intermediate changes

ref:cde9a383711a11544ce7e107a78147fb96cc4029

1 files changed, 1882 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/contrib/libs/llvm12/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp b/contrib/libs/llvm12/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b5f8dfa9aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/contrib/libs/llvm12/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,1882 @@
+//===- LoopFuse.cpp - Loop Fusion Pass ------------------------------------===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+///
+/// \file
+/// This file implements the loop fusion pass.
+/// The implementation is largely based on the following document:
+///
+///       Code Transformations to Augment the Scope of Loop Fusion in a
+///         Production Compiler
+///       Christopher Mark Barton
+///       MSc Thesis
+///       https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~amaral/thesis/ChristopherBartonMSc.pdf
+///
+/// The general approach taken is to collect sets of control flow equivalent
+/// loops and test whether they can be fused. The necessary conditions for
+/// fusion are:
+///    1. The loops must be adjacent (there cannot be any statements between
+///       the two loops).
+///    2. The loops must be conforming (they must execute the same number of
+///       iterations).
+///    3. The loops must be control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the
+///       other is guaranteed to execute).
+///    4. There cannot be any negative distance dependencies between the loops.
+/// If all of these conditions are satisfied, it is safe to fuse the loops.
+///
+/// This implementation creates FusionCandidates that represent the loop and the
+/// necessary information needed by fusion. It then operates on the fusion
+/// candidates, first confirming that the candidate is eligible for fusion. The
+/// candidates are then collected into control flow equivalent sets, sorted in
+/// dominance order. Each set of control flow equivalent candidates is then
+/// traversed, attempting to fuse pairs of candidates in the set. If all
+/// requirements for fusion are met, the two candidates are fused, creating a
+/// new (fused) candidate which is then added back into the set to consider for
+/// additional fusion.
+///
+/// This implementation currently does not make any modifications to remove
+/// conditions for fusion. Code transformations to make loops conform to each of
+/// the conditions for fusion are discussed in more detail in the document
+/// above. These can be added to the current implementation in the future.
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/AssumptionCache.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/DomTreeUpdater.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/OptimizationRemarkEmitter.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/PostDominators.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Verifier.h"
+#include "llvm/InitializePasses.h"
+#include "llvm/Pass.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.h"
+
+using namespace llvm;
+
+#define DEBUG_TYPE "loop-fusion"
+
+STATISTIC(FuseCounter, "Loops fused");
+STATISTIC(NumFusionCandidates, "Number of candidates for loop fusion");
+STATISTIC(InvalidPreheader, "Loop has invalid preheader");
+STATISTIC(InvalidHeader, "Loop has invalid header");
+STATISTIC(InvalidExitingBlock, "Loop has invalid exiting blocks");
+STATISTIC(InvalidExitBlock, "Loop has invalid exit block");
+STATISTIC(InvalidLatch, "Loop has invalid latch");
+STATISTIC(InvalidLoop, "Loop is invalid");
+STATISTIC(AddressTakenBB, "Basic block has address taken");
+STATISTIC(MayThrowException, "Loop may throw an exception");
+STATISTIC(ContainsVolatileAccess, "Loop contains a volatile access");
+STATISTIC(NotSimplifiedForm, "Loop is not in simplified form");
+STATISTIC(InvalidDependencies, "Dependencies prevent fusion");
+STATISTIC(UnknownTripCount, "Loop has unknown trip count");
+STATISTIC(UncomputableTripCount, "SCEV cannot compute trip count of loop");
+STATISTIC(NonEqualTripCount, "Loop trip counts are not the same");
+STATISTIC(NonAdjacent, "Loops are not adjacent");
+STATISTIC(
+    NonEmptyPreheader,
+    "Loop has a non-empty preheader with instructions that cannot be moved");
+STATISTIC(FusionNotBeneficial, "Fusion is not beneficial");
+STATISTIC(NonIdenticalGuards, "Candidates have different guards");
+STATISTIC(NonEmptyExitBlock, "Candidate has a non-empty exit block with "
+                             "instructions that cannot be moved");
+STATISTIC(NonEmptyGuardBlock, "Candidate has a non-empty guard block with "
+                              "instructions that cannot be moved");
+STATISTIC(NotRotated, "Candidate is not rotated");
+
+enum FusionDependenceAnalysisChoice {
+  FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_SCEV,
+  FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_DA,
+  FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_ALL,
+};
+
+static cl::opt<FusionDependenceAnalysisChoice> FusionDependenceAnalysis(
+    "loop-fusion-dependence-analysis",
+    cl::desc("Which dependence analysis should loop fusion use?"),
+    cl::values(clEnumValN(FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_SCEV, "scev",
+                          "Use the scalar evolution interface"),
+               clEnumValN(FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_DA, "da",
+                          "Use the dependence analysis interface"),
+               clEnumValN(FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_ALL, "all",
+                          "Use all available analyses")),
+    cl::Hidden, cl::init(FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_ALL), cl::ZeroOrMore);
+
+static cl::opt<unsigned> FusionPeelMaxCount(
+    "loop-fusion-peel-max-count", cl::init(0), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("Max number of iterations to be peeled from a loop, such that "
+             "fusion can take place"));
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+static cl::opt<bool>
+    VerboseFusionDebugging("loop-fusion-verbose-debug",
+                           cl::desc("Enable verbose debugging for Loop Fusion"),
+                           cl::Hidden, cl::init(false), cl::ZeroOrMore);
+#endif
+
+namespace {
+/// This class is used to represent a candidate for loop fusion. When it is
+/// constructed, it checks the conditions for loop fusion to ensure that it
+/// represents a valid candidate. It caches several parts of a loop that are
+/// used throughout loop fusion (e.g., loop preheader, loop header, etc) instead
+/// of continually querying the underlying Loop to retrieve these values. It is
+/// assumed these will not change throughout loop fusion.
+///
+/// The invalidate method should be used to indicate that the FusionCandidate is
+/// no longer a valid candidate for fusion. Similarly, the isValid() method can
+/// be used to ensure that the FusionCandidate is still valid for fusion.
+struct FusionCandidate {
+  /// Cache of parts of the loop used throughout loop fusion. These should not
+  /// need to change throughout the analysis and transformation.
+  /// These parts are cached to avoid repeatedly looking up in the Loop class.
+
+  /// Preheader of the loop this candidate represents
+  BasicBlock *Preheader;
+  /// Header of the loop this candidate represents
+  BasicBlock *Header;
+  /// Blocks in the loop that exit the loop
+  BasicBlock *ExitingBlock;
+  /// The successor block of this loop (where the exiting blocks go to)
+  BasicBlock *ExitBlock;
+  /// Latch of the loop
+  BasicBlock *Latch;
+  /// The loop that this fusion candidate represents
+  Loop *L;
+  /// Vector of instructions in this loop that read from memory
+  SmallVector<Instruction *, 16> MemReads;
+  /// Vector of instructions in this loop that write to memory
+  SmallVector<Instruction *, 16> MemWrites;
+  /// Are all of the members of this fusion candidate still valid
+  bool Valid;
+  /// Guard branch of the loop, if it exists
+  BranchInst *GuardBranch;
+  /// Peeling Paramaters of the Loop.
+  TTI::PeelingPreferences PP;
+  /// Can you Peel this Loop?
+  bool AbleToPeel;
+  /// Has this loop been Peeled
+  bool Peeled;
+
+  /// Dominator and PostDominator trees are needed for the
+  /// FusionCandidateCompare function, required by FusionCandidateSet to
+  /// determine where the FusionCandidate should be inserted into the set. These
+  /// are used to establish ordering of the FusionCandidates based on dominance.
+  const DominatorTree *DT;
+  const PostDominatorTree *PDT;
+
+  OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE;
+
+  FusionCandidate(Loop *L, const DominatorTree *DT,
+                  const PostDominatorTree *PDT, OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE,
+                  TTI::PeelingPreferences PP)
+      : Preheader(L->getLoopPreheader()), Header(L->getHeader()),
+        ExitingBlock(L->getExitingBlock()), ExitBlock(L->getExitBlock()),
+        Latch(L->getLoopLatch()), L(L), Valid(true),
+        GuardBranch(L->getLoopGuardBranch()), PP(PP), AbleToPeel(canPeel(L)),
+        Peeled(false), DT(DT), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE) {
+
+    // Walk over all blocks in the loop and check for conditions that may
+    // prevent fusion. For each block, walk over all instructions and collect
+    // the memory reads and writes If any instructions that prevent fusion are
+    // found, invalidate this object and return.
+    for (BasicBlock *BB : L->blocks()) {
+      if (BB->hasAddressTaken()) {
+        invalidate();
+        reportInvalidCandidate(AddressTakenBB);
+        return;
+      }
+
+      for (Instruction &I : *BB) {
+        if (I.mayThrow()) {
+          invalidate();
+          reportInvalidCandidate(MayThrowException);
+          return;
+        }
+        if (StoreInst *SI = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(&I)) {
+          if (SI->isVolatile()) {
+            invalidate();
+            reportInvalidCandidate(ContainsVolatileAccess);
+            return;
+          }
+        }
+        if (LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(&I)) {
+          if (LI->isVolatile()) {
+            invalidate();
+            reportInvalidCandidate(ContainsVolatileAccess);
+            return;
+          }
+        }
+        if (I.mayWriteToMemory())
+          MemWrites.push_back(&I);
+        if (I.mayReadFromMemory())
+          MemReads.push_back(&I);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Check if all members of the class are valid.
+  bool isValid() const {
+    return Preheader && Header && ExitingBlock && ExitBlock && Latch && L &&
+           !L->isInvalid() && Valid;
+  }
+
+  /// Verify that all members are in sync with the Loop object.
