The zero heuristic assumes that integers are more likely positive than negative,
but this also has the effect of assuming that strcmp return values are more
likely positive than negative. Given that for nonzero strcmp return values it's
the ordering of arguments that determines the sign of the result there's no
reason to assume that's true.
Fix this by inspecting the LHS of the compare and using TargetLibraryInfo to
decide if it's strcmp-like, and if so only assume that nonzero is more likely
than zero i.e. strings are more often different than the same. This causes a
slight code generation change in the spec2006 benchmark 403.gcc, but with no
noticeable performance impact. The intent of this patch is to allow better
optimisation of dhrystone on Cortex-M cpus, but currently it won't as there are
also some changes that need to be made to if-conversion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33934
llvm-svn: 304970
Summary:
The patch makes instruction count the highest priority for
LSR solution for X86 (previously registers had highest priority).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D30562
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 304824
1. When there is no perfect iteration order, we can't let phi nodes
put themselves in terms of things that come later in the iteration
order, or we will endlessly cycle (the normal RPO algorithm clears the
hashtable to avoid this issue).
2. We are sometimes erasing the wrong expression (causing pessimism)
because our equality says loads and stores are the same.
We introduce an exact equality function and use it when erasing to
make sure we erase only identical expressions, not equivalent ones.
llvm-svn: 304807
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize
unordered atomic memcpy. The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames, anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304806
Summary:
We were canonizalizing the pre loop (into loop-simplify form) before
the post loop blocks were added into parent loop. This is incorrect when IRCE is
done on a subloop. The post-loop blocks are created, but not yet added to the
parent loop. So, loop-simplification on the pre-loop incorrectly updates
LoopInfo.
This patch corrects the ordering so that pre and post loop blocks are added to
parent loop (if any), and then the loops are canonicalized to LCSSA and
LoopSimplifyForm.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, apilipenko
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33846
llvm-svn: 304800
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
Summary:
The patch guard all instruction cost calculations with InsnCosts (-lsr-insns-cost) option.
Currently even if the option set to false we calculate and print (in debug mode) instruction costs.
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D33914
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 304746
We'd called this "vm state" in the early days, but have long since standardized on calling it "deopt" in line with the operand bundle tag. Fix a few cases we'd missed.
llvm-svn: 304607
Summary:
As shown in the test case, SROA was crashing when trying to split
stores (to the alloca) of loads (from anywhere), because it assumed
the pointer operand to the loads and stores had to have the same
address space. This isn't the case. Make sure to use the correct
pointer type for both the load and the store.
Reviewed By: yaxunl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32593
llvm-svn: 304585
builtin_expect applied on && or || expressions were not
handled properly before. With this patch, the problem is fixed.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D33164
llvm-svn: 304517
The lowerer wrongly assumes the ICMP instruction
1) always has a constant operand;
2) the operand has value 0.
It also assumes the expected value can only be one, thus
other values other than one will be considered 'zero'.
This leads to wrong profile annotation when other integer values
are used other than 0, 1 in the comparison or in the expect intrinsic.
Also missing is handling of equal predicate.
This patch fixes all the above problems.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D33757
llvm-svn: 304453
Summary:
Fairly straightforward patch to fill in some of the holes in the
attributes API with respect to accessing parameter/argument attributes.
The patch aims to step further towards encapsulating the
idx+FirstArgIndex pattern to access these attributes to within the
AttributeList.
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: rnk, chandlerc, pete, javed.absar, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33355
llvm-svn: 304329
This reverts commit r304310.
It caused build failures in polly and mingw
due to undefined reference to
llvm::RTLIB::getMEMCPY_ELEMENT_ATOMIC.
llvm-svn: 304315
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize unordered atomic memcpy.
The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304310
The recommit is to fix a bug about ExtractValue and InsertValue ops. For those
ops, some varargs inside GVN::Expression are not value numbers but raw index
numbers. It is wrong to do phi-translate for raw index numbers, and the fix is
to stop doing that.
