sushgokh wrote:
> @mikaelholmen @mstorsjo @macurtis-amd @sjoerdmeijer @sushgokh We've decided
> that it's best to revert the original PR (see #146850), sorry for wasting
> your time. This PR is trying to reintroduce it with fixes to the issues
> you've presented. Can I humbly ask you to test t
@@ -1293,9 +1316,40 @@ bool DependenceInfo::strongSIVtest(const SCEV *Coeff,
const SCEV *SrcConst,
Result.DV[Level].Distance = Delta; // since X/1 == X
NewConstraint.setDistance(Delta, CurLoop);
} else {
- Result.Consistent = false;
- NewConstraint.se
@@ -1249,10 +1249,33 @@ bool DependenceInfo::strongSIVtest(const SCEV *Coeff,
const SCEV *SrcConst,
SE->isKnownNonNegative(Coeff) ? Coeff : SE->getNegativeSCEV(Coeff);
const SCEV *Product = SE->getMulExpr(UpperBound, AbsCoeff);
if (isKnownPredicate(CmpInst::ICM
@@ -1249,10 +1249,33 @@ bool DependenceInfo::strongSIVtest(const SCEV *Coeff,
const SCEV *SrcConst,
SE->isKnownNonNegative(Coeff) ? Coeff : SE->getNegativeSCEV(Coeff);
const SCEV *Product = SE->getMulExpr(UpperBound, AbsCoeff);
if (isKnownPredicate(CmpInst::ICM