+  void verify() const {
+    assert(isValid() && "Candidate is not valid!!");
+    assert(!L->isInvalid() && "Loop is invalid!");
+    assert(Preheader == L->getLoopPreheader() && "Preheader is out of sync");
+    assert(Header == L->getHeader() && "Header is out of sync");
+    assert(ExitingBlock == L->getExitingBlock() &&
+           "Exiting Blocks is out of sync");
+    assert(ExitBlock == L->getExitBlock() && "Exit block is out of sync");
+    assert(Latch == L->getLoopLatch() && "Latch is out of sync");
+  }
+
+  /// Get the entry block for this fusion candidate.
+  ///
+  /// If this fusion candidate represents a guarded loop, the entry block is the
+  /// loop guard block. If it represents an unguarded loop, the entry block is
+  /// the preheader of the loop.
+  BasicBlock *getEntryBlock() const {
+    if (GuardBranch)
+      return GuardBranch->getParent();
+    else
+      return Preheader;
+  }
+
+  /// After Peeling the loop is modified quite a bit, hence all of the Blocks
+  /// need to be updated accordingly.
+  void updateAfterPeeling() {
+    Preheader = L->getLoopPreheader();
+    Header = L->getHeader();
+    ExitingBlock = L->getExitingBlock();
+    ExitBlock = L->getExitBlock();
+    Latch = L->getLoopLatch();
+    verify();
+  }
+
+  /// Given a guarded loop, get the successor of the guard that is not in the
+  /// loop.
+  ///
+  /// This method returns the successor of the loop guard that is not located
+  /// within the loop (i.e., the successor of the guard that is not the
+  /// preheader).
+  /// This method is only valid for guarded loops.
+  BasicBlock *getNonLoopBlock() const {
+    assert(GuardBranch && "Only valid on guarded loops.");
+    assert(GuardBranch->isConditional() &&
+           "Expecting guard to be a conditional branch.");
+    if (Peeled)
+      return GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1);
+    return (GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0) == Preheader)
+               ? GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1)
+               : GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0);
+  }
+
+#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
+  LLVM_DUMP_METHOD void dump() const {
+    dbgs() << "\tGuardBranch: ";
+    if (GuardBranch)
+      dbgs() << *GuardBranch;
+    else
+      dbgs() << "nullptr";
+    dbgs() << "\n"
+           << (GuardBranch ? GuardBranch->getName() : "nullptr") << "\n"
+           << "\tPreheader: " << (Preheader ? Preheader->getName() : "nullptr")
+           << "\n"
+           << "\tHeader: " << (Header ? Header->getName() : "nullptr") << "\n"
+           << "\tExitingBB: "
+           << (ExitingBlock ? ExitingBlock->getName() : "nullptr") << "\n"
+           << "\tExitBB: " << (ExitBlock ? ExitBlock->getName() : "nullptr")
+           << "\n"
+           << "\tLatch: " << (Latch ? Latch->getName() : "nullptr") << "\n"
+           << "\tEntryBlock: "
+           << (getEntryBlock() ? getEntryBlock()->getName() : "nullptr")
+           << "\n";
+  }
+#endif
+
+  /// Determine if a fusion candidate (representing a loop) is eligible for
+  /// fusion. Note that this only checks whether a single loop can be fused - it
+  /// does not check whether it is *legal* to fuse two loops together.
+  bool isEligibleForFusion(ScalarEvolution &SE) const {
+    if (!isValid()) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "FC has invalid CFG requirements!\n");
+      if (!Preheader)
+        ++InvalidPreheader;
+      if (!Header)
+        ++InvalidHeader;
+      if (!ExitingBlock)
+        ++InvalidExitingBlock;
+      if (!ExitBlock)
+        ++InvalidExitBlock;
+      if (!Latch)
+        ++InvalidLatch;
+      if (L->isInvalid())
+        ++InvalidLoop;
+
+      return false;
+    }
+
+    // Require ScalarEvolution to be able to determine a trip count.
+    if (!SE.hasLoopInvariantBackedgeTakenCount(L)) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop " << L->getName()
+                        << " trip count not computable!\n");
+      return reportInvalidCandidate(UnknownTripCount);
+    }
+
+    if (!L->isLoopSimplifyForm()) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop " << L->getName()
+                        << " is not in simplified form!\n");
+      return reportInvalidCandidate(NotSimplifiedForm);
+    }
+
+    if (!L->isRotatedForm()) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop " << L->getName() << " is not rotated!\n");
+      return reportInvalidCandidate(NotRotated);
+    }
+
+    return true;
+  }
+
+private:
+  // This is only used internally for now, to clear the MemWrites and MemReads
+  // list and setting Valid to false. I can't envision other uses of this right
+  // now, since once FusionCandidates are put into the FusionCandidateSet they
+  // are immutable. Thus, any time we need to change/update a FusionCandidate,
+  // we must create a new one and insert it into the FusionCandidateSet to
+  // ensure the FusionCandidateSet remains ordered correctly.
+  void invalidate() {
+    MemWrites.clear();
+    MemReads.clear();
+    Valid = false;
+  }
+
+  bool reportInvalidCandidate(llvm::Statistic &Stat) const {
+    using namespace ore;
+    assert(L && Preheader && "Fusion candidate not initialized properly!");
+    ++Stat;
+    ORE.emit(OptimizationRemarkAnalysis(DEBUG_TYPE, Stat.getName(),
+                                        L->getStartLoc(), Preheader)
+             << "[" << Preheader->getParent()->getName() << "]: "
+             << "Loop is not a candidate for fusion: " << Stat.getDesc());
+    return false;
+  }
+};
+
+struct FusionCandidateCompare {
+  /// Comparison functor to sort two Control Flow Equivalent fusion candidates
+  /// into dominance order.
+  /// If LHS dominates RHS and RHS post-dominates LHS, return true;
+  /// IF RHS dominates LHS and LHS post-dominates RHS, return false;
+  bool operator()(const FusionCandidate &LHS,
+                  const FusionCandidate &RHS) const {
+    const DominatorTree *DT = LHS.DT;
+
+    BasicBlock *LHSEntryBlock = LHS.getEntryBlock();
+    BasicBlock *RHSEntryBlock = RHS.getEntryBlock();
+
+    // Do not save PDT to local variable as it is only used in asserts and thus
+    // will trigger an unused variable warning if building without asserts.
+    assert(DT && LHS.PDT && "Expecting valid dominator tree");
+
+    // Do this compare first so if LHS == RHS, function returns false.
+    if (DT->dominates(RHSEntryBlock, LHSEntryBlock)) {
+      // RHS dominates LHS
+      // Verify LHS post-dominates RHS
+      assert(LHS.PDT->dominates(LHSEntryBlock, RHSEntryBlock));
+      return false;
+    }
+
+    if (DT->dominates(LHSEntryBlock, RHSEntryBlock)) {
+      // Verify RHS Postdominates LHS
+      assert(LHS.PDT->dominates(RHSEntryBlock, LHSEntryBlock));
+      return true;
+    }
+
+    // If LHS does not dominate RHS and RHS does not dominate LHS then there is
+    // no dominance relationship between the two FusionCandidates. Thus, they
+    // should not be in the same set together.
+    llvm_unreachable(
+        "No dominance relationship between these fusion candidates!");
+  }
+};
+
+using LoopVector = SmallVector<Loop *, 4>;
+
+// Set of Control Flow Equivalent (CFE) Fusion Candidates, sorted in dominance
+// order. Thus, if FC0 comes *before* FC1 in a FusionCandidateSet, then FC0
+// dominates FC1 and FC1 post-dominates FC0.
+// std::set was chosen because we want a sorted data structure with stable
+// iterators. A subsequent patch to loop fusion will enable fusing non-ajdacent
+// loops by moving intervening code around. When this intervening code contains
+// loops, those loops will be moved also. The corresponding FusionCandidates
+// will also need to be moved accordingly. As this is done, having stable
+// iterators will simplify the logic. Similarly, having an efficient insert that
+// keeps the FusionCandidateSet sorted will also simplify the implementation.
+using FusionCandidateSet = std::set<FusionCandidate, FusionCandidateCompare>;
+using FusionCandidateCollection = SmallVector<FusionCandidateSet, 4>;
+
+#if !defined(NDEBUG)
+static llvm::raw_ostream &operator<<(llvm::raw_ostream &OS,
+                                     const FusionCandidate &FC) {
+  if (FC.isValid())
+    OS << FC.Preheader->getName();
+  else
+    OS << "<Invalid>";
+
+  return OS;
+}
+
+static llvm::raw_ostream &operator<<(llvm::raw_ostream &OS,
+                                     const FusionCandidateSet &CandSet) {
+  for (const FusionCandidate &FC : CandSet)
+    OS << FC << '\n';
+
+  return OS;
+}
+
+static void
+printFusionCandidates(const FusionCandidateCollection &FusionCandidates) {
+  dbgs() << "Fusion Candidates: \n";
+  for (const auto &CandidateSet : FusionCandidates) {
+    dbgs() << "*** Fusion Candidate Set ***\n";
+    dbgs() << CandidateSet;
+    dbgs() << "****************************\n";
+  }
+}
+#endif
+
+/// Collect all loops in function at the same nest level, starting at the
+/// outermost level.
+///
+/// This data structure collects all loops at the same nest level for a
+/// given function (specified by the LoopInfo object). It starts at the
+/// outermost level.
