[llvm] r258184 - [SCEV] Fix PR26207
Sanjoy Das via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 26 15:21:59 PST 2016
Merged to 3.8 as rL258869.
It would be great if you could please verify that it indeed went through.
Hans Wennborg wrote:
> This has been in a few days now. Sanjoy, do you want to merge this to
> 3.8 using the script in utils/release/merge.sh (or let me know if
> you'd prefer me to do it).
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Trick<atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>> This fix looks safe to me too.
>> Thanks Sanjoy!
>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Sanjoy Das<sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
>> +CC Andy
>> I'd wait for Andy to chime in, I think this is okay to merge into 3.8
>> provided no problems are seen over the next 1-2 days.
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Hans Wennborg<hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-commits
>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Author: sanjoy
>> Date: Tue Jan 19 14:53:51 2016
>> New Revision: 258184
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=258184&view=rev
>> [SCEV] Fix PR26207
>> In some cases, the max backedge taken count can be more conservative
>> than the exact backedge taken count (for instance, because
>> ScalarEvolution::getRange is not control-flow sensitive whereas
>> computeExitLimitFromICmp can be). In these cases,
>> computeExitLimitFromCond (specifically the bit that deals with `and` and
>> `or` instructions) can create an ExitLimit instance with a
>> `SCEVCouldNotCompute` max backedge count expression, but a computable
>> exact backedge count expression. This violates an implicit SCEV
>> assumption: a computable exact BE count should imply a computable max BE
>> This change
>> - Makes the above implicit invariant explicit by adding an assert to
>> ExitLimit's constructor
>> - Changes `computeExitLimitFromCond` to be more robust around
>> conservative max backedge counts
>> Is this something that should be merged to 3.8?
>> Sanjoy Das
More information about the llvm-commits