Right now scalarpre doesn't have phi-translate support, so it will miss some
simple pre opportunities. Like the following testcase, current scalarpre cannot
recognize the last "a * b" is fully redundent because a and b used by the last
"a * b" expr are both defined by phis.
long a[100], b[100], g1, g2, g3;
__attribute__((pure)) long goo();
void foo(long a, long b, long c, long d) {
g1 = a * b;
if (__builtin_expect(g2 > 3, 0)) {
a = c;
b = d;
g2 = a * b;
}
g3 = a * b; // fully redundant.
}
The patch adds phi-translate support in scalarpre. This is only a temporary
solution before the newpre based on newgvn is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32252
llvm-svn: 304050
Right now scalarpre doesn't have phi-translate support, so it will miss some
simple pre opportunities. Like the following testcase, current scalarpre cannot
recognize the last "a * b" is fully redundent because a and b used by the last
"a * b" expr are both defined by phis.
long a[100], b[100], g1, g2, g3;
__attribute__((pure)) long goo();
void foo(long a, long b, long c, long d) {
g1 = a * b;
if (__builtin_expect(g2 > 3, 0)) {
a = c;
b = d;
g2 = a * b;
}
g3 = a * b; // fully redundant.
}
The patch adds phi-translate support in scalarpre. This is only a temporary
solution before the newpre based on newgvn is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32252
llvm-svn: 303923
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
pass.
The original logic only considered direct successors of the hoisted
domtree nodes, but that isn't really enough. If there are other basic
blocks that are completely within the subtree, their successors could
just as easily be impacted by the hoisting.
The more I think about it, the more I think the correct update here is
to hoist every block on the dominance frontier which has an idom in the
chain we hoist across. However, this is subtle enough that I'd
definitely appreciate some more eyes on it.
Sadly, if this is the correct algorithm, it requires computing a (highly
localized) dominance frontier. I've done this in the simplest (IE, least
code) way I could come up with, but that may be too naive. Suggestions
welcome here, dominance update algorithms are not an area I've studied
much, so I don't have strong opinions.
In good news, with this patch, turning on simple unswitch passes the
LLVM test suite for me with asserts enabled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32740
llvm-svn: 303843
having it internally allocate the loop.
This is a much more flexible API and necessary in the new loop unswitch
to reasonably support both new and old PMs in common code. It also just
seems like a cleaner separation of concerns.
NFC, this should just be a pure refactoring.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33528
llvm-svn: 303834
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
Otherwise we don't revisit an instruction that could be simplified,
and when we verify, we discover there's something that changed, i.e.
what we had wasn't a maximal fixpoint.
Fixes PR32836.
llvm-svn: 303715
Instead of using the SCCP homegrown one. We should eventually
make the private SCCP version disappear, but that wont' be today.
PR33143 tracks this issue.
Add braces for consistency while here. No functional change intended.
llvm-svn: 303706
This patch builds over https://reviews.llvm.org/rL303349 and replaces
the use of the condition only if it is safe to do so.
We should not blindly RAUW the condition if experimental.guard or assume
is a use of that
condition. This is because LVI may have used the guard/assume to
identify the
value of the condition, and RUAWing will fold the guard/assume and uses
before the guards/assumes.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong, mkazantsev
Reviewed by: sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
llvm-svn: 303633
In the case where we have an operand defined by a lod of the
same memory location. Historically this was a VariableExpression
because we wanted to make sure they ended up in the same class,
but if we create the right expression, they end up in the same
class anyway.
Fixes PR32897. Thanks to Dan for the detailed discussion and the
fix suggestion.
llvm-svn: 303475
This was here because we don't want to switch leaders too much,
in order to avoid fixpoint(ing) issue, but it's not sure if it
matters in practice.
A first step towards fixing PR32897.
llvm-svn: 303473
This is a complicated bug involving two issues:
1. What do we do with phi nodes when we prove all arguments are not
live?
2. When is it safe to use value leaders to determine if we can ignore
an argumnet?
llvm-svn: 303453
Summary:
NewGVN: Handle equivalence between phi of ops and op of phis.