+struct LoopDepthTree {
+  using LoopsOnLevelTy = SmallVector<LoopVector, 4>;
+  using iterator = LoopsOnLevelTy::iterator;
+  using const_iterator = LoopsOnLevelTy::const_iterator;
+
+  LoopDepthTree(LoopInfo &LI) : Depth(1) {
+    if (!LI.empty())
+      LoopsOnLevel.emplace_back(LoopVector(LI.rbegin(), LI.rend()));
+  }
+
+  /// Test whether a given loop has been removed from the function, and thus is
+  /// no longer valid.
+  bool isRemovedLoop(const Loop *L) const { return RemovedLoops.count(L); }
+
+  /// Record that a given loop has been removed from the function and is no
+  /// longer valid.
+  void removeLoop(const Loop *L) { RemovedLoops.insert(L); }
+
+  /// Descend the tree to the next (inner) nesting level
+  void descend() {
+    LoopsOnLevelTy LoopsOnNextLevel;
+
+    for (const LoopVector &LV : *this)
+      for (Loop *L : LV)
+        if (!isRemovedLoop(L) && L->begin() != L->end())
+          LoopsOnNextLevel.emplace_back(LoopVector(L->begin(), L->end()));
+
+    LoopsOnLevel = LoopsOnNextLevel;
+    RemovedLoops.clear();
+    Depth++;
+  }
+
+  bool empty() const { return size() == 0; }
+  size_t size() const { return LoopsOnLevel.size() - RemovedLoops.size(); }
+  unsigned getDepth() const { return Depth; }
+
+  iterator begin() { return LoopsOnLevel.begin(); }
+  iterator end() { return LoopsOnLevel.end(); }
+  const_iterator begin() const { return LoopsOnLevel.begin(); }
+  const_iterator end() const { return LoopsOnLevel.end(); }
+
+private:
+  /// Set of loops that have been removed from the function and are no longer
+  /// valid.
+  SmallPtrSet<const Loop *, 8> RemovedLoops;
+
+  /// Depth of the current level, starting at 1 (outermost loops).
+  unsigned Depth;
+
+  /// Vector of loops at the current depth level that have the same parent loop
+  LoopsOnLevelTy LoopsOnLevel;
+};
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+static void printLoopVector(const LoopVector &LV) {
+  dbgs() << "****************************\n";
+  for (auto L : LV)
+    printLoop(*L, dbgs());
+  dbgs() << "****************************\n";
+}
+#endif
+
+struct LoopFuser {
+private:
+  // Sets of control flow equivalent fusion candidates for a given nest level.
+  FusionCandidateCollection FusionCandidates;
+
+  LoopDepthTree LDT;
+  DomTreeUpdater DTU;
+
+  LoopInfo &LI;
+  DominatorTree &DT;
+  DependenceInfo &DI;
+  ScalarEvolution &SE;
+  PostDominatorTree &PDT;
+  OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE;
+  AssumptionCache &AC;
+
+  const TargetTransformInfo &TTI;
+
+public:
+  LoopFuser(LoopInfo &LI, DominatorTree &DT, DependenceInfo &DI,
+            ScalarEvolution &SE, PostDominatorTree &PDT,
+            OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE, const DataLayout &DL,
+            AssumptionCache &AC, const TargetTransformInfo &TTI)
+      : LDT(LI), DTU(DT, PDT, DomTreeUpdater::UpdateStrategy::Lazy), LI(LI),
+        DT(DT), DI(DI), SE(SE), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE), AC(AC), TTI(TTI) {}
+
+  /// This is the main entry point for loop fusion. It will traverse the
+  /// specified function and collect candidate loops to fuse, starting at the
+  /// outermost nesting level and working inwards.
+  bool fuseLoops(Function &F) {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    if (VerboseFusionDebugging) {
+      LI.print(dbgs());
+    }
+#endif
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Performing Loop Fusion on function " << F.getName()
+                      << "\n");
+    bool Changed = false;
+
+    while (!LDT.empty()) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Got " << LDT.size() << " loop sets for depth "
+                        << LDT.getDepth() << "\n";);
+
+      for (const LoopVector &LV : LDT) {
+        assert(LV.size() > 0 && "Empty loop set was build!");
+
+        // Skip singleton loop sets as they do not offer fusion opportunities on
+        // this level.
+        if (LV.size() == 1)
+          continue;
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+        if (VerboseFusionDebugging) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG({
+            dbgs() << "  Visit loop set (#" << LV.size() << "):\n";
+            printLoopVector(LV);
+          });
+        }
+#endif
+
+        collectFusionCandidates(LV);
+        Changed |= fuseCandidates();
+      }
+
+      // Finished analyzing candidates at this level.
+      // Descend to the next level and clear all of the candidates currently
+      // collected. Note that it will not be possible to fuse any of the
+      // existing candidates with new candidates because the new candidates will
+      // be at a different nest level and thus not be control flow equivalent
+      // with all of the candidates collected so far.
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Descend one level!\n");
+      LDT.descend();
+      FusionCandidates.clear();
+    }
+
+    if (Changed)
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function after Loop Fusion: \n"; F.dump(););
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    assert(DT.verify());
+    assert(PDT.verify());
+    LI.verify(DT);
+    SE.verify();
+#endif
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop Fusion complete\n");
+    return Changed;
+  }
+
+private:
+  /// Determine if two fusion candidates are control flow equivalent.
+  ///
+  /// Two fusion candidates are control flow equivalent if when one executes,
+  /// the other is guaranteed to execute. This is determined using dominators
+  /// and post-dominators: if A dominates B and B post-dominates A then A and B
+  /// are control-flow equivalent.
+  bool isControlFlowEquivalent(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                               const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+    assert(FC0.Preheader && FC1.Preheader && "Expecting valid preheaders");
+
+    return ::isControlFlowEquivalent(*FC0.getEntryBlock(), *FC1.getEntryBlock(),
+                                     DT, PDT);
+  }
+
+  /// Iterate over all loops in the given loop set and identify the loops that
+  /// are eligible for fusion. Place all eligible fusion candidates into Control
+  /// Flow Equivalent sets, sorted by dominance.
+  void collectFusionCandidates(const LoopVector &LV) {
+    for (Loop *L : LV) {
+      TTI::PeelingPreferences PP =
+          gatherPeelingPreferences(L, SE, TTI, None, None);
+      FusionCandidate CurrCand(L, &DT, &PDT, ORE, PP);
+      if (!CurrCand.isEligibleForFusion(SE))
+        continue;
+
+      // Go through each list in FusionCandidates and determine if L is control
+      // flow equivalent with the first loop in that list. If it is, append LV.
+      // If not, go to the next list.
+      // If no suitable list is found, start another list and add it to
+      // FusionCandidates.
+      bool FoundSet = false;
+
+      for (auto &CurrCandSet : FusionCandidates) {
+        if (isControlFlowEquivalent(*CurrCandSet.begin(), CurrCand)) {
+          CurrCandSet.insert(CurrCand);
+          FoundSet = true;
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+          if (VerboseFusionDebugging)
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Adding " << CurrCand
+                              << " to existing candidate set\n");
+#endif
+          break;
+        }
+      }
+      if (!FoundSet) {
+        // No set was found. Create a new set and add to FusionCandidates
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+        if (VerboseFusionDebugging)
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Adding " << CurrCand << " to new set\n");
+#endif
+        FusionCandidateSet NewCandSet;
+        NewCandSet.insert(CurrCand);
+        FusionCandidates.push_back(NewCandSet);
+      }
+      NumFusionCandidates++;
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Determine if it is beneficial to fuse two loops.
+  ///
+  /// For now, this method simply returns true because we want to fuse as much
+  /// as possible (primarily to test the pass). This method will evolve, over
+  /// time, to add heuristics for profitability of fusion.
+  bool isBeneficialFusion(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                          const FusionCandidate &FC1) {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  /// Determine if two fusion candidates have the same trip count (i.e., they
+  /// execute the same number of iterations).
+  ///
+  /// This function will return a pair of values. The first is a boolean,
+  /// stating whether or not the two candidates are known at compile time to
+  /// have the same TripCount. The second is the difference in the two
+  /// TripCounts. This information can be used later to determine whether or not
+  /// peeling can be performed on either one of the candiates.
+  std::pair<bool, Optional<unsigned>>
+  haveIdenticalTripCounts(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                          const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+
+    const SCEV *TripCount0 = SE.getBackedgeTakenCount(FC0.L);
+    if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(TripCount0)) {
+      UncomputableTripCount++;
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Trip count of first loop could not be computed!");
+      return {false, None};
+    }
+
+    const SCEV *TripCount1 = SE.getBackedgeTakenCount(FC1.L);
+    if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(TripCount1)) {
+      UncomputableTripCount++;
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Trip count of second loop could not be computed!");
+      return {false, None};
+    }
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "\tTrip counts: " << *TripCount0 << " & "
+                      << *TripCount1 << " are "
+                      << (TripCount0 == TripCount1 ? "identical" : "different")
+                      << "\n");
+
+    if (TripCount0 == TripCount1)
+      return {true, 0};
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "The loops do not have the same tripcount, "
+                         "determining the difference between trip counts\n");
+
+    // Currently only considering loops with a single exit point
+    // and a non-constant trip count.
+    const unsigned TC0 = SE.getSmallConstantTripCount(FC0.L);
+    const unsigned TC1 = SE.getSmallConstantTripCount(FC1.L);
+
+    // If any of the tripcounts are zero that means that loop(s) do not have
+    // a single exit or a constant tripcount.
