llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp

915 lines
35 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===-- LICM.cpp - Loop Invariant Code Motion Pass ------------------------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This pass performs loop invariant code motion, attempting to remove as much
// code from the body of a loop as possible. It does this by either hoisting
// code into the preheader block, or by sinking code to the exit blocks if it is
// safe. This pass also promotes must-aliased memory locations in the loop to
// live in registers, thus hoisting and sinking "invariant" loads and stores.
//
// This pass uses alias analysis for two purposes:
//
// 1. Moving loop invariant loads and calls out of loops. If we can determine
// that a load or call inside of a loop never aliases anything stored to,
// we can hoist it or sink it like any other instruction.
// 2. Scalar Promotion of Memory - If there is a store instruction inside of
// the loop, we try to move the store to happen AFTER the loop instead of
// inside of the loop. This can only happen if a few conditions are true:
// A. The pointer stored through is loop invariant
// B. There are no stores or loads in the loop which _may_ alias the
// pointer. There are no calls in the loop which mod/ref the pointer.
// If these conditions are true, we can promote the loads and stores in the
// loop of the pointer to use a temporary alloca'd variable. We then use
// the SSAUpdater to construct the appropriate SSA form for the value.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#define DEBUG_TYPE "licm"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/AliasAnalysis.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/AliasSetTracker.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ConstantFolding.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ValueTracking.h"
#include "llvm/IR/CFG.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
#include "llvm/IR/DataLayout.h"
#include "llvm/IR/DerivedTypes.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
#include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
#include "llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Metadata.h"
#include "llvm/IR/PredIteratorCache.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetLibraryInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/SSAUpdater.h"
#include <algorithm>
using namespace llvm;
STATISTIC(NumSunk , "Number of instructions sunk out of loop");
STATISTIC(NumHoisted , "Number of instructions hoisted out of loop");
STATISTIC(NumMovedLoads, "Number of load insts hoisted or sunk");
STATISTIC(NumMovedCalls, "Number of call insts hoisted or sunk");
STATISTIC(NumPromoted , "Number of memory locations promoted to registers");
static cl::opt<bool>
DisablePromotion("disable-licm-promotion", cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("Disable memory promotion in LICM pass"));
namespace {
struct LICM : public LoopPass {
2007-05-06 21:37:16 +08:00
static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid
LICM() : LoopPass(ID) {
initializeLICMPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
bool runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) override;
/// This transformation requires natural loop information & requires that
/// loop preheaders be inserted into the CFG...
///
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
AU.setPreservesCFG();
AU.addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>();
AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID);
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID);
AU.addRequiredID(LCSSAID);
AU.addPreservedID(LCSSAID);
AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>();
AU.addPreserved<AliasAnalysis>();
AU.addPreserved<ScalarEvolution>();
AU.addRequired<TargetLibraryInfo>();
}
using llvm::Pass::doFinalization;
bool doFinalization() override {
assert(LoopToAliasSetMap.empty() && "Didn't free loop alias sets");
return false;
}
private:
AliasAnalysis *AA; // Current AliasAnalysis information
LoopInfo *LI; // Current LoopInfo
DominatorTree *DT; // Dominator Tree for the current Loop.
const DataLayout *DL; // DataLayout for constant folding.
TargetLibraryInfo *TLI; // TargetLibraryInfo for constant folding.
// State that is updated as we process loops.
bool Changed; // Set to true when we change anything.
BasicBlock *Preheader; // The preheader block of the current loop...
Loop *CurLoop; // The current loop we are working on...
AliasSetTracker *CurAST; // AliasSet information for the current loop...
bool MayThrow; // The current loop contains an instruction which
// may throw, thus preventing code motion of
// instructions with side effects.
DenseMap<Loop*, AliasSetTracker*> LoopToAliasSetMap;
/// cloneBasicBlockAnalysis - Simple Analysis hook. Clone alias set info.
void cloneBasicBlockAnalysis(BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To,
Loop *L) override;
/// deleteAnalysisValue - Simple Analysis hook. Delete value V from alias
/// set.
void deleteAnalysisValue(Value *V, Loop *L) override;
/// SinkRegion - Walk the specified region of the CFG (defined by all blocks
/// dominated by the specified block, and that are in the current loop) in
/// reverse depth first order w.r.t the DominatorTree. This allows us to
/// visit uses before definitions, allowing us to sink a loop body in one
/// pass without iteration.
