Additive expressions can have constant factors too that we can extract
and thereby simplify the internal representation. For now we do
compute the gcd of all constant factors but only extract the same
(possibly negated) factor if there is one.
llvm-svn: 267445
Before, we checked all GEPs in a statement in order to derive
out-of-bound assumptions. However, this can not only introduce new
parameters but it is also not clear what we can learn from GEPs that
are not immediately used in a memory accesses inside the SCoP. As this
case is very rare, no actual change in the behaviour is expected.
llvm-svn: 267442
Before, assumptions derived from llvm.assume could reference new
parameters that were not known to the SCoP before. These were neither
beneficial to the representation nor to the user that reads the
emitted remark. Now we project them out and keep only user assumptions
on known parameters. Nevertheless, the new parameters are still part
of the SCoPs parameter space as the SCEVAffinator currently adds them
on demand.
llvm-svn: 267441
The new handling is consistent with the remaining code, e.g., we do
not create a new parameter id for each lookup call but copy an
existing one. Additionally, we now use the implicit order defined by
the Parameters set instead of an explicit one defined in a map.
llvm-svn: 267423
A zero-extended value can be interpreted as a piecewise defined signed
value. If the value was non-negative it stays the same, otherwise it
is the sum of the original value and 2^n where n is the bit-width of
the original (or operand) type. Examples:
zext i8 127 to i32 -> { [127] }
zext i8 -1 to i32 -> { [256 + (-1)] } = { [255] }
zext i8 %v to i32 -> [v] -> { [v] | v >= 0; [256 + v] | v < 0 }
However, LLVM/Scalar Evolution uses zero-extend (potentially lead by a
truncate) to represent some forms of modulo computation. The left-hand side
of the condition in the code below would result in the SCEV
"zext i1 <false, +, true>for.body" which is just another description
of the C expression "i & 1 != 0" or, equivalently, "i % 2 != 0".
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
if (i & 1 != 0 /* == i % 2 */)
/* do something */
If we do not make the modulo explicit but only use the mechanism described
above we will get the very restrictive assumption "N < 3", because for all
values of N >= 3 the SCEVAddRecExpr operand of the zero-extend would wrap.
Alternatively, we can make the modulo in the operand explicit in the
resulting piecewise function and thereby avoid the assumption on N. For the
example this would result in the following piecewise affine function:
{ [i0] -> [(1)] : 2*floor((-1 + i0)/2) = -1 + i0;
[i0] -> [(0)] : 2*floor((i0)/2) = i0 }
To this end we can first determine if the (immediate) operand of the
zero-extend can wrap and, in case it might, we will use explicit modulo
semantic to compute the result instead of emitting non-wrapping assumptions.
Note that operands with large bit-widths are less likely to be negative
because it would result in a very large access offset or loop bound after the
zero-extend. To this end one can optimistically assume the operand to be
positive and avoid the piecewise definition if the bit-width is bigger than
some threshold (here MaxZextSmallBitWidth).
We choose to go with a hybrid solution of all modeling techniques described
above. For small bit-widths (up to MaxZextSmallBitWidth) we will model the
wrapping explicitly and use a piecewise defined function. However, if the
bit-width is bigger than MaxZextSmallBitWidth we will employ overflow
assumptions and assume the "former negative" piece will not exist.
llvm-svn: 267408
Memory accesses can have non-precisely modeled access functions that
would cause us to build incorrect execution context for hoisted loads.
