llvm-6502/lib/Analysis/README.txt
Dan Gohman 948c8a3e3d When checking whether the special handling for an addrec increment which
doesn't dominate the header is needed, don't check whether the increment
expression has computable loop evolution. While the operands of an
addrec are required to be loop-invariant, they're not required to 
dominate any part of the loop. This fixes PR6914.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@102389 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2010-04-26 21:46:36 +00:00

31 lines
1006 B
Plaintext

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))
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//