] Remove an overly aggressive assert now that I can actually test the
pattern that triggers it. This essentially requires an immutable
function analysis, as that will survive anything we do to invalidate it.
When we have such patterns, the function analysis manager will not get
cleared between runs of the proxy.

If we actually need an assert about how things are queried, we can add
more elaborate machinery for computing it, but so far I'm not aware of
significant value provided.

Thanks to Justin Lebar for noticing this when he made a (seemingly
innocuous) change to FunctionAttrs that is enough to trigger it in one
test there. Now it is covered by a direct test of the pass manager code.

llvm-svn: 261627
2016-02-23 10:47:57 +00:00
..
2016-01-13 18:37:28 +00:00
2016-01-13 16:34:10 +00:00

Analysis Opportunities:

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:

  {1,+,3,+,2}<loop>

Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as

  (-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))

In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,

ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:

((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))

This could be folded to

(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//