These are all tests where conversion worked automatically, and
required no manual fixup.

Tests relying on this should explicitly use -passes='require<analysis>,foo'.

This is another attempt to land this patch.

The patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange,
which is obtained from loop cache analysis.

Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of
loops [loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as
the outermost loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and
loop2 one more level inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not
only more comprehensive than the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot"
query which means that we only need to query it once during the entire
loop interchange pass, which is better than the current cost model where
we query it every time we check whether it is profitable to interchange
two loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after D120386 where we
do more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.

Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some
corrections. One change that applies to all tests is that we added an option
`-cache-line-size=64` to the RUN lines. This is ensure that loop
cache analysis receives a valid number of cache line size for correct
analysis. Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.

Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but
keep it as fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully.
This is because currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which
sometimes makes loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to
enhance delinearization and eventually remove the legacy cost model
compeletely.

Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926

llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp:702:30: runtime error: signed
integer overflow: 6148914691236517209 * 100 cannot be represented in
type 'long'

https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/5/builds/25185

This reverts commit 1b24fe34b06cd9f2337313f513a8b19f9a37c5de.

This is the second attempt to land this patch.

The patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange,
which is obtained from loop cache analysis.

Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of
loops [loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as the
outermost loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and loop2
one more level inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not only more
comprehensive than the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot" query
which means that we only need to query it once during the entire loop
interchange pass, which is better than the current cost model where we
query it every time we check whether it is profitable to interchange two
loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after D120386 where we do
more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.

Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some corrections.
One change that applies to all tests is that we added an option
`-cache-line-size=64` to the RUN lines. This is ensure that loop cache
analysis receives a valid number of cache line size for correct analysis.
Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.

Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but keep it
as fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully. This is
because currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which sometimes
makes loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to enhance
delinearization and eventually remove the legacy cost model compeletely.

Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926

Reverting the commit due to numerous buildbot failures.

This reverts commit 006334470d8d1b5d8f630890336fcb45795749d1.

This patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange, which
is obtained from loop cache analysis.

Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of loops
[loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as the outermost
loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and loop2 one more level
inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not only more comprehensive than
the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot" query which means that we only
need to query it once during the entire loop interchange pass, which is better
than the current cost model where we query it every time we check whether it is
profitable to interchange two loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after
D120386 where we do more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.

Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some corrections.
Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.

Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but keep it as
fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully. This is because
currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which sometimes makes
loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to enhance delinearization
and eventually remove the legacy cost model compeletely.

Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926

This patch is motivated by pr48057 where an output dependency is not detected
since loop interchange did not check a store instruction with itself.
Fixed that deficiency.

Reviewed By: bmahjour, Meinersbur, #loopoptwg

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118102

After loop interchange, the (old) outer loop header should not jump to
the `LoopExit`. Note that the old outer loop becomes the new inner loop
after interchange. If we branched to `LoopExit` then after interchange
we would jump directly from the (new) inner loop header to `LoopExit`
without executing the rest of outer loop.

This patch modifies adjustLoopBranches() such that the old outer
loop header (which becomes the new inner loop header) jumps to the
old inner loop latch which becomes the new outer loop latch after
interchange.

Reviewed By: bmahjour

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98475