This makes our GVN mostly-complete. It would be complete, modulo some
deliberate choices we make. This means it detects roughly all herband
equivalences in polynomial time, including cases notoriously hard for
other GVN's to detect. It also detects a very large swath of the
cases we currently rely on instcombine to detect that involve folding
upwards through phis.
Fixes PR 31125, 31463, PR 31868
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32151
llvm-svn: 303444
Summary:
This NFC simply refactors the return value of LoopIdiomRecognize::isLegalStore() from bool to an enumeration, and
removes the return-through-parameter mechanism that the function was using. This function is constructed such that it will
only ever recognize a single store idiom (memset, memset_pattern, or memcpy), and never a combination of these. As such it
makes much more sense for the return value to be the single idiom that the store matches, rather than
having a separate argument-return for each idiom -- it's cleaner, and makes it clearer that
only a single idiom can be matched.
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: anna, sanjoy, davide, haicheng
Reviewed By: anna, haicheng
Subscribers: haicheng, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33359
llvm-svn: 303434
We can have cycles between PHIs and this causes singleReachablePhi()
to call itself indefintely (until we run out of stack). The proper
solution would be that of computing SCCs, but it's not worth for
now, so just keep a visited set and give up when we find a cycle.
Thanks to Dan for the discussion/help with this.
Fixes PR33014.
llvm-svn: 303393
Summary:
Implements PR889
Removing the virtual table pointer from Value saves 1% of RSS when doing
LTO of llc on Linux. The impact on time was positive, but too noisy to
conclusively say that performance improved. Here is a link to the
spreadsheet with the original data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F4FHir0qYnV0MEp2sYYp_BuvnJgWlWPhWOwZ6LbW7W4/edit?usp=sharing
This change makes it invalid to directly delete a Value, User, or
Instruction pointer. Instead, such code can be rewritten to a null check
and a call Value::deleteValue(). Value objects tend to have their
lifetimes managed through iplist, so for the most part, this isn't a big
deal. However, there are some places where LLVM deletes values, and
those places had to be migrated to deleteValue. I have also created
llvm::unique_value, which has a custom deleter, so it can be used in
place of std::unique_ptr<Value>.
I had to add the "DerivedUser" Deleter escape hatch for MemorySSA, which
derives from User outside of lib/IR. Code in IR cannot include MemorySSA
headers or call the MemoryAccess object destructors without introducing
a circular dependency, so we need some level of indirection.
Unfortunately, no class derived from User may have any virtual methods,
because adding a virtual method would break User::getHungOffOperands(),
which assumes that it can find the use list immediately prior to the
User object. I've added a static_assert to the appropriate OperandTraits
templates to help people avoid this trap.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mehdi_amini, pete, dberlin, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: krytarowski, eraman, george.burgess.iv, mzolotukhin, Prazek, nlewycky, hans, inglorion, pcc, tejohnson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31261
llvm-svn: 303362
The testcase in PR33077 generates a LSR Use Formula with two SCEVAddRecExprs for the same
loop. Such uncommon formula will become non-canonical after GenerateTruncates adds sign
extension to the ScaledReg of the Formula, and it will break the assertion that every
Formula to be inserted is canonical.
The fix is to call canonicalize for the raw Formula generated by GenerateTruncates
before inserting it.
llvm-svn: 303361
Summary:
We have a bug when RAUWing the condition if experimental.guard or assumes is a use of that
condition. This is because LazyValueInfo may have used the guards/assumes to identify the
value of the condition at the end of the block. RAUW replaces the uses
at the guard/assume as well as uses before the guard/assume. Both of
these are incorrect.
For now, disable RAUW for conditions and fix the logic as a next
step: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33279
llvm-svn: 303349
Summary:
There are several places in the codebase that try to calculate a maximum value in a Statistic object. We currently do this in one of two ways:
MaxNumFoo = std::max(MaxNumFoo, NumFoo);
or
MaxNumFoo = (MaxNumFoo > NumFoo) ? MaxNumFoo