Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Sanjoy Das
a0a0b40aa3 Bugfix: SCEVExpander incorrectly marks increment operations as no-wrap
(The change was landed in r230280 and caused the regression PR22674.
This version contains a fix and a test-case for PR22674).
    
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
    
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
    
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic)
manifestation of the bug can be seen in
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230533 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-25 20:02:59 +00:00
Hans Wennborg
b499b73e30 Revert r230280: "Bugfix: SCEVExpander incorrectly marks increment operations as no-wrap"
This caused PR22674, failing this assert:

Instructions.h:2281: llvm::Value* llvm::PHINode::getOperand(unsigned int) const: Assertion `i_nocapture < OperandTraits<PHINode>::operands(this) && "getOperand() out of range!"' failed.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230341 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-24 16:19:29 +00:00
Sanjoy Das
8d16a81c33 Bugfix: SCEVExpander incorrectly marks increment operations as no-wrap
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.

This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.

Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic) manifestation
of the bug can be seen in Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.

NOTE: this change was landed with an incorrect commit message in
rL230275 and was reverted for that reason in rL230279.  This commit
message is the correct one.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230280 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-23 23:22:58 +00:00
Sanjoy Das
69048edf8a Revert 230275.
230275 got committed with an incorrect commit message due to a mixup
on my side.  Will re-land in a few moments with the correct commit
message.



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230279 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-23 23:13:22 +00:00
Sanjoy Das
7ebbc8de2f Fix bug 22641
The bug was a result of getPreStartForExtend interpreting nsw/nuw
flags on an add recurrence more strongly than is legal.  {S,+,X}<nsw>
implies S+X is nsw only if the backedge of the loop is taken at least
once.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7808



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230275 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-02-23 22:55:13 +00:00