///
void SinkRegion(DomTreeNode *N);
/// HoistRegion - Walk the specified region of the CFG (defined by all
/// blocks dominated by the specified block, and that are in the current
/// loop) in depth first order w.r.t the DominatorTree. This allows us to
2003-10-11 01:57:28 +08:00
/// visit definitions before uses, allowing us to hoist a loop body in one
/// pass without iteration.
///
void HoistRegion(DomTreeNode *N);
/// inSubLoop - Little predicate that returns true if the specified basic
/// block is in a subloop of the current one, not the current one itself.
///
bool inSubLoop(BasicBlock *BB) {
assert(CurLoop->contains(BB) && "Only valid if BB is IN the loop");
return LI->getLoopFor(BB) != CurLoop;
}
/// sink - When an instruction is found to only be used outside of the loop,
/// this function moves it to the exit blocks and patches up SSA form as
/// needed.
///
void sink(Instruction &I);
/// hoist - When an instruction is found to only use loop invariant operands
/// that is safe to hoist, this instruction is called to do the dirty work.
///
void hoist(Instruction &I);
/// isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally - Only sink or hoist an instruction if it
/// is not a trapping instruction or if it is a trapping instruction and is
/// guaranteed to execute.
///
bool isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(Instruction &I);
/// isGuaranteedToExecute - Check that the instruction is guaranteed to
/// execute.
///
bool isGuaranteedToExecute(Instruction &I);
/// pointerInvalidatedByLoop - Return true if the body of this loop may
/// store into the memory location pointed to by V.
///
bool pointerInvalidatedByLoop(Value *V, uint64_t Size,
const MDNode *TBAAInfo) {
// Check to see if any of the basic blocks in CurLoop invalidate *V.
return CurAST->getAliasSetForPointer(V, Size, TBAAInfo).isMod();
}
bool canSinkOrHoistInst(Instruction &I);
bool isNotUsedInLoop(Instruction &I);
void PromoteAliasSet(AliasSet &AS,
SmallVectorImpl<BasicBlock*> &ExitBlocks,
SmallVectorImpl<Instruction*> &InsertPts,
PredIteratorCache &PIC);
};
}
char LICM::ID = 0;
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(LICM, "licm", "Loop Invariant Code Motion", false, false)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DominatorTreeWrapperPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfo)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopSimplify)
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LCSSA)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(ScalarEvolution)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(TargetLibraryInfo)
INITIALIZE_AG_DEPENDENCY(AliasAnalysis)
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(LICM, "licm", "Loop Invariant Code Motion", false, false)
Pass *llvm::createLICMPass() { return new LICM(); }
2007-08-01 00:52:25 +08:00
/// Hoist expressions out of the specified loop. Note, alias info for inner
/// loop is not preserved so it is not a good idea to run LICM multiple
2007-08-01 00:52:25 +08:00
/// times on one loop.
///
bool LICM::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) {
if (skipOptnoneFunction(L))
return false;
Changed = false;
// Get our Loop and Alias Analysis information...
LI = &getAnalysis<LoopInfo>();
AA = &getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>();
DT = &getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree();
DataLayoutPass *DLP = getAnalysisIfAvailable<DataLayoutPass>();
DL = DLP ? &DLP->getDataLayout() : 0;
TLI = &getAnalysis<TargetLibraryInfo>();
assert(L->isLCSSAForm(*DT) && "Loop is not in LCSSA form.");
CurAST = new AliasSetTracker(*AA);
// Collect Alias info from subloops.
for (Loop::iterator LoopItr = L->begin(), LoopItrE = L->end();
LoopItr != LoopItrE; ++LoopItr) {
Loop *InnerL = *LoopItr;
AliasSetTracker *InnerAST = LoopToAliasSetMap[InnerL];
assert(InnerAST && "Where is my AST?");
// What if InnerLoop was modified by other passes ?
CurAST->add(*InnerAST);
// Once we've incorporated the inner loop's AST into ours, we don't need the
// subloop's anymore.
delete InnerAST;
LoopToAliasSetMap.erase(InnerL);
}
CurLoop = L;
// Get the preheader block to move instructions into...
