Philip Reames f105db4fc3 [LVI] Cut short search if we know we can't return a useful result
Previously we were recursing on our operands for unary and binary operators regardless of whether we knew how to reason about the operator in question.  This has the effect of doing a potentially large amount of work, only to throw it away.  By checking whether the operation is one LVI can handle, we can cut short the search and return the (overdefined) answer more quickly.  The quality of the results produced should not change.

llvm-svn: 267626
2016-04-26 23:27:33 +00:00
..
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2016-03-08 20:53:48 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2016-04-18 17:10:17 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +00:00
2016-04-18 09:17:29 +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))

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