If a profitable run is performed we will check if the SCoP seems to be
profitable after creation but before e.g., dependence are computed. This is
needed as SCoP detection only approximates the actual SCoP representation.
In the end this should allow us to be less conservative during the SCoP
detection while keeping the compile time in check.
llvm-svn: 269074
Regions with one affine loop can be profitable if the loop is
distributable. To this end we will allow them to be treated as
profitable if they contain at least two non-trivial basic blocks.
llvm-svn: 269064
The assumption attached to an llvm.assume in the SCoP needs to be
combined with the domain of the surrounding statement but can
nevertheless be used to refine the context.
This fixes the problems mentioned in PR27067.
llvm-svn: 269060
This patches makes the propagation of complexity problems during
domain generation consistent. Additionally, it makes it less likely to
encounter ill-formed domains later, e.g., during schedule generation.
llvm-svn: 269055
Before this patch we generated error-restrictions only for
error-blocks, thus blocks (or regions) containing a not represented
function call. However, the same reasoning is needed if the invalid
domain of a statement subsumes its actual domain. To this end we move
the generation of error-restrictions after the propagation of the
invalid domains. Consequently, error-statements are now defined more
general as statements that are assumed to be not executed.
Additionally, we do not record an empty domain for such statements but
a nullptr instead. This allows to distinguish between error-statements
and dead-statements.
llvm-svn: 269053
We now use context information to simplify the domains and access
functions of the SCoP instead of just aligning them with the parameter
space.
llvm-svn: 269048
Previously we checked the number of pieces to decide whether or not a
invariant load was to complex to be generated. However, there are
cases when e.g., divisions cause the complexity to spike regardless of
the number of pieces. To this end we now check the number of totally
involved dimensions which will increase with the number of pieces but
also the number of divisions.
llvm-svn: 269045
This exposes the functionality to interpret a SCEV, or better the
piece-wise function created from the SCEV, as an unsigned value
instead of a signed one.
llvm-svn: 269044
Min/max expressions are easier to read and can in some cases also result in
more concise IR that is generated as the min/max --- when lowered to a
cmp+select pattern -- commonly has a simpler condition then the ternary
condition isl would normally generate.
llvm-svn: 268855
This release includes sevaral improvments compared to the previous
version isl-0.16.1-145-g243bf7c (from the ISL 0.17 announcement):
- optionally combine SCCs incrementally in scheduler
- optionally maximize coincidence in scheduler
- optionally avoid loop coalescing in scheduler
- minor AST generator improvements
- improve support for expansions in schedule trees
llvm-svn: 268500
The check for complexity compares the number of polyhedra in a set,
which are combined by disjunctions (union, "OR"),
not conjunctions (intersection, "AND").
llvm-svn: 268223
Add a command line switch to set the
isl_options_set_schedule_outer_coincidence option. ISL then tries to
build schedules where the outer member of a band satisfies the
coincidence constraints.
In practice this allows loop skewing for more parallelism in inner
loops.
llvm-svn: 268222
After zero-extend operations and unsigned comparisons we now allow
unsigned divisions. The handling is basically the same as for signed
division, except the interpretation of the operands. As the divisor
has to be constant in both cases we can simply interpret it as an
unsigned value without additional complexity in the representation.
For the dividend we could choose from the different representation
schemes introduced for zero-extend operations but for now we will
simply use an assumption.
llvm-svn: 268032
For debugging it is often convenient to not abort at the very first memory
management error. This option allows to control this behavior at run-time.
llvm-svn: 268030
It does not suffice to take a global assumptions for unsigned comparisons but
we also need to adjust the invalid domain of the statements guarded by such
an assumption. To this end we allow to specialize the getPwAff call now in
order to indicate unsigned interpretation.
llvm-svn: 268025
When we materialize parameter SCEVs we did so without considering the
side effects they might have, e.g., both division and modulo are
undefined if the right hand side is zero. This is a problem because we
potentially extended the domain under which we evaluate parameters,
thus we might have introduced such undefined behaviour. To prevent
that from happening we will now guard divisions and modulo operations
in the parameters with a compare and select.
llvm-svn: 268023
Assumptions and restrictions can both be simplified with the domain of a
statement but not the same way. After this patch we will correctly
distinguish them.
llvm-svn: 267885
Instead of matching for %6, we use a regexp to match for the result strings.