Preheader = L->getLoopPreheader();
// Loop over the body of this loop, looking for calls, invokes, and stores.
// Because subloops have already been incorporated into AST, we skip blocks in
// subloops.
//
for (Loop::block_iterator I = L->block_begin(), E = L->block_end();
I != E; ++I) {
BasicBlock *BB = *I;
if (LI->getLoopFor(BB) == L) // Ignore blocks in subloops.
CurAST->add(*BB); // Incorporate the specified basic block
}
MayThrow = false;
// TODO: We've already searched for instructions which may throw in subloops.
// We may want to reuse this information.
for (Loop::block_iterator BB = L->block_begin(), BBE = L->block_end();
(BB != BBE) && !MayThrow ; ++BB)
for (BasicBlock::iterator I = (*BB)->begin(), E = (*BB)->end();
(I != E) && !MayThrow; ++I)
MayThrow |= I->mayThrow();
// We want to visit all of the instructions in this loop... that are not parts
// of our subloops (they have already had their invariants hoisted out of
// their loop, into this loop, so there is no need to process the BODIES of
// the subloops).
//
// Traverse the body of the loop in depth first order on the dominator tree so
// that we are guaranteed to see definitions before we see uses. This allows
2007-08-18 23:08:56 +08:00
// us to sink instructions in one pass, without iteration. After sinking
// instructions, we perform another pass to hoist them out of the loop.
//
if (L->hasDedicatedExits())
SinkRegion(DT->getNode(L->getHeader()));
if (Preheader)
HoistRegion(DT->getNode(L->getHeader()));
// Now that all loop invariants have been removed from the loop, promote any
// memory references to scalars that we can.
if (!DisablePromotion && (Preheader || L->hasDedicatedExits())) {
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 8> ExitBlocks;
SmallVector<Instruction *, 8> InsertPts;
PredIteratorCache PIC;
// Loop over all of the alias sets in the tracker object.
for (AliasSetTracker::iterator I = CurAST->begin(), E = CurAST->end();
I != E; ++I)
PromoteAliasSet(*I, ExitBlocks, InsertPts, PIC);
// Once we have promoted values across the loop body we have to recursively
// reform LCSSA as any nested loop may now have values defined within the
// loop used in the outer loop.
// FIXME: This is really heavy handed. It would be a bit better to use an
// SSAUpdater strategy during promotion that was LCSSA aware and reformed
// it as it went.
if (Changed)
formLCSSARecursively(*L, *DT, getAnalysisIfAvailable<ScalarEvolution>());
}
// Check that neither this loop nor its parent have had LCSSA broken. LICM is
// specifically moving instructions across the loop boundary and so it is
// especially in need of sanity checking here.
assert(L->isLCSSAForm(*DT) && "Loop not left in LCSSA form after LICM!");
assert((!L->getParentLoop() || L->getParentLoop()->isLCSSAForm(*DT)) &&
"Parent loop not left in LCSSA form after LICM!");
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
// Clear out loops state information for the next iteration
CurLoop = 0;
Preheader = 0;
// If this loop is nested inside of another one, save the alias information
// for when we process the outer loop.
if (L->getParentLoop())
LoopToAliasSetMap[L] = CurAST;
else
delete CurAST;
return Changed;
}
/// SinkRegion - Walk the specified region of the CFG (defined by all blocks
/// dominated by the specified block, and that are in the current loop) in
/// reverse depth first order w.r.t the DominatorTree. This allows us to visit
/// uses before definitions, allowing us to sink a loop body in one pass without
/// iteration.
///
void LICM::SinkRegion(DomTreeNode *N) {
assert(N != 0 && "Null dominator tree node?");
BasicBlock *BB = N->getBlock();
// If this subregion is not in the top level loop at all, exit.
if (!CurLoop->contains(BB)) return;
// We are processing blocks in reverse dfo, so process children first.
const std::vector<DomTreeNode*> &Children = N->getChildren();
for (unsigned i = 0, e = Children.size(); i != e; ++i)
SinkRegion(Children[i]);
// Only need to process the contents of this block if it is not part of a
// subloop (which would already have been processed).
if (inSubLoop(BB)) return;
for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BB->end(); II != BB->begin(); ) {
Instruction &I = *--II;
// If the instruction is dead, we would try to sink it because it isn't used
// in the loop, instead, just delete it.
if (isInstructionTriviallyDead(&I, TLI)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LICM deleting dead inst: " << I << '\n');
++II;
CurAST->deleteValue(&I);
I.eraseFromParent();
Changed = true;
continue;
}
// Check to see if we can sink this instruction to the exit blocks
// of the loop. We can do this if the all users of the instruction are
// outside of the loop. In this case, it doesn't even matter if the
// operands of the instruction are loop invariant.