+    if (TC0 == 0 || TC1 == 0) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop(s) do not have a single exit point or do not "
+                           "have a constant number of iterations. Peeling "
+                           "is not benefical\n");
+      return {false, None};
+    }
+
+    Optional<unsigned> Difference = None;
+    int Diff = TC0 - TC1;
+
+    if (Diff > 0)
+      Difference = Diff;
+    else {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(
+          dbgs() << "Difference is less than 0. FC1 (second loop) has more "
+                    "iterations than the first one. Currently not supported\n");
+    }
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Difference in loop trip count is: " << Difference
+                      << "\n");
+
+    return {false, Difference};
+  }
+
+  void peelFusionCandidate(FusionCandidate &FC0, const FusionCandidate &FC1,
+                           unsigned PeelCount) {
+    assert(FC0.AbleToPeel && "Should be able to peel loop");
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Attempting to peel first " << PeelCount
+                      << " iterations of the first loop. \n");
+
+    FC0.Peeled = peelLoop(FC0.L, PeelCount, &LI, &SE, &DT, &AC, true);
+    if (FC0.Peeled) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Done Peeling\n");
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+      auto IdenticalTripCount = haveIdenticalTripCounts(FC0, FC1);
+
+      assert(IdenticalTripCount.first && *IdenticalTripCount.second == 0 &&
+             "Loops should have identical trip counts after peeling");
+#endif
+
+      FC0.PP.PeelCount += PeelCount;
+
+      // Peeling does not update the PDT
+      PDT.recalculate(*FC0.Preheader->getParent());
+
+      FC0.updateAfterPeeling();
+
+      // In this case the iterations of the loop are constant, so the first
+      // loop will execute completely (will not jump from one of
+      // the peeled blocks to the second loop). Here we are updating the
+      // branch conditions of each of the peeled blocks, such that it will
+      // branch to its successor which is not the preheader of the second loop
+      // in the case of unguarded loops, or the succesors of the exit block of
+      // the first loop otherwise. Doing this update will ensure that the entry
+      // block of the first loop dominates the entry block of the second loop.
+      BasicBlock *BB =
+          FC0.GuardBranch ? FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor() : FC1.Preheader;
+      if (BB) {
+        SmallVector<DominatorTree::UpdateType, 8> TreeUpdates;
+        SmallVector<Instruction *, 8> WorkList;
+        for (BasicBlock *Pred : predecessors(BB)) {
+          if (Pred != FC0.ExitBlock) {
+            WorkList.emplace_back(Pred->getTerminator());
+            TreeUpdates.emplace_back(
+                DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete, Pred, BB));
+          }
+        }
+        // Cannot modify the predecessors inside the above loop as it will cause
+        // the iterators to be nullptrs, causing memory errors.
+        for (Instruction *CurrentBranch: WorkList) {
+          BasicBlock *Succ = CurrentBranch->getSuccessor(0);
+          if (Succ == BB)
+            Succ = CurrentBranch->getSuccessor(1);
+          ReplaceInstWithInst(CurrentBranch, BranchInst::Create(Succ));
+        }
+
+        DTU.applyUpdates(TreeUpdates);
+        DTU.flush();
+      }
+      LLVM_DEBUG(
+          dbgs() << "Sucessfully peeled " << FC0.PP.PeelCount
+                 << " iterations from the first loop.\n"
+                    "Both Loops have the same number of iterations now.\n");
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Walk each set of control flow equivalent fusion candidates and attempt to
+  /// fuse them. This does a single linear traversal of all candidates in the
+  /// set. The conditions for legal fusion are checked at this point. If a pair
+  /// of fusion candidates passes all legality checks, they are fused together
+  /// and a new fusion candidate is created and added to the FusionCandidateSet.
+  /// The original fusion candidates are then removed, as they are no longer
+  /// valid.
+  bool fuseCandidates() {
+    bool Fused = false;
+    LLVM_DEBUG(printFusionCandidates(FusionCandidates));
+    for (auto &CandidateSet : FusionCandidates) {
+      if (CandidateSet.size() < 2)
+        continue;
+
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Attempting fusion on Candidate Set:\n"
+                        << CandidateSet << "\n");
+
+      for (auto FC0 = CandidateSet.begin(); FC0 != CandidateSet.end(); ++FC0) {
+        assert(!LDT.isRemovedLoop(FC0->L) &&
+               "Should not have removed loops in CandidateSet!");
+        auto FC1 = FC0;
+        for (++FC1; FC1 != CandidateSet.end(); ++FC1) {
+          assert(!LDT.isRemovedLoop(FC1->L) &&
+                 "Should not have removed loops in CandidateSet!");
+
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Attempting to fuse candidate \n"; FC0->dump();
+                     dbgs() << " with\n"; FC1->dump(); dbgs() << "\n");
+
+          FC0->verify();
+          FC1->verify();
+
+          // Check if the candidates have identical tripcounts (first value of
+          // pair), and if not check the difference in the tripcounts between
+          // the loops (second value of pair). The difference is not equal to
+          // None iff the loops iterate a constant number of times, and have a
+          // single exit.
+          std::pair<bool, Optional<unsigned>> IdenticalTripCountRes =
+              haveIdenticalTripCounts(*FC0, *FC1);
+          bool SameTripCount = IdenticalTripCountRes.first;
+          Optional<unsigned> TCDifference = IdenticalTripCountRes.second;
+
+          // Here we are checking that FC0 (the first loop) can be peeled, and
+          // both loops have different tripcounts.
+          if (FC0->AbleToPeel && !SameTripCount && TCDifference) {
+            if (*TCDifference > FusionPeelMaxCount) {
+              LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                         << "Difference in loop trip counts: " << *TCDifference
+                         << " is greater than maximum peel count specificed: "
+                         << FusionPeelMaxCount << "\n");
+            } else {
+              // Dependent on peeling being performed on the first loop, and
+              // assuming all other conditions for fusion return true.
+              SameTripCount = true;
+            }
+          }
+
+          if (!SameTripCount) {
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidates do not have identical trip "
+                                 "counts. Not fusing.\n");
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                       NonEqualTripCount);
+            continue;
+          }
+
+          if (!isAdjacent(*FC0, *FC1)) {
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                       << "Fusion candidates are not adjacent. Not fusing.\n");
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1, NonAdjacent);
+            continue;
+          }
+
+          // Ensure that FC0 and FC1 have identical guards.
+          // If one (or both) are not guarded, this check is not necessary.
+          if (FC0->GuardBranch && FC1->GuardBranch &&
+              !haveIdenticalGuards(*FC0, *FC1) && !TCDifference) {
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidates do not have identical "
+                                 "guards. Not Fusing.\n");
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                       NonIdenticalGuards);
+            continue;
+          }
+
+          if (!isSafeToMoveBefore(*FC1->Preheader,
+                                  *FC0->Preheader->getTerminator(), DT, &PDT,
+                                  &DI)) {
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidate contains unsafe "
+                                 "instructions in preheader. Not fusing.\n");
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                       NonEmptyPreheader);
+            continue;
+          }
+
+          if (FC0->GuardBranch) {
+            assert(FC1->GuardBranch && "Expecting valid FC1 guard branch");
+
+            if (!isSafeToMoveBefore(*FC0->ExitBlock,
+                                    *FC1->ExitBlock->getFirstNonPHIOrDbg(), DT,
+                                    &PDT, &DI)) {
+              LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidate contains unsafe "
+                                   "instructions in exit block. Not fusing.\n");
+              reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                         NonEmptyExitBlock);
+              continue;
+            }
+
+            if (!isSafeToMoveBefore(
+                    *FC1->GuardBranch->getParent(),
+                    *FC0->GuardBranch->getParent()->getTerminator(), DT, &PDT,
+                    &DI)) {
+              LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                         << "Fusion candidate contains unsafe "
+                            "instructions in guard block. Not fusing.\n");
+              reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                         NonEmptyGuardBlock);
+              continue;
+            }
+          }
+
+          // Check the dependencies across the loops and do not fuse if it would
+          // violate them.
+          if (!dependencesAllowFusion(*FC0, *FC1)) {
+            LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Memory dependencies do not allow fusion!\n");
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                       InvalidDependencies);
+            continue;
+          }
+
+          bool BeneficialToFuse = isBeneficialFusion(*FC0, *FC1);
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                     << "\tFusion appears to be "
+                     << (BeneficialToFuse ? "" : "un") << "profitable!\n");
+          if (!BeneficialToFuse) {
+            reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
+                                                       FusionNotBeneficial);
+            continue;
+          }
+          // All analysis has completed and has determined that fusion is legal
+          // and profitable. At this point, start transforming the code and
+          // perform fusion.
+
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "\tFusion is performed: " << *FC0 << " and "
+                            << *FC1 << "\n");
+
+          FusionCandidate FC0Copy = *FC0;
+          // Peel the loop after determining that fusion is legal. The Loops
+          // will still be safe to fuse after the peeling is performed.
+          bool Peel = TCDifference && *TCDifference > 0;
+          if (Peel)
+            peelFusionCandidate(FC0Copy, *FC1, *TCDifference);
+
+          // Report fusion to the Optimization Remarks.
+          // Note this needs to be done *before* performFusion because
+          // performFusion will change the original loops, making it not
+          // possible to identify them after fusion is complete.
