Johannes Doerfert f8c4fd6005 Allow ScalarEvolution to catch more min/max cases
For the attached test case different types are used in the ICmpInst
  and SelectInst that represent the min/max expressions. However, if the
  ICmpInst type is smaller a comparison with the sign/zero extended
  operands would have yielded the same result. This situation might
  arise after the instruction combination pass was applied.

  Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7338


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228572 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-09 12:34:23 +00:00
..
2015-02-06 14:14:41 +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))

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