//
if (isNotUsedInLoop(I) && canSinkOrHoistInst(I)) {
++II;
sink(I);
}
}
}
/// HoistRegion - Walk the specified region of the CFG (defined by all blocks
/// dominated by the specified block, and that are in the current loop) in depth
/// first order w.r.t the DominatorTree. This allows us to visit definitions
/// before uses, allowing us to hoist a loop body in one pass without iteration.
///
void LICM::HoistRegion(DomTreeNode *N) {
assert(N != 0 && "Null dominator tree node?");
BasicBlock *BB = N->getBlock();
// If this subregion is not in the top level loop at all, exit.
if (!CurLoop->contains(BB)) return;
// Only need to process the contents of this block if it is not part of a
// subloop (which would already have been processed).
if (!inSubLoop(BB))
for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); II != E; ) {
Instruction &I = *II++;
// Try constant folding this instruction. If all the operands are
// constants, it is technically hoistable, but it would be better to just
// fold it.
if (Constant *C = ConstantFoldInstruction(&I, DL, TLI)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LICM folding inst: " << I << " --> " << *C << '\n');
CurAST->copyValue(&I, C);
CurAST->deleteValue(&I);
I.replaceAllUsesWith(C);
I.eraseFromParent();
continue;
}
// Try hoisting the instruction out to the preheader. We can only do this
// if all of the operands of the instruction are loop invariant and if it
// is safe to hoist the instruction.
//
if (CurLoop->hasLoopInvariantOperands(&I) && canSinkOrHoistInst(I) &&
isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(I))
hoist(I);
}
const std::vector<DomTreeNode*> &Children = N->getChildren();
for (unsigned i = 0, e = Children.size(); i != e; ++i)
HoistRegion(Children[i]);
}
/// canSinkOrHoistInst - Return true if the hoister and sinker can handle this
/// instruction.
///
bool LICM::canSinkOrHoistInst(Instruction &I) {
// Loads have extra constraints we have to verify before we can hoist them.
if (LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(&I)) {
if (!LI->isUnordered())
return false; // Don't hoist volatile/atomic loads!
// Loads from constant memory are always safe to move, even if they end up
// in the same alias set as something that ends up being modified.
if (AA->pointsToConstantMemory(LI->getOperand(0)))
return true;
if (LI->getMetadata("invariant.load"))
return true;
// Don't hoist loads which have may-aliased stores in loop.
uint64_t Size = 0;
if (LI->getType()->isSized())
Size = AA->getTypeStoreSize(LI->getType());
return !pointerInvalidatedByLoop(LI->getOperand(0), Size,
LI->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_tbaa));
} else if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(&I)) {
// Don't sink or hoist dbg info; it's legal, but not useful.
if (isa<DbgInfoIntrinsic>(I))
return false;
// Handle simple cases by querying alias analysis.
AliasAnalysis::ModRefBehavior Behavior = AA->getModRefBehavior(CI);
if (Behavior == AliasAnalysis::DoesNotAccessMemory)
return true;
if (AliasAnalysis::onlyReadsMemory(Behavior)) {
// If this call only reads from memory and there are no writes to memory
// in the loop, we can hoist or sink the call as appropriate.
bool FoundMod = false;
for (AliasSetTracker::iterator I = CurAST->begin(), E = CurAST->end();
I != E; ++I) {
AliasSet &AS = *I;
if (!AS.isForwardingAliasSet() && AS.isMod()) {
FoundMod = true;
break;
}
}
if (!FoundMod) return true;
}
// FIXME: This should use mod/ref information to see if we can hoist or
// sink the call.
return false;
}
// Only these instructions are hoistable/sinkable.
if (!isa<BinaryOperator>(I) && !isa<CastInst>(I) && !isa<SelectInst>(I) &&
!isa<GetElementPtrInst>(I) && !isa<CmpInst>(I) &&
!isa<InsertElementInst>(I) && !isa<ExtractElementInst>(I) &&
!isa<ShuffleVectorInst>(I) && !isa<ExtractValueInst>(I) &&
!isa<InsertValueInst>(I))
return false;
return isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(I);
}
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
/// \brief Returns true if a PHINode is a trivially replaceable with an
/// Instruction.
