[llvm] [MachinePipeliner] Improve loop carried dependence analysis (PR #94185)

[Santanu Das via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -2555,9 +2555,104 @@ bool SwingSchedulerDAG::schedulePipeline(SMSchedule &Schedule) {
   return scheduleFound && Schedule.getMaxStageCount() > 0;
 }
 
+static Register findUniqueOperandDefinedInLoop(const MachineInstr &MI) {
+  const MachineRegisterInfo &MRI = MI.getParent()->getParent()->getRegInfo();
+  Register Result;
+  for (const MachineOperand &Use : MI.all_uses()) {
+    Register Reg = Use.getReg();
+    if (!Reg.isVirtual())
+      return Register();
+    if (MRI.getVRegDef(Reg)->getParent() != MI.getParent())
+      continue;
+    if (Result)
+      return Register();
+    Result = Reg;
+  }
+  return Result;
+}
+
+/// When Op is a value that is incremented recursively in a loop and there is a
+/// unique instruction that increments it, returns true and sets Value.
+static bool findLoopIncrementValue(const MachineOperand &Op, int &Value) {
+  if (!Op.isReg() || !Op.getReg().isVirtual())
+    return false;
+
+  Register OrgReg = Op.getReg();
+  Register CurReg = OrgReg;
+  const MachineBasicBlock *LoopBB = Op.getParent()->getParent();
+  const MachineRegisterInfo &MRI = LoopBB->getParent()->getRegInfo();
+
+  const TargetInstrInfo *TII =
+      LoopBB->getParent()->getSubtarget().getInstrInfo();
+  const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI =
+      LoopBB->getParent()->getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
+
+  MachineInstr *Phi = nullptr;
+  MachineInstr *Increment = nullptr;
+
+  // Traverse definitions until it reaches Op or an instruction that does not
+  // satisfy the condition.
+  // Acceptable example:
+  //   bb.0:
+  //     %0 = PHI %3, %bb.0, ...
+  //     %2 = ADD %0, Value
+  //     ... = LOAD %2(Op)
+  //     %3 = COPY %2
+  while (true) {
+    if (!CurReg.isValid() || !CurReg.isVirtual())
+      return false;
+    MachineInstr *Def = MRI.getVRegDef(CurReg);
+    if (Def->getParent() != LoopBB)
+      return false;
+
+    if (Def->isCopy()) {
----------------
quic-santdas wrote:

Does REG_SEQUENCE also need to be supported to arrive at the definition?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94185