This is the same issue that occurred during the domain construction for
statements and it is dealt with the same way.
llvm-svn: 267289
The SCEVAffinator will now produce not only the isl representaiton of
a SCEV but also the domain under which it is invalid. This is used to
record possible overflows that can happen in the statement domains in
the statements invalid domain. The result is that invalid loads have
an accurate execution contexts with regards to the validity of their
statements domain. While the SCEVAffinator currently is only taking
"no-wrapping" assumptions, we can add more withouth worrying about the
execution context of loads that are optimistically hoisted.
llvm-svn: 267288
The invalid context is not enough to describe the parameter constraints under
which a statement is not modeled precisely. The reason is that during the
domain construction the bounds on the induction variables are not known but
needed to check if e.g., an overflow can actually happen. To this end we
replace the invalid context of a statement with an invalid domain. It is
initialized during domain construction and intersected with the domain once
it was completely build. Later this invalid domain allows to eliminate
falsely assumed wrapping cases and other falsely assumed mismatches in the
modeling.
llvm-svn: 267286
As discussed in the Polly weekly phone call and reviews.llvm.org/D18878,
the assumed contexts changed (widen) due to D18878/r265942. Also check
these contexts in the tests affected by that change.
llvm-svn: 266323
We used checks to minimize the number of remarks we present to a user
but these checks can become expensive, especially since all wrapping
assumptions are emitted separately. Because there is not benefit for a
"headless" run we put these checks under a command line flag. Thus, if
the flag is not given we will emit "non-effective" remarks, e.g.,
duplicates and revert to the old behaviour if it is given. As this
also changes the internal representation of some sets we set the flag
by default for our unit tests.
llvm-svn: 266087
Utilizing the record option for assumptions we can simplify the wrapping
assumption generation a lot. Additionally, we can now report locations
together with wrapping assumptions, though they might not be accurate yet.
llvm-svn: 266069
There are three reasons why we want to record assumptions first before we
add them to the assumed/invalid context:
1) If the SCoP is not profitable or otherwise invalid without the
assumed/invalid context we do not have to compute it.
2) Information about the context are gathered rather late in the SCoP
construction (basically after we know all parameters), thus the user
might see overly complicated assumptions to be taken while they would
have been simplified later on.
3) Currently we cannot take assumptions at any point but have to wait,
e.g., for the domain generation to finish. This makes wrapping
assumptions much more complicated as they need to be and it will
have a similar effect on "signed-unsigned" assumptions later.
llvm-svn: 266068
Collect the error domain contexts (formerly in the ErrorDomainCtxMap)
for each statement in the new InvalidContext member variable. While
this commit is basically a [NFC] it is a first step to make hoisting
sound by allowing a more fine grained record of invalid contexts,
e.g., here on statement level.
llvm-svn: 266053
Allow overflow of indices into the next higher dimension if it has
constant size. E.g.
float A[32][2];
((float*)A)[5];
is effectively the same as
A[2][1];
This can happen since r265379 as a side effect if ScopDetection
recognizes an access as affine, but ScopInfo rejects the GetElementPtr.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18878
llvm-svn: 265942
MSVC warns with:
warning C4239: nonstandard extension used: 'initializing': conversion from 'llvm::DebugLoc' to 'llvm::DebugLoc &'
note: A non-const reference may only be bound to an lvalue
Change the reference to a const reference.
llvm-svn: 265937
In r247147 we disabled pointer expressions because the IslExprBuilder did not
fully support them. This patch reintroduces them by simply treating them as
integers. The only special handling for pointers that is left detects the
comparison of two address_of operands and uses an unsigned compare.
llvm-svn: 265894
This reverts commit 2879c53e80e05497f408f21ce470d122e9f90f94.
Additionally, it adds SDiv and SRem instructions to the set of values
discovered by the findValues function even if we add the operands to
be able to recompute the SCEVs. In subfunctions we do not want to
recompute SDiv and SRem instructions but pass them instead as they
might have been created through the IslExprBuilder and are more
complicated than simple SDiv/SRem instructions in the code.
llvm-svn: 265873
Static libraries where installed into "lib${LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX}" while
shared ones into "lib". I found no justification for this behaviour.
This patch changes both types of libraries to be install into
"lib${LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX}". LLVM and clang use the same behaviour.
This fixes llvm.org/PR27305.
llvm-svn: 265872