///
/// This is true when all incoming values are that instruction. This pattern
/// occurs most often with LCSSA PHI nodes.
static bool isTriviallyReplacablePHI(PHINode &PN, Instruction &I) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = PN.getNumIncomingValues(); i != e; ++i)
if (PN.getIncomingValue(i) != &I)
return false;
return true;
}
/// isNotUsedInLoop - Return true if the only users of this instruction are
/// outside of the loop. If this is true, we can sink the instruction to the
/// exit blocks of the loop.
///
bool LICM::isNotUsedInLoop(Instruction &I) {
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
for (User *U : I.users()) {
Instruction *UI = cast<Instruction>(U);
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(UI)) {
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
// A PHI node where all of the incoming values are this instruction are
// special -- they can just be RAUW'ed with the instruction and thus
// don't require a use in the predecessor. This is a particular important
// special case because it is the pattern found in LCSSA form.
if (isTriviallyReplacablePHI(*PN, I)) {
if (CurLoop->contains(PN))
return false;
else
continue;
}
// Otherwise, PHI node uses occur in predecessor blocks if the incoming
// values. Check for such a use being inside the loop.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = PN->getNumIncomingValues(); i != e; ++i)
if (PN->getIncomingValue(i) == &I)
if (CurLoop->contains(PN->getIncomingBlock(i)))
return false;
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
continue;
}
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (CurLoop->contains(UI))
[LPM] Make LCSSA a utility with a FunctionPass that applies it to all the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of LCSSA. Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it through the loop pass manager run. Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies. The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer. The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling. With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch. There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like SSAUpdater instead. llvm-svn: 200067
2014-01-25 12:07:24 +08:00
return false;
}
return true;
}
/// sink - When an instruction is found to only be used outside of the loop,
/// this function moves it to the exit blocks and patches up SSA form as needed.
/// This method is guaranteed to remove the original instruction from its
/// position, and may either delete it or move it to outside of the loop.
///
void LICM::sink(Instruction &I) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LICM sinking instruction: " << I << "\n");
if (isa<LoadInst>(I)) ++NumMovedLoads;
else if (isa<CallInst>(I)) ++NumMovedCalls;
++NumSunk;
Changed = true;
#ifndef NDEBUG
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 32> ExitBlocks;
CurLoop->getUniqueExitBlocks(ExitBlocks);
SmallPtrSet<BasicBlock *, 32> ExitBlockSet(ExitBlocks.begin(), ExitBlocks.end());
#endif
// If this instruction is only used outside of the loop, then all users are
// PHI nodes in exit blocks due to LCSSA form. Just RAUW them with clones of
// the instruction.
while (!I.use_empty()) {
// The user must be a PHI node.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
PHINode *PN = cast<PHINode>(I.user_back());
BasicBlock *ExitBlock = PN->getParent();
assert(ExitBlockSet.count(ExitBlock) &&
"The LCSSA PHI is not in an exit block!");
Instruction *New = I.clone();
ExitBlock->getInstList().insert(ExitBlock->getFirstInsertionPt(), New);
if (!I.getName().empty())
New->setName(I.getName() + ".le");
// Build LCSSA PHI nodes for any in-loop operands. Note that this is
// particularly cheap because we can rip off the PHI node that we're
// replacing for the number and blocks of the predecessors.
