Adam Nemet 50b9e7f7d4 [getUnderlyingOjbects] Analyze loop PHIs further to remove false positives
Specifically, if a pointer accesses different underlying objects in each
iteration, don't look through the phi node defining the pointer.

The motivating case is the underlyling-objects-2.ll testcase.  Consider
the loop nest:

  int **A;
  for (i)
    for (j)
       A[i][j] = A[i-1][j] * B[j]

This loop is transformed by Load-PRE to stash away A[i] for the next
iteration of the outer loop:

  Curr = A[0];          // Prev_0
  for (i: 1..N) {
    Prev = Curr;        // Prev = PHI (Prev_0, Curr)
    Curr = A[i];
    for (j: 0..N)
       Curr[j] = Prev[j] * B[j]
  }

Since A[i] and A[i-1] are likely to be independent pointers,
getUnderlyingObjects should not assume that Curr and Prev share the same
underlying object in the inner loop.

If it did we would try to dependence-analyze Curr and Prev and the
analysis of the corresponding SCEVs would fail with non-constant
distance.

To fix this, the getUnderlyingObjects API is extended with an optional
LoopInfo parameter.  This is effectively what controls whether we want
the above behavior or the original.  Currently, I only changed to use
this approach for LoopAccessAnalysis.

The other testcase is to guard the opposite case where we do want to
look through the loop PHI.  If we step through an array by incrementing
a pointer, the underlying object is the incoming value of the phi as the
loop is entered.

Fixes rdar://problem/19566729

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@235634 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-04-23 20:09:20 +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))

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