Daniel Jasper 7025d248eb The code that originally made me discover this is:
if ((a & 0x1) == 0x1) {
    ..
  }

In this case we don't actually have any branch probability information and
should not assume to have any. LLVM transforms this into:

  %and = and i32 %a, 1
  %tobool = icmp eq i32 %and, 0

So, in this case, the result of a bitwise and is compared against 0,
but nevertheless, we should not assume to have probability
information.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@234898 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-04-14 15:20:37 +00:00
..
2015-03-16 17:49:03 +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))

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