// OPT: If this shows up in a profile, we can instead finish sinking all
// invariant instructions, and then walk their operands to re-establish
// LCSSA. That will eliminate creating PHI nodes just to nuke them when
// sinking bottom-up.
for (User::op_iterator OI = New->op_begin(), OE = New->op_end(); OI != OE;
++OI)
if (Instruction *OInst = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*OI))
if (Loop *OLoop = LI->getLoopFor(OInst->getParent()))
if (!OLoop->contains(PN)) {
PHINode *OpPN = PHINode::Create(
OInst->getType(), PN->getNumIncomingValues(),
OInst->getName() + ".lcssa", ExitBlock->begin());
for (unsigned i = 0, e = PN->getNumIncomingValues(); i != e; ++i)
OpPN->addIncoming(OInst, PN->getIncomingBlock(i));
*OI = OpPN;
}
PN->replaceAllUsesWith(New);
PN->eraseFromParent();
}
CurAST->deleteValue(&I);
I.eraseFromParent();
}
/// hoist - When an instruction is found to only use loop invariant operands
/// that is safe to hoist, this instruction is called to do the dirty work.
///
void LICM::hoist(Instruction &I) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LICM hoisting to " << Preheader->getName() << ": "
<< I << "\n");
// Move the new node to the Preheader, before its terminator.
I.moveBefore(Preheader->getTerminator());
if (isa<LoadInst>(I)) ++NumMovedLoads;
else if (isa<CallInst>(I)) ++NumMovedCalls;
++NumHoisted;
Changed = true;
}
/// isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally - Only sink or hoist an instruction if it is
/// not a trapping instruction or if it is a trapping instruction and is
/// guaranteed to execute.
///
bool LICM::isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(Instruction &Inst) {
// If it is not a trapping instruction, it is always safe to hoist.
if (isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(&Inst))
return true;
return isGuaranteedToExecute(Inst);
}
bool LICM::isGuaranteedToExecute(Instruction &Inst) {
// Somewhere in this loop there is an instruction which may throw and make us
// exit the loop.
if (MayThrow)
return false;
// Otherwise we have to check to make sure that the instruction dominates all
// of the exit blocks. If it doesn't, then there is a path out of the loop
// which does not execute this instruction, so we can't hoist it.
// If the instruction is in the header block for the loop (which is very
// common), it is always guaranteed to dominate the exit blocks. Since this
// is a common case, and can save some work, check it now.
if (Inst.getParent() == CurLoop->getHeader())
return true;
// Get the exit blocks for the current loop.
SmallVector<BasicBlock*, 8> ExitBlocks;
CurLoop->getExitBlocks(ExitBlocks);
// Verify that the block dominates each of the exit blocks of the loop.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = ExitBlocks.size(); i != e; ++i)
if (!DT->dominates(Inst.getParent(), ExitBlocks[i]))
return false;
// As a degenerate case, if the loop is statically infinite then we haven't
// proven anything since there are no exit blocks.
if (ExitBlocks.empty())
return false;
return true;
}
namespace {
class LoopPromoter : public LoadAndStorePromoter {
Value *SomePtr; // Designated pointer to store to.
SmallPtrSet<Value*, 4> &PointerMustAliases;
SmallVectorImpl<BasicBlock*> &LoopExitBlocks;
SmallVectorImpl<Instruction*> &LoopInsertPts;
PredIteratorCache &PredCache;
AliasSetTracker &AST;
LoopInfo &LI;
DebugLoc DL;
int Alignment;
MDNode *TBAATag;
Value *maybeInsertLCSSAPHI(Value *V, BasicBlock *BB) const {
if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V))
if (Loop *L = LI.getLoopFor(I->getParent()))
if (!L->contains(BB)) {
// We need to create an LCSSA PHI node for the incoming value and
// store that.