+          reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemark>((Peel ? FC0Copy : *FC0), *FC1,
+                                               FuseCounter);
+
+          FusionCandidate FusedCand(
+              performFusion((Peel ? FC0Copy : *FC0), *FC1), &DT, &PDT, ORE,
+              FC0Copy.PP);
+          FusedCand.verify();
+          assert(FusedCand.isEligibleForFusion(SE) &&
+                 "Fused candidate should be eligible for fusion!");
+
+          // Notify the loop-depth-tree that these loops are not valid objects
+          LDT.removeLoop(FC1->L);
+
+          CandidateSet.erase(FC0);
+          CandidateSet.erase(FC1);
+
+          auto InsertPos = CandidateSet.insert(FusedCand);
+
+          assert(InsertPos.second &&
+                 "Unable to insert TargetCandidate in CandidateSet!");
+
+          // Reset FC0 and FC1 the new (fused) candidate. Subsequent iterations
+          // of the FC1 loop will attempt to fuse the new (fused) loop with the
+          // remaining candidates in the current candidate set.
+          FC0 = FC1 = InsertPos.first;
+
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Candidate Set (after fusion): " << CandidateSet
+                            << "\n");
+
+          Fused = true;
+        }
+      }
+    }
+    return Fused;
+  }
+
+  /// Rewrite all additive recurrences in a SCEV to use a new loop.
+  class AddRecLoopReplacer : public SCEVRewriteVisitor<AddRecLoopReplacer> {
+  public:
+    AddRecLoopReplacer(ScalarEvolution &SE, const Loop &OldL, const Loop &NewL,
+                       bool UseMax = true)
+        : SCEVRewriteVisitor(SE), Valid(true), UseMax(UseMax), OldL(OldL),
+          NewL(NewL) {}
+
+    const SCEV *visitAddRecExpr(const SCEVAddRecExpr *Expr) {
+      const Loop *ExprL = Expr->getLoop();
+      SmallVector<const SCEV *, 2> Operands;
+      if (ExprL == &OldL) {
+        Operands.append(Expr->op_begin(), Expr->op_end());
+        return SE.getAddRecExpr(Operands, &NewL, Expr->getNoWrapFlags());
+      }
+
+      if (OldL.contains(ExprL)) {
+        bool Pos = SE.isKnownPositive(Expr->getStepRecurrence(SE));
+        if (!UseMax || !Pos || !Expr->isAffine()) {
+          Valid = false;
+          return Expr;
+        }
+        return visit(Expr->getStart());
+      }
+
+      for (const SCEV *Op : Expr->operands())
+        Operands.push_back(visit(Op));
+      return SE.getAddRecExpr(Operands, ExprL, Expr->getNoWrapFlags());
+    }
+
+    bool wasValidSCEV() const { return Valid; }
+
+  private:
+    bool Valid, UseMax;
+    const Loop &OldL, &NewL;
+  };
+
+  /// Return false if the access functions of \p I0 and \p I1 could cause
+  /// a negative dependence.
+  bool accessDiffIsPositive(const Loop &L0, const Loop &L1, Instruction &I0,
+                            Instruction &I1, bool EqualIsInvalid) {
+    Value *Ptr0 = getLoadStorePointerOperand(&I0);
+    Value *Ptr1 = getLoadStorePointerOperand(&I1);
+    if (!Ptr0 || !Ptr1)
+      return false;
+
+    const SCEV *SCEVPtr0 = SE.getSCEVAtScope(Ptr0, &L0);
+    const SCEV *SCEVPtr1 = SE.getSCEVAtScope(Ptr1, &L1);
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    if (VerboseFusionDebugging)
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "    Access function check: " << *SCEVPtr0 << " vs "
+                        << *SCEVPtr1 << "\n");
+#endif
+    AddRecLoopReplacer Rewriter(SE, L0, L1);
+    SCEVPtr0 = Rewriter.visit(SCEVPtr0);
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    if (VerboseFusionDebugging)
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "    Access function after rewrite: " << *SCEVPtr0
+                        << " [Valid: " << Rewriter.wasValidSCEV() << "]\n");
+#endif
+    if (!Rewriter.wasValidSCEV())
+      return false;
+
+    // TODO: isKnownPredicate doesnt work well when one SCEV is loop carried (by
+    //       L0) and the other is not. We could check if it is monotone and test
+    //       the beginning and end value instead.
+
+    BasicBlock *L0Header = L0.getHeader();
+    auto HasNonLinearDominanceRelation = [&](const SCEV *S) {
+      const SCEVAddRecExpr *AddRec = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(S);
+      if (!AddRec)
+        return false;
+      return !DT.dominates(L0Header, AddRec->getLoop()->getHeader()) &&
+             !DT.dominates(AddRec->getLoop()->getHeader(), L0Header);
+    };
+    if (SCEVExprContains(SCEVPtr1, HasNonLinearDominanceRelation))
+      return false;
+
+    ICmpInst::Predicate Pred =
+        EqualIsInvalid ? ICmpInst::ICMP_SGT : ICmpInst::ICMP_SGE;
+    bool IsAlwaysGE = SE.isKnownPredicate(Pred, SCEVPtr0, SCEVPtr1);
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    if (VerboseFusionDebugging)
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "    Relation: " << *SCEVPtr0
+                        << (IsAlwaysGE ? "  >=  " : "  may <  ") << *SCEVPtr1
+                        << "\n");
+#endif
+    return IsAlwaysGE;
+  }
+
+  /// Return true if the dependences between @p I0 (in @p L0) and @p I1 (in
+  /// @p L1) allow loop fusion of @p L0 and @p L1. The dependence analyses
+  /// specified by @p DepChoice are used to determine this.
+  bool dependencesAllowFusion(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                              const FusionCandidate &FC1, Instruction &I0,
+                              Instruction &I1, bool AnyDep,
+                              FusionDependenceAnalysisChoice DepChoice) {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    if (VerboseFusionDebugging) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Check dep: " << I0 << " vs " << I1 << " : "
+                        << DepChoice << "\n");
+    }
+#endif
+    switch (DepChoice) {
+    case FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_SCEV:
+      return accessDiffIsPositive(*FC0.L, *FC1.L, I0, I1, AnyDep);
+    case FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_DA: {
+      auto DepResult = DI.depends(&I0, &I1, true);
+      if (!DepResult)
+        return true;
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+      if (VerboseFusionDebugging) {
+        LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "DA res: "; DepResult->dump(dbgs());
+                   dbgs() << " [#l: " << DepResult->getLevels() << "][Ordered: "
+                          << (DepResult->isOrdered() ? "true" : "false")
+                          << "]\n");
+        LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "DepResult Levels: " << DepResult->getLevels()
+                          << "\n");
+      }
+#endif
+
+      if (DepResult->getNextPredecessor() || DepResult->getNextSuccessor())
+        LLVM_DEBUG(
+            dbgs() << "TODO: Implement pred/succ dependence handling!\n");
+
+      // TODO: Can we actually use the dependence info analysis here?
+      return false;
+    }
+
+    case FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_ALL:
+      return dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, I0, I1, AnyDep,
+                                    FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_SCEV) ||
+             dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, I0, I1, AnyDep,
+                                    FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_DA);
+    }
+
+    llvm_unreachable("Unknown fusion dependence analysis choice!");
+  }
+
+  /// Perform a dependence check and return if @p FC0 and @p FC1 can be fused.
+  bool dependencesAllowFusion(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                              const FusionCandidate &FC1) {
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Check if " << FC0 << " can be fused with " << FC1
+                      << "\n");
+    assert(FC0.L->getLoopDepth() == FC1.L->getLoopDepth());
+    assert(DT.dominates(FC0.getEntryBlock(), FC1.getEntryBlock()));
+
+    for (Instruction *WriteL0 : FC0.MemWrites) {
+      for (Instruction *WriteL1 : FC1.MemWrites)
+        if (!dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, *WriteL0, *WriteL1,
+                                    /* AnyDep */ false,
+                                    FusionDependenceAnalysis)) {
+          InvalidDependencies++;
+          return false;
+        }
+      for (Instruction *ReadL1 : FC1.MemReads)
+        if (!dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, *WriteL0, *ReadL1,
+                                    /* AnyDep */ false,
+                                    FusionDependenceAnalysis)) {
+          InvalidDependencies++;
+          return false;
+        }
+    }
+
+    for (Instruction *WriteL1 : FC1.MemWrites) {
+      for (Instruction *WriteL0 : FC0.MemWrites)
+        if (!dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, *WriteL0, *WriteL1,
+                                    /* AnyDep */ false,
+                                    FusionDependenceAnalysis)) {
+          InvalidDependencies++;
+          return false;
+        }
+      for (Instruction *ReadL0 : FC0.MemReads)
+        if (!dependencesAllowFusion(FC0, FC1, *ReadL0, *WriteL1,
+                                    /* AnyDep */ false,
+                                    FusionDependenceAnalysis)) {
+          InvalidDependencies++;
+          return false;
+        }
+    }
+
+    // Walk through all uses in FC1. For each use, find the reaching def. If the
+    // def is located in FC0 then it is is not safe to fuse.
+    for (BasicBlock *BB : FC1.L->blocks())
+      for (Instruction &I : *BB)
+        for (auto &Op : I.operands())
+          if (Instruction *Def = dyn_cast<Instruction>(Op))
+            if (FC0.L->contains(Def->getParent())) {
+              InvalidDependencies++;
+              return false;
+            }
+
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  /// Determine if two fusion candidates are adjacent in the CFG.
+  ///
+  /// This method will determine if there are additional basic blocks in the CFG
+  /// between the exit of \p FC0 and the entry of \p FC1.
+  /// If the two candidates are guarded loops, then it checks whether the
+  /// non-loop successor of the \p FC0 guard branch is the entry block of \p
+  /// FC1. If not, then the loops are not adjacent. If the two candidates are
+  /// not guarded loops, then it checks whether the exit block of \p FC0 is the
+  /// preheader of \p FC1.
+  bool isAdjacent(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                  const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+    // If the successor of the guard branch is FC1, then the loops are adjacent
+    if (FC0.GuardBranch)
+      return FC0.getNonLoopBlock() == FC1.getEntryBlock();
+    else
+      return FC0.ExitBlock == FC1.getEntryBlock();
+  }
+
+  /// Determine if two fusion candidates have identical guards
+  ///
+  /// This method will determine if two fusion candidates have the same guards.
+  /// The guards are considered the same if:
+  ///   1. The instructions to compute the condition used in the compare are
+  ///      identical.
+  ///   2. The successors of the guard have the same flow into/around the loop.
+  /// If the compare instructions are identical, then the first successor of the
+  /// guard must go to the same place (either the preheader of the loop or the
+  /// NonLoopBlock). In other words, the the first successor of both loops must
+  /// both go into the loop (i.e., the preheader) or go around the loop (i.e.,
+  /// the NonLoopBlock). The same must be true for the second successor.
+  bool haveIdenticalGuards(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                           const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+    assert(FC0.GuardBranch && FC1.GuardBranch &&
+           "Expecting FC0 and FC1 to be guarded loops.");
+
+    if (auto FC0CmpInst =
+            dyn_cast<Instruction>(FC0.GuardBranch->getCondition()))
+      if (auto FC1CmpInst =
+              dyn_cast<Instruction>(FC1.GuardBranch->getCondition()))
+        if (!FC0CmpInst->isIdenticalTo(FC1CmpInst))
+          return false;
+
+    // The compare instructions are identical.
+    // Now make sure the successor of the guards have the same flow into/around
+    // the loop
+    if (FC0.GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0) == FC0.Preheader)
+      return (FC1.GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0) == FC1.Preheader);
+    else
+      return (FC1.GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1) == FC1.Preheader);
+  }
+
+  /// Modify the latch branch of FC to be unconditional since successors of the
+  /// branch are the same.
+  void simplifyLatchBranch(const FusionCandidate &FC) const {
+    BranchInst *FCLatchBranch = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(FC.Latch->getTerminator());
+    if (FCLatchBranch) {
+      assert(FCLatchBranch->isConditional() &&
+             FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(0) == FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(1) &&
+             "Expecting the two successors of FCLatchBranch to be the same");
+      BranchInst *NewBranch =
+          BranchInst::Create(FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(0));
+      ReplaceInstWithInst(FCLatchBranch, NewBranch);
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Move instructions from FC0.Latch to FC1.Latch. If FC0.Latch has an unique
+  /// successor, then merge FC0.Latch with its unique successor.
+  void mergeLatch(const FusionCandidate &FC0, const FusionCandidate &FC1) {
+    moveInstructionsToTheBeginning(*FC0.Latch, *FC1.Latch, DT, PDT, DI);
+    if (BasicBlock *Succ = FC0.Latch->getUniqueSuccessor()) {
+      MergeBlockIntoPredecessor(Succ, &DTU, &LI);
+      DTU.flush();
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Fuse two fusion candidates, creating a new fused loop.
+  ///
+  /// This method contains the mechanics of fusing two loops, represented by \p
+  /// FC0 and \p FC1. It is assumed that \p FC0 dominates \p FC1 and \p FC1
+  /// postdominates \p FC0 (making them control flow equivalent). It also
+  /// assumes that the other conditions for fusion have been met: adjacent,
+  /// identical trip counts, and no negative distance dependencies exist that
+  /// would prevent fusion. Thus, there is no checking for these conditions in
+  /// this method.
+  ///
+  /// Fusion is performed by rewiring the CFG to update successor blocks of the
+  /// components of tho loop. Specifically, the following changes are done:
+  ///
+  ///   1. The preheader of \p FC1 is removed as it is no longer necessary
+  ///   (because it is currently only a single statement block).
+  ///   2. The latch of \p FC0 is modified to jump to the header of \p FC1.
+  ///   3. The latch of \p FC1 i modified to jump to the header of \p FC0.
+  ///   4. All blocks from \p FC1 are removed from FC1 and added to FC0.
+  ///
+  /// All of these modifications are done with dominator tree updates, thus
+  /// keeping the dominator (and post dominator) information up-to-date.
+  ///
+  /// This can be improved in the future by actually merging blocks during
+  /// fusion. For example, the preheader of \p FC1 can be merged with the
+  /// preheader of \p FC0. This would allow loops with more than a single
+  /// statement in the preheader to be fused. Similarly, the latch blocks of the
+  /// two loops could also be fused into a single block. This will require
+  /// analysis to prove it is safe to move the contents of the block past
+  /// existing code, which currently has not been implemented.
+  Loop *performFusion(const FusionCandidate &FC0, const FusionCandidate &FC1) {
+    assert(FC0.isValid() && FC1.isValid() &&
+           "Expecting valid fusion candidates");
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion Candidate 0: \n"; FC0.dump();
+               dbgs() << "Fusion Candidate 1: \n"; FC1.dump(););
+
+    // Move instructions from the preheader of FC1 to the end of the preheader
+    // of FC0.
+    moveInstructionsToTheEnd(*FC1.Preheader, *FC0.Preheader, DT, PDT, DI);
+
+    // Fusing guarded loops is handled slightly differently than non-guarded
+    // loops and has been broken out into a separate method instead of trying to
+    // intersperse the logic within a single method.
+    if (FC0.GuardBranch)
+      return fuseGuardedLoops(FC0, FC1);
+
+    assert(FC1.Preheader ==
+           (FC0.Peeled ? FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor() : FC0.ExitBlock));
+    assert(FC1.Preheader->size() == 1 &&
+           FC1.Preheader->getSingleSuccessor() == FC1.Header);
+
+    // Remember the phi nodes originally in the header of FC0 in order to rewire
+    // them later. However, this is only necessary if the new loop carried
+    // values might not dominate the exiting branch. While we do not generally
+    // test if this is the case but simply insert intermediate phi nodes, we
+    // need to make sure these intermediate phi nodes have different
+    // predecessors. To this end, we filter the special case where the exiting
+    // block is the latch block of the first loop. Nothing needs to be done
+    // anyway as all loop carried values dominate the latch and thereby also the
+    // exiting branch.
+    SmallVector<PHINode *, 8> OriginalFC0PHIs;
+    if (FC0.ExitingBlock != FC0.Latch)
+      for (PHINode &PHI : FC0.Header->phis())
+        OriginalFC0PHIs.push_back(&PHI);
+
+    // Replace incoming blocks for header PHIs first.
+    FC1.Preheader->replaceSuccessorsPhiUsesWith(FC0.Preheader);
+    FC0.Latch->replaceSuccessorsPhiUsesWith(FC1.Latch);
+
+    // Then modify the control flow and update DT and PDT.
+    SmallVector<DominatorTree::UpdateType, 8> TreeUpdates;
+
+    // The old exiting block of the first loop (FC0) has to jump to the header
+    // of the second as we need to execute the code in the second header block
+    // regardless of the trip count. That is, if the trip count is 0, so the
+    // back edge is never taken, we still have to execute both loop headers,
+    // especially (but not only!) if the second is a do-while style loop.
+    // However, doing so might invalidate the phi nodes of the first loop as
+    // the new values do only need to dominate their latch and not the exiting
+    // predicate. To remedy this potential problem we always introduce phi
+    // nodes in the header of the second loop later that select the loop carried
+    // value, if the second header was reached through an old latch of the
+    // first, or undef otherwise. This is sound as exiting the first implies the
+    // second will exit too, __without__ taking the back-edge. [Their
+    // trip-counts are equal after all.
+    // KB: Would this sequence be simpler to just just make FC0.ExitingBlock go
+    // to FC1.Header? I think this is basically what the three sequences are
+    // trying to accomplish; however, doing this directly in the CFG may mean
+    // the DT/PDT becomes invalid
+    if (!FC0.Peeled) {
+      FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Preheader,
+                                                           FC1.Header);
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Preheader));
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+    } else {
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitBlock, FC1.Preheader));
+
+      // Remove the ExitBlock of the first Loop (also not needed)
+      FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.ExitBlock,
+                                                           FC1.Header);
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC0.ExitBlock));
+      FC0.ExitBlock->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+      new UnreachableInst(FC0.ExitBlock->getContext(), FC0.ExitBlock);
+    }
+
+    // The pre-header of L1 is not necessary anymore.
+    assert(pred_empty(FC1.Preheader));
+    FC1.Preheader->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+    new UnreachableInst(FC1.Preheader->getContext(), FC1.Preheader);
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC1.Preheader, FC1.Header));
+
+    // Moves the phi nodes from the second to the first loops header block.
+    while (PHINode *PHI = dyn_cast<PHINode>(&FC1.Header->front())) {
+      if (SE.isSCEVable(PHI->getType()))
+        SE.forgetValue(PHI);
+      if (PHI->hasNUsesOrMore(1))
+        PHI->moveBefore(&*FC0.Header->getFirstInsertionPt());
+      else
+        PHI->eraseFromParent();
+    }
+
+    // Introduce new phi nodes in the second loop header to ensure
+    // exiting the first and jumping to the header of the second does not break
+    // the SSA property of the phis originally in the first loop. See also the
+    // comment above.
+    Instruction *L1HeaderIP = &FC1.Header->front();
+    for (PHINode *LCPHI : OriginalFC0PHIs) {
+      int L1LatchBBIdx = LCPHI->getBasicBlockIndex(FC1.Latch);
+      assert(L1LatchBBIdx >= 0 &&
+             "Expected loop carried value to be rewired at this point!");
+
+      Value *LCV = LCPHI->getIncomingValue(L1LatchBBIdx);
+
+      PHINode *L1HeaderPHI = PHINode::Create(
+          LCV->getType(), 2, LCPHI->getName() + ".afterFC0", L1HeaderIP);
+      L1HeaderPHI->addIncoming(LCV, FC0.Latch);
+      L1HeaderPHI->addIncoming(UndefValue::get(LCV->getType()),
+                               FC0.ExitingBlock);
+
+      LCPHI->setIncomingValue(L1LatchBBIdx, L1HeaderPHI);
+    }
+
+    // Replace latch terminator destinations.
+    FC0.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.Header, FC1.Header);
+    FC1.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Header, FC0.Header);
+
+    // Modify the latch branch of FC0 to be unconditional as both successors of
+    // the branch are the same.
+    simplifyLatchBranch(FC0);
+
+    // If FC0.Latch and FC0.ExitingBlock are the same then we have already
+    // performed the updates above.
+    if (FC0.Latch != FC0.ExitingBlock)
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.Latch, FC1.Header));
+
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete,
+                                                       FC0.Latch, FC0.Header));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Insert,
+                                                       FC1.Latch, FC0.Header));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete,
+                                                       FC1.Latch, FC1.Header));
+
+    // Update DT/PDT
+    DTU.applyUpdates(TreeUpdates);
+
+    LI.removeBlock(FC1.Preheader);
+    DTU.deleteBB(FC1.Preheader);
+    if (FC0.Peeled) {
+      LI.removeBlock(FC0.ExitBlock);
+      DTU.deleteBB(FC0.ExitBlock);
+    }
+
+    DTU.flush();
+
+    // Is there a way to keep SE up-to-date so we don't need to forget the loops
+    // and rebuild the information in subsequent passes of fusion?
+    // Note: Need to forget the loops before merging the loop latches, as
+    // mergeLatch may remove the only block in FC1.
+    SE.forgetLoop(FC1.L);
+    SE.forgetLoop(FC0.L);
+
+    // Move instructions from FC0.Latch to FC1.Latch.
+    // Note: mergeLatch requires an updated DT.
+    mergeLatch(FC0, FC1);
+
+    // Merge the loops.
+    SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 8> Blocks(FC1.L->blocks());
+    for (BasicBlock *BB : Blocks) {
+      FC0.L->addBlockEntry(BB);
+      FC1.L->removeBlockFromLoop(BB);
+      if (LI.getLoopFor(BB) != FC1.L)
+        continue;
+      LI.changeLoopFor(BB, FC0.L);
+    }
+    while (!FC1.L->isInnermost()) {
+      const auto &ChildLoopIt = FC1.L->begin();
+      Loop *ChildLoop = *ChildLoopIt;
+      FC1.L->removeChildLoop(ChildLoopIt);
+      FC0.L->addChildLoop(ChildLoop);
+    }
+
+    // Delete the now empty loop L1.
+    LI.erase(FC1.L);
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    assert(!verifyFunction(*FC0.Header->getParent(), &errs()));
+    assert(DT.verify(DominatorTree::VerificationLevel::Fast));
+    assert(PDT.verify());
+    LI.verify(DT);
+    SE.verify();
+#endif
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion done:\n");
+
+    return FC0.L;
+  }
+
+  /// Report details on loop fusion opportunities.
+  ///
+  /// This template function can be used to report both successful and missed
+  /// loop fusion opportunities, based on the RemarkKind. The RemarkKind should
+  /// be one of:
+  ///   - OptimizationRemarkMissed to report when loop fusion is unsuccessful
+  ///     given two valid fusion candidates.
+  ///   - OptimizationRemark to report successful fusion of two fusion
+  ///     candidates.
+  /// The remarks will be printed using the form:
+  ///    <path/filename>:<line number>:<column number>: [<function name>]:
+  ///       <Cand1 Preheader> and <Cand2 Preheader>: <Stat Description>
+  template <typename RemarkKind>
+  void reportLoopFusion(const FusionCandidate &FC0, const FusionCandidate &FC1,
+                        llvm::Statistic &Stat) {
+    assert(FC0.Preheader && FC1.Preheader &&
+           "Expecting valid fusion candidates");
+    using namespace ore;
+    ++Stat;
+    ORE.emit(RemarkKind(DEBUG_TYPE, Stat.getName(), FC0.L->getStartLoc(),
+                        FC0.Preheader)
+             << "[" << FC0.Preheader->getParent()->getName()
+             << "]: " << NV("Cand1", StringRef(FC0.Preheader->getName()))
+             << " and " << NV("Cand2", StringRef(FC1.Preheader->getName()))
+             << ": " << Stat.getDesc());
+  }
+
+  /// Fuse two guarded fusion candidates, creating a new fused loop.
+  ///
+  /// Fusing guarded loops is handled much the same way as fusing non-guarded
+  /// loops. The rewiring of the CFG is slightly different though, because of
+  /// the presence of the guards around the loops and the exit blocks after the
+  /// loop body. As such, the new loop is rewired as follows:
+  ///    1. Keep the guard branch from FC0 and use the non-loop block target
+  /// from the FC1 guard branch.
+  ///    2. Remove the exit block from FC0 (this exit block should be empty
+  /// right now).
+  ///    3. Remove the guard branch for FC1
+  ///    4. Remove the preheader for FC1.
+  /// The exit block successor for the latch of FC0 is updated to be the header
+  /// of FC1 and the non-exit block successor of the latch of FC1 is updated to
+  /// be the header of FC0, thus creating the fused loop.
+  Loop *fuseGuardedLoops(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+                         const FusionCandidate &FC1) {
+    assert(FC0.GuardBranch && FC1.GuardBranch && "Expecting guarded loops");
+
+    BasicBlock *FC0GuardBlock = FC0.GuardBranch->getParent();
+    BasicBlock *FC1GuardBlock = FC1.GuardBranch->getParent();
+    BasicBlock *FC0NonLoopBlock = FC0.getNonLoopBlock();
+    BasicBlock *FC1NonLoopBlock = FC1.getNonLoopBlock();
+    BasicBlock *FC0ExitBlockSuccessor = FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor();
+
+    // Move instructions from the exit block of FC0 to the beginning of the exit
+    // block of FC1, in the case that the FC0 loop has not been peeled. In the
+    // case that FC0 loop is peeled, then move the instructions of the successor
+    // of the FC0 Exit block to the beginning of the exit block of FC1.
+    moveInstructionsToTheBeginning(
+        (FC0.Peeled ? *FC0ExitBlockSuccessor : *FC0.ExitBlock), *FC1.ExitBlock,
+        DT, PDT, DI);
+
+    // Move instructions from the guard block of FC1 to the end of the guard
+    // block of FC0.
+    moveInstructionsToTheEnd(*FC1GuardBlock, *FC0GuardBlock, DT, PDT, DI);
+
+    assert(FC0NonLoopBlock == FC1GuardBlock && "Loops are not adjacent");
+
+    SmallVector<DominatorTree::UpdateType, 8> TreeUpdates;
+
+    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+    // Update the Loop Guard
+    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+    // The guard for FC0 is updated to guard both FC0 and FC1. This is done by
+    // changing the NonLoopGuardBlock for FC0 to the NonLoopGuardBlock for FC1.
+    // Thus, one path from the guard goes to the preheader for FC0 (and thus
+    // executes the new fused loop) and the other path goes to the NonLoopBlock
+    // for FC1 (where FC1 guard would have gone if FC1 was not executed).
+    FC1NonLoopBlock->replacePhiUsesWith(FC1GuardBlock, FC0GuardBlock);
+    FC0.GuardBranch->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0NonLoopBlock, FC1NonLoopBlock);
+
+    BasicBlock *BBToUpdate = FC0.Peeled ? FC0ExitBlockSuccessor : FC0.ExitBlock;
+    BBToUpdate->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1GuardBlock, FC1.Header);
+
+    // The guard of FC1 is not necessary anymore.
+    FC1.GuardBranch->eraseFromParent();
+    new UnreachableInst(FC1GuardBlock->getContext(), FC1GuardBlock);
+
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC1GuardBlock, FC1.Preheader));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC1GuardBlock, FC1NonLoopBlock));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC0GuardBlock, FC1GuardBlock));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Insert, FC0GuardBlock, FC1NonLoopBlock));
+
+    if (FC0.Peeled) {
+      // Remove the Block after the ExitBlock of FC0
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Delete, FC0ExitBlockSuccessor, FC1GuardBlock));
+      FC0ExitBlockSuccessor->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+      new UnreachableInst(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor->getContext(),
+                          FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+    }
+
+    assert(pred_empty(FC1GuardBlock) &&
+           "Expecting guard block to have no predecessors");
+    assert(succ_empty(FC1GuardBlock) &&
+           "Expecting guard block to have no successors");
+
+    // Remember the phi nodes originally in the header of FC0 in order to rewire
+    // them later. However, this is only necessary if the new loop carried
+    // values might not dominate the exiting branch. While we do not generally
+    // test if this is the case but simply insert intermediate phi nodes, we
+    // need to make sure these intermediate phi nodes have different
+    // predecessors. To this end, we filter the special case where the exiting
+    // block is the latch block of the first loop. Nothing needs to be done
+    // anyway as all loop carried values dominate the latch and thereby also the
+    // exiting branch.
+    // KB: This is no longer necessary because FC0.ExitingBlock == FC0.Latch
+    // (because the loops are rotated. Thus, nothing will ever be added to
+    // OriginalFC0PHIs.
+    SmallVector<PHINode *, 8> OriginalFC0PHIs;
+    if (FC0.ExitingBlock != FC0.Latch)
+      for (PHINode &PHI : FC0.Header->phis())
+        OriginalFC0PHIs.push_back(&PHI);
+
+    assert(OriginalFC0PHIs.empty() && "Expecting OriginalFC0PHIs to be empty!");
+
+    // Replace incoming blocks for header PHIs first.
+    FC1.Preheader->replaceSuccessorsPhiUsesWith(FC0.Preheader);
+    FC0.Latch->replaceSuccessorsPhiUsesWith(FC1.Latch);
+
+    // The old exiting block of the first loop (FC0) has to jump to the header
+    // of the second as we need to execute the code in the second header block
+    // regardless of the trip count. That is, if the trip count is 0, so the
+    // back edge is never taken, we still have to execute both loop headers,
+    // especially (but not only!) if the second is a do-while style loop.
+    // However, doing so might invalidate the phi nodes of the first loop as
+    // the new values do only need to dominate their latch and not the exiting
+    // predicate. To remedy this potential problem we always introduce phi
+    // nodes in the header of the second loop later that select the loop carried
+    // value, if the second header was reached through an old latch of the
+    // first, or undef otherwise. This is sound as exiting the first implies the
+    // second will exit too, __without__ taking the back-edge (their
+    // trip-counts are equal after all).
+    FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.ExitBlock,
+                                                         FC1.Header);
+
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC0.ExitBlock));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+
+    // Remove FC0 Exit Block
+    // The exit block for FC0 is no longer needed since control will flow
+    // directly to the header of FC1. Since it is an empty block, it can be
+    // removed at this point.
+    // TODO: In the future, we can handle non-empty exit blocks my merging any
+    // instructions from FC0 exit block into FC1 exit block prior to removing
+    // the block.
+    assert(pred_empty(FC0.ExitBlock) && "Expecting exit block to be empty");
+    FC0.ExitBlock->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+    new UnreachableInst(FC0.ExitBlock->getContext(), FC0.ExitBlock);
+
+    // Remove FC1 Preheader
+    // The pre-header of L1 is not necessary anymore.
+    assert(pred_empty(FC1.Preheader));
+    FC1.Preheader->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+    new UnreachableInst(FC1.Preheader->getContext(), FC1.Preheader);
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+        DominatorTree::Delete, FC1.Preheader, FC1.Header));
+
+    // Moves the phi nodes from the second to the first loops header block.
+    while (PHINode *PHI = dyn_cast<PHINode>(&FC1.Header->front())) {
+      if (SE.isSCEVable(PHI->getType()))
+        SE.forgetValue(PHI);
+      if (PHI->hasNUsesOrMore(1))
+        PHI->moveBefore(&*FC0.Header->getFirstInsertionPt());
+      else
+        PHI->eraseFromParent();
+    }
+
+    // Introduce new phi nodes in the second loop header to ensure
+    // exiting the first and jumping to the header of the second does not break
+    // the SSA property of the phis originally in the first loop. See also the
+    // comment above.
+    Instruction *L1HeaderIP = &FC1.Header->front();
+    for (PHINode *LCPHI : OriginalFC0PHIs) {
+      int L1LatchBBIdx = LCPHI->getBasicBlockIndex(FC1.Latch);
+      assert(L1LatchBBIdx >= 0 &&
+             "Expected loop carried value to be rewired at this point!");
+
+      Value *LCV = LCPHI->getIncomingValue(L1LatchBBIdx);
+
+      PHINode *L1HeaderPHI = PHINode::Create(
+          LCV->getType(), 2, LCPHI->getName() + ".afterFC0", L1HeaderIP);
+      L1HeaderPHI->addIncoming(LCV, FC0.Latch);
+      L1HeaderPHI->addIncoming(UndefValue::get(LCV->getType()),
+                               FC0.ExitingBlock);
+
+      LCPHI->setIncomingValue(L1LatchBBIdx, L1HeaderPHI);
+    }
+
+    // Update the latches
+
+    // Replace latch terminator destinations.
+    FC0.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.Header, FC1.Header);
+    FC1.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Header, FC0.Header);
+
+    // Modify the latch branch of FC0 to be unconditional as both successors of
+    // the branch are the same.
+    simplifyLatchBranch(FC0);
+
+    // If FC0.Latch and FC0.ExitingBlock are the same then we have already
+    // performed the updates above.
+    if (FC0.Latch != FC0.ExitingBlock)
+      TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+          DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.Latch, FC1.Header));
+
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete,
+                                                       FC0.Latch, FC0.Header));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Insert,
+                                                       FC1.Latch, FC0.Header));
+    TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete,
+                                                       FC1.Latch, FC1.Header));
+
+    // All done
+    // Apply the updates to the Dominator Tree and cleanup.
+
+    assert(succ_empty(FC1GuardBlock) && "FC1GuardBlock has successors!!");
+    assert(pred_empty(FC1GuardBlock) && "FC1GuardBlock has predecessors!!");
+
+    // Update DT/PDT
+    DTU.applyUpdates(TreeUpdates);
+
+    LI.removeBlock(FC1GuardBlock);
+    LI.removeBlock(FC1.Preheader);
+    LI.removeBlock(FC0.ExitBlock);
+    if (FC0.Peeled) {
+      LI.removeBlock(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+      DTU.deleteBB(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+    }
+    DTU.deleteBB(FC1GuardBlock);
+    DTU.deleteBB(FC1.Preheader);
+    DTU.deleteBB(FC0.ExitBlock);
+    DTU.flush();
+
+    // Is there a way to keep SE up-to-date so we don't need to forget the loops
+    // and rebuild the information in subsequent passes of fusion?
+    // Note: Need to forget the loops before merging the loop latches, as
+    // mergeLatch may remove the only block in FC1.
+    SE.forgetLoop(FC1.L);
+    SE.forgetLoop(FC0.L);
+
+    // Move instructions from FC0.Latch to FC1.Latch.
+    // Note: mergeLatch requires an updated DT.
+    mergeLatch(FC0, FC1);
+
+    // Merge the loops.
+    SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 8> Blocks(FC1.L->blocks());
+    for (BasicBlock *BB : Blocks) {
+      FC0.L->addBlockEntry(BB);
+      FC1.L->removeBlockFromLoop(BB);
+      if (LI.getLoopFor(BB) != FC1.L)
+        continue;
+      LI.changeLoopFor(BB, FC0.L);
+    }
+    while (!FC1.L->isInnermost()) {
+      const auto &ChildLoopIt = FC1.L->begin();
+      Loop *ChildLoop = *ChildLoopIt;
+      FC1.L->removeChildLoop(ChildLoopIt);
+      FC0.L->addChildLoop(ChildLoop);
+    }
+
+    // Delete the now empty loop L1.
+    LI.erase(FC1.L);
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+    assert(!verifyFunction(*FC0.Header->getParent(), &errs()));
+    assert(DT.verify(DominatorTree::VerificationLevel::Fast));
+    assert(PDT.verify());
+    LI.verify(DT);
+    SE.verify();
+#endif
+
+    LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion done:\n");
+
+    return FC0.L;
+  }
+};
+
+struct LoopFuseLegacy : public FunctionPass {
+
+  static char ID;
+
+  LoopFuseLegacy() : FunctionPass(ID) {
+    initializeLoopFuseLegacyPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
+  }
+
+  void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
+    AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID);
+    AU.addRequired<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<LoopInfoWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addRequired<AssumptionCacheTracker>();
+    AU.addRequired<TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass>();
+
+    AU.addPreserved<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addPreserved<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
+    AU.addPreserved<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
+  }
+
+  bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override {
+    if (skipFunction(F))
+      return false;
+    auto &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfoWrapperPass>().getLoopInfo();
+    auto &DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree();
+    auto &DI = getAnalysis<DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass>().getDI();
+    auto &SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>().getSE();
+    auto &PDT = getAnalysis<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getPostDomTree();
+    auto &ORE = getAnalysis<OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass>().getORE();
+    auto &AC = getAnalysis<AssumptionCacheTracker>().getAssumptionCache(F);
+    const TargetTransformInfo &TTI =
+        getAnalysis<TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass>().getTTI(F);
+    const DataLayout &DL = F.getParent()->getDataLayout();
+
+    LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL, AC, TTI);
+    return LF.fuseLoops(F);
+  }
+};
+} // namespace
+
+PreservedAnalyses LoopFusePass::run(Function &F, FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
+  auto &LI = AM.getResult<LoopAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &DT = AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &DI = AM.getResult<DependenceAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &SE = AM.getResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &PDT = AM.getResult<PostDominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &ORE = AM.getResult<OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &AC = AM.getResult<AssumptionAnalysis>(F);
+  const TargetTransformInfo &TTI = AM.getResult<TargetIRAnalysis>(F);
+  const DataLayout &DL = F.getParent()->getDataLayout();
+
+  LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL, AC, TTI);
+  bool Changed = LF.fuseLoops(F);
+  if (!Changed)
+    return PreservedAnalyses::all();
+
+  PreservedAnalyses PA;
+  PA.preserve<DominatorTreeAnalysis>();
+  PA.preserve<PostDominatorTreeAnalysis>();
+  PA.preserve<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>();
+  PA.preserve<LoopAnalysis>();
+  return PA;
+}
+
+char LoopFuseLegacy::ID = 0;
+
+INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(LoopFuseLegacy, "loop-fusion", "Loop Fusion", false,
+                      false)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DominatorTreeWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfoWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(AssumptionCacheTracker)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_END(LoopFuseLegacy, "loop-fusion", "Loop Fusion", false, false)
+
+FunctionPass *llvm::createLoopFusePass() { return new LoopFuseLegacy(); }