On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Scalar evolution needs to prove no-overflow for source variable when handling
> type conversion. This is important because otherwise we would fail to
> recognize result of the conversion as SCEV, resulting in missing loop
> optimizations. Take case added by this patch as an example, the loop can't
> be distributed as memset call because address of memory reference is not
> recognized. At the moment, we rely on type overflow semantics and loop niter
> info for no-overflow checking, unfortunately that's not enough. This patch
> introduces new method checking no-overflow using value range information. As
> commented in the patch, value range can only be used when source operand
> variable evaluates on every loop iteration, rather than guarded by some
> conditions.
>
> This together with patch improving loop niter analysis
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00736.html) can help various
> loop passes like vectorization.
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
@@ -3187,7 +3187,8 @@ idx_infer_loop_bounds (tree base, tree *idx, void *dta)
/* If access is not executed on every iteration, we must ensure that overlow
may not make the access valid later. */
if (!dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, loop->latch, gimple_bb (data->stmt))
- && scev_probably_wraps_p (initial_condition_in_loop_num (ev, loop->num),
+ && scev_probably_wraps_p (NULL,
use NULL_TREE for the null pointer constant of tree.
+ /* Check if VAR evaluates in every loop iteration. */
+ gimple *def;
+ if ((def = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (var)) != NULL
def is never NULL but it might be a GIMPLE_NOP which has a NULL gimple_bb.
Better check for ! SSA_DEFAULT_DEF_P (var)
+ if (TREE_CODE (step) != INTEGER_CST || !INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (var)))
+ return false;
this looks like a cheaper test so please do that first.
+ step_wi = step;
+ type = TREE_TYPE (var);
+ if (tree_int_cst_sign_bit (step))
+ {
+ diff = lower_bound_in_type (type, type);
+ diff = minv - diff;
+ step_wi = - step_wi;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ diff = upper_bound_in_type (type, type);
+ diff = diff - maxv;
+ }
this lacks a comment - it's not obvious to me what the gymnastics
with lower/upper_bound_in_type are supposed to achieve.
As VRP uses niter analysis itself I wonder how this fires back-to-back between
VRP1 and VRP2? If the def of var dominates the latch isn't it enough to do
a + 1 to check whether VRP bumped the range up to INT_MAX/MIN? That is,
why do we need to add step if not for the TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED case
of VRP handling the ranges optimistically?
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> bin
>
> 2016-07-15 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>
> * tree-chrec.c (convert_affine_scev): New parameter. Pass new arg.
> (chrec_convert_1, chrec_convert): Ditto.
> * tree-chrec.h (chrec_convert, convert_affine_scev): New parameter.
> * tree-scalar-evolution.c (interpret_rhs_expr): Pass new arg.
> * tree-vrp.c (adjust_range_with_scev): Ditto.
> * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (idx_infer_loop_bounds): Ditto.
> (scev_var_range_cant_overflow): New function.
> (scev_probably_wraps_p): New parameter. Call above function.
> * tree-ssa-loop-niter.h (scev_probably_wraps_p): New parameter.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> 2016-07-15 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>
> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-15.c: New.