PHINode *PN = PHINode::Create(
I->getType(), PredCache.GetNumPreds(BB),
I->getName() + ".lcssa", BB->begin());
for (BasicBlock **PI = PredCache.GetPreds(BB); *PI; ++PI)
PN->addIncoming(I, *PI);
return PN;
}
return V;
}
public:
LoopPromoter(Value *SP, const SmallVectorImpl<Instruction *> &Insts,
SSAUpdater &S, SmallPtrSet<Value *, 4> &PMA,
SmallVectorImpl<BasicBlock *> &LEB,
SmallVectorImpl<Instruction *> &LIP, PredIteratorCache &PIC,
AliasSetTracker &ast, LoopInfo &li, DebugLoc dl, int alignment,
MDNode *TBAATag)
: LoadAndStorePromoter(Insts, S), SomePtr(SP), PointerMustAliases(PMA),
LoopExitBlocks(LEB), LoopInsertPts(LIP), PredCache(PIC), AST(ast),
LI(li), DL(dl), Alignment(alignment), TBAATag(TBAATag) {}
bool isInstInList(Instruction *I,
const SmallVectorImpl<Instruction*> &) const override {
Value *Ptr;
if (LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(I))
Ptr = LI->getOperand(0);
else
Ptr = cast<StoreInst>(I)->getPointerOperand();
return PointerMustAliases.count(Ptr);
}
void doExtraRewritesBeforeFinalDeletion() const override {
// Insert stores after in the loop exit blocks. Each exit block gets a
// store of the live-out values that feed them. Since we've already told
// the SSA updater about the defs in the loop and the preheader
// definition, it is all set and we can start using it.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = LoopExitBlocks.size(); i != e; ++i) {
BasicBlock *ExitBlock = LoopExitBlocks[i];
Value *LiveInValue = SSA.GetValueInMiddleOfBlock(ExitBlock);
LiveInValue = maybeInsertLCSSAPHI(LiveInValue, ExitBlock);
Value *Ptr = maybeInsertLCSSAPHI(SomePtr, ExitBlock);
Instruction *InsertPos = LoopInsertPts[i];
StoreInst *NewSI = new StoreInst(LiveInValue, Ptr, InsertPos);
NewSI->setAlignment(Alignment);
NewSI->setDebugLoc(DL);
if (TBAATag) NewSI->setMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_tbaa, TBAATag);
}
}
void replaceLoadWithValue(LoadInst *LI, Value *V) const override {
// Update alias analysis.
AST.copyValue(LI, V);
}
void instructionDeleted(Instruction *I) const override {
AST.deleteValue(I);
}
};
} // end anon namespace
/// PromoteAliasSet - Try to promote memory values to scalars by sinking
/// stores out of the loop and moving loads to before the loop. We do this by
/// looping over the stores in the loop, looking for stores to Must pointers
/// which are loop invariant.
///
void LICM::PromoteAliasSet(AliasSet &AS,
SmallVectorImpl<BasicBlock*> &ExitBlocks,
SmallVectorImpl<Instruction*> &InsertPts,
PredIteratorCache &PIC) {
// We can promote this alias set if it has a store, if it is a "Must" alias
// set, if the pointer is loop invariant, and if we are not eliminating any
// volatile loads or stores.
if (AS.isForwardingAliasSet() || !AS.isMod() || !AS.isMustAlias() ||
AS.isVolatile() || !CurLoop->isLoopInvariant(AS.begin()->getValue()))
return;
assert(!AS.empty() &&
"Must alias set should have at least one pointer element in it!");
Value *SomePtr = AS.begin()->getValue();
// It isn't safe to promote a load/store from the loop if the load/store is
// conditional. For example, turning:
//
// for () { if (c) *P += 1; }
//
// into:
//
// tmp = *P; for () { if (c) tmp +=1; } *P = tmp;
//
// is not safe, because *P may only be valid to access if 'c' is true.
//
// It is safe to promote P if all uses are direct load/stores and if at
// least one is guaranteed to be executed.
bool GuaranteedToExecute = false;
SmallVector<Instruction*, 64> LoopUses;
SmallPtrSet<Value*, 4> PointerMustAliases;
// We start with an alignment of one and try to find instructions that allow
// us to prove better alignment.
unsigned Alignment = 1;
MDNode *TBAATag = 0;
// Check that all of the pointers in the alias set have the same type. We
// cannot (yet) promote a memory location that is loaded and stored in
// different sizes. While we are at it, collect alignment and TBAA info.
for (AliasSet::iterator ASI = AS.begin(), E = AS.end(); ASI != E; ++ASI) {
Value *ASIV = ASI->getValue();
PointerMustAliases.insert(ASIV);
// Check that all of the pointers in the alias set have the same type. We
// cannot (yet) promote a memory location that is loaded and stored in
// different sizes.
if (SomePtr->getType() != ASIV->getType())
return;
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
for (User *U : ASIV->users()) {
// Ignore instructions that are outside the loop.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
Instruction *UI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(U);
if (!UI || !CurLoop->contains(UI))
continue;
// If there is an non-load/store instruction in the loop, we can't promote
// it.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (LoadInst *load = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(UI)) {
assert(!load->isVolatile() && "AST broken");
if (!load->isSimple())
return;
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
} else if (StoreInst *store = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(UI)) {
// Stores *of* the pointer are not interesting, only stores *to* the
// pointer.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (UI->getOperand(1) != ASIV)
continue;
assert(!store->isVolatile() && "AST broken");
if (!store->isSimple())
return;
// Note that we only check GuaranteedToExecute inside the store case
// so that we do not introduce stores where they did not exist before
// (which would break the LLVM concurrency model).
// If the alignment of this instruction allows us to specify a more
// restrictive (and performant) alignment and if we are sure this
// instruction will be executed, update the alignment.
// Larger is better, with the exception of 0 being the best alignment.
unsigned InstAlignment = store->getAlignment();
if ((InstAlignment > Alignment || InstAlignment == 0) && Alignment != 0)
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (isGuaranteedToExecute(*UI)) {
GuaranteedToExecute = true;
Alignment = InstAlignment;
}
if (!GuaranteedToExecute)
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
GuaranteedToExecute = isGuaranteedToExecute(*UI);
} else
return; // Not a load or store.
// Merge the TBAA tags.
if (LoopUses.empty()) {
// On the first load/store, just take its TBAA tag.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
TBAATag = UI->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_tbaa);
} else if (TBAATag) {
TBAATag = MDNode::getMostGenericTBAA(TBAATag,
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
UI->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_tbaa));
}
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
LoopUses.push_back(UI);
}
}
// If there isn't a guaranteed-to-execute instruction, we can't promote.
if (!GuaranteedToExecute)
return;
// Otherwise, this is safe to promote, lets do it!
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: " <<*SomePtr<<'\n');
Changed = true;
++NumPromoted;
// Grab a debug location for the inserted loads/stores; given that the
// inserted loads/stores have little relation to the original loads/stores,
// this code just arbitrarily picks a location from one, since any debug
// location is better than none.
DebugLoc DL = LoopUses[0]->getDebugLoc();
// Figure out the loop exits and their insertion points, if this is the
// first promotion.
if (ExitBlocks.empty()) {
CurLoop->getUniqueExitBlocks(ExitBlocks);
InsertPts.resize(ExitBlocks.size());
for (unsigned i = 0, e = ExitBlocks.size(); i != e; ++i)
InsertPts[i] = ExitBlocks[i]->getFirstInsertionPt();
}
// We use the SSAUpdater interface to insert phi nodes as required.
SmallVector<PHINode*, 16> NewPHIs;
SSAUpdater SSA(&NewPHIs);
LoopPromoter Promoter(SomePtr, LoopUses, SSA, PointerMustAliases, ExitBlocks,
InsertPts, PIC, *CurAST, *LI, DL, Alignment, TBAATag);
// Set up the preheader to have a definition of the value. It is the live-out
// value from the preheader that uses in the loop will use.
LoadInst *PreheaderLoad =
new LoadInst(SomePtr, SomePtr->getName()+".promoted",
Preheader->getTerminator());
PreheaderLoad->setAlignment(Alignment);
PreheaderLoad->setDebugLoc(DL);
if (TBAATag) PreheaderLoad->setMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_tbaa, TBAATag);
SSA.AddAvailableValue(Preheader, PreheaderLoad);
// Rewrite all the loads in the loop and remember all the definitions from
// stores in the loop.
Promoter.run(LoopUses);
// If the SSAUpdater didn't use the load in the preheader, just zap it now.
if (PreheaderLoad->use_empty())
PreheaderLoad->eraseFromParent();
}
/// cloneBasicBlockAnalysis - Simple Analysis hook. Clone alias set info.
void LICM::cloneBasicBlockAnalysis(BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To, Loop *L) {
AliasSetTracker *AST = LoopToAliasSetMap.lookup(L);
if (!AST)
return;
AST->copyValue(From, To);
}
/// deleteAnalysisValue - Simple Analysis hook. Delete value V from alias
/// set.
void LICM::deleteAnalysisValue(Value *V, Loop *L) {
AliasSetTracker *AST = LoopToAliasSetMap.lookup(L);
if (!AST)
return;
AST->deleteValue(V);
}