This test case caused unrelated noise in http://reviews.llvm.org/D15722.
llvm-svn: 267875
If the base pointer of an invariant load is is loaded conditionally, that
condition needs to hold for the invariant load too. The structure of the
program will imply this for domain constraints but not for imprecisions in
the modeling. To this end we will propagate the execution context of base
pointers during code generation and thus ensure the derived pointer does
not access an invalid base pointer.
llvm-svn: 267707
With this patch we will optimistically assume that the result of an unsigned
comparison is the same as the result of the same comparison interpreted as
signed.
llvm-svn: 267559
Additive expressions can have constant factors too that we can extract
and thereby simplify the internal representation. For now we do
compute the gcd of all constant factors but only extract the same
(possibly negated) factor if there is one.
llvm-svn: 267445
Before, we checked all GEPs in a statement in order to derive
out-of-bound assumptions. However, this can not only introduce new
parameters but it is also not clear what we can learn from GEPs that
are not immediately used in a memory accesses inside the SCoP. As this
case is very rare, no actual change in the behaviour is expected.
llvm-svn: 267442
Before, assumptions derived from llvm.assume could reference new
parameters that were not known to the SCoP before. These were neither
beneficial to the representation nor to the user that reads the
emitted remark. Now we project them out and keep only user assumptions
on known parameters. Nevertheless, the new parameters are still part
of the SCoPs parameter space as the SCEVAffinator currently adds them
on demand.
llvm-svn: 267441
The new handling is consistent with the remaining code, e.g., we do
not create a new parameter id for each lookup call but copy an
existing one. Additionally, we now use the implicit order defined by
the Parameters set instead of an explicit one defined in a map.
llvm-svn: 267423
A zero-extended value can be interpreted as a piecewise defined signed
value. If the value was non-negative it stays the same, otherwise it
is the sum of the original value and 2^n where n is the bit-width of
the original (or operand) type. Examples:
zext i8 127 to i32 -> { [127] }
zext i8 -1 to i32 -> { [256 + (-1)] } = { [255] }
zext i8 %v to i32 -> [v] -> { [v] | v >= 0; [256 + v] | v < 0 }
However, LLVM/Scalar Evolution uses zero-extend (potentially lead by a
truncate) to represent some forms of modulo computation. The left-hand side
of the condition in the code below would result in the SCEV
"zext i1 <false, +, true>for.body" which is just another description
of the C expression "i & 1 != 0" or, equivalently, "i % 2 != 0".
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
if (i & 1 != 0 /* == i % 2 */)
/* do something */
If we do not make the modulo explicit but only use the mechanism described
above we will get the very restrictive assumption "N < 3", because for all
values of N >= 3 the SCEVAddRecExpr operand of the zero-extend would wrap.
Alternatively, we can make the modulo in the operand explicit in the
resulting piecewise function and thereby avoid the assumption on N. For the
example this would result in the following piecewise affine function:
{ [i0] -> [(1)] : 2*floor((-1 + i0)/2) = -1 + i0;
[i0] -> [(0)] : 2*floor((i0)/2) = i0 }
To this end we can first determine if the (immediate) operand of the
zero-extend can wrap and, in case it might, we will use explicit modulo
semantic to compute the result instead of emitting non-wrapping assumptions.
Note that operands with large bit-widths are less likely to be negative
because it would result in a very large access offset or loop bound after the
zero-extend. To this end one can optimistically assume the operand to be
positive and avoid the piecewise definition if the bit-width is bigger than
some threshold (here MaxZextSmallBitWidth).
We choose to go with a hybrid solution of all modeling techniques described
above. For small bit-widths (up to MaxZextSmallBitWidth) we will model the
wrapping explicitly and use a piecewise defined function. However, if the
bit-width is bigger than MaxZextSmallBitWidth we will employ overflow
assumptions and assume the "former negative" piece will not exist.
llvm-svn: 267408
Memory accesses can have non-precisely modeled access functions that
would cause us to build incorrect execution context for hoisted loads.
This is the same issue that occurred during the domain construction for
statements and it is dealt with the same way.
llvm-svn: 267289
The SCEVAffinator will now produce not only the isl representaiton of
a SCEV but also the domain under which it is invalid. This is used to
record possible overflows that can happen in the statement domains in
the statements invalid domain. The result is that invalid loads have
an accurate execution contexts with regards to the validity of their
statements domain. While the SCEVAffinator currently is only taking
"no-wrapping" assumptions, we can add more withouth worrying about the
execution context of loads that are optimistically hoisted.
llvm-svn: 267288
The invalid context is not enough to describe the parameter constraints under
which a statement is not modeled precisely. The reason is that during the
domain construction the bounds on the induction variables are not known but
needed to check if e.g., an overflow can actually happen. To this end we
replace the invalid context of a statement with an invalid domain. It is
initialized during domain construction and intersected with the domain once
it was completely build. Later this invalid domain allows to eliminate
falsely assumed wrapping cases and other falsely assumed mismatches in the
modeling.
llvm-svn: 267286
Johannes Doerfert