have pointer types, though in contrast to C pointer types, SCEV
addition is never implicitly scaled. This not only eliminates the
need for special code like IndVars' EliminatePointerRecurrence
and LSR's own GEP expansion code, it also does a better job because
it lets the normal optimizations handle pointer expressions just
like integer expressions.
Also, since LLVM IR GEPs can't directly index into multi-dimensional
VLAs, moving the GEP analysis out of client code and into the SCEV
framework makes it easier for clients to handle multi-dimensional
VLAs the same way as other arrays.
Some existing regression tests show improved optimization.
test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-03-13-InstrSched.ll in particular improved to
the point where if-conversion started kicking in; I turned it off
for this test to preserve the intent of the test.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@69258 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
it is not APInt clean, but even when it is it needs to be evaluated carefully
to determine whether it is actually profitable.
This fixes a crash on PR3806
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@67134 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to more accurately describe what it does. Expand its doxygen comment
to describe what the backedge-taken count is and how it differs
from the actual iteration count of the loop. Adjust names and
comments in associated code accordingly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@65382 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
addresses, part 1. This fixes an obvious logic bug. Previously if the only
in-loop use is a PHI, it would return AllUsesAreAddresses as true.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@65178 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
reduction of address calculations down to basic pointer arithmetic.
This is currently off by default, as it needs a few other features
before it becomes generally useful. And even when enabled, full
strength reduction is only performed when it doesn't increase
register pressure, and when several other conditions are true.
This also factors out a bunch of exisiting LSR code out of
StrengthReduceStridedIVUsers into separate functions, and tidies
up IV insertion. This actually decreases register pressure even
in non-superhero mode. The change in iv-users-in-other-loops.ll
is an example of this; there are two more adds because there are
two fewer leas, and there is less spilling.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@65108 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
addrec in a different loop to check the value being added to
the accumulated Start value, not the Start value before it has
the new value added to it. This prevents LSR from going crazy
on the included testcase. Dale, please review.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@64440 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
after sorting by stride value. This prevents it from missing
IV reuse opportunities in a host-sensitive manner.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@64415 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
my earlier patch to this file.
The issue there was that all uses of an IV inside a loop
are actually references to Base[IV*2], and there was one
use outside that was the same but LSR didn't see the base
or the scaling because it didn't recurse into uses outside
the loop; thus, it used base+IV*scale mode inside the loop
instead of pulling base out of the loop. This was extra bad
because register pressure later forced both base and IV into
memory. Doing that recursion, at least enough
to figure out addressing modes, is a good idea in general;
the change in AddUsersIfInteresting does this. However,
there were side effects....
It is also possible for recursing outside the loop to
introduce another IV where there was only 1 before (if
the refs inside are not scaled and the ref outside is).
I don't think this is a common case, but it's in the testsuite.
It is right to be very aggressive about getting rid of
such introduced IVs (CheckForIVReuse and the handling of
nonzero RewriteFactor in StrengthReduceStridedIVUsers).
In the testcase in question the new IV produced this way
has both a nonconstant stride and a nonzero base, neither
of which was handled before. And when inserting
new code that feeds into a PHI, it's right to put such
code at the original location rather than in the PHI's
immediate predecessor(s) when the original location is outside
the loop (a case that couldn't happen before)
(RewriteInstructionToUseNewBase); better to avoid making
multiple copies of it in this case.
Also, the mechanism for keeping SCEV's corresponding to GEP's
no longer works, as the GEP might change after its SCEV
is remembered, invalidating the SCEV, and we might get a bad
SCEV value when looking up the GEP again for a later loop.
This also couldn't happen before, as we weren't recursing
into GEP's outside the loop.
Also, when we build an expression that involves a (possibly
non-affine) IV from a different loop as well as an IV from
the one we're interested in (containsAddRecFromDifferentLoop),
don't recurse into that. We can't do much with it and will
get in trouble if we try to create new non-affine IVs or something.
More testcases are coming.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@62212 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
other SPEC breakage. I'll be reverting all recent
changes shortly, this checking is mostly so this
change doesn't get lost.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61402 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
my last patch to this file.
The issue there was that all uses of an IV inside a loop
are actually references to Base[IV*2], and there was one
use outside that was the same but LSR didn't see the base
or the scaling because it didn't recurse into uses outside
the loop; thus, it used base+IV*scale mode inside the loop
instead of pulling base out of the loop. This was extra bad
because register pressure later forced both base and IV into
memory. Doing that recursion, at least enough
to figure out addressing modes, is a good idea in general;
the change in AddUsersIfInteresting does this. However,
there were side effects....
It is also possible for recursing outside the loop to
introduce another IV where there was only 1 before (if
the refs inside are not scaled and the ref outside is).
I don't think this is a common case, but it's in the testsuite.
It is right to be very aggressive about getting rid of
such introduced IVs (CheckForIVReuse and the handling of
nonzero RewriteFactor in StrengthReduceStridedIVUsers).
In the testcase in question the new IV produced this way
has both a nonconstant stride and a nonzero base, neither
of which was handled before. And when inserting
new code that feeds into a PHI, it's right to put such
code at the original location rather than in the PHI's
immediate predecessor(s) when the original location is outside
the loop (a case that couldn't happen before)
(RewriteInstructionToUseNewBase); better to avoid making
multiple copies of it in this case.
Also, the mechanism for keeping SCEV's corresponding to GEP's
no longer works, as the GEP might change after its SCEV
is remembered, invalidating the SCEV, and we might get a bad
SCEV value when looking up the GEP again for a later loop.
This also couldn't happen before, as we weren't recursing
into GEP's outside the loop.
I owe some testcases for this, want to get it in for nightly runs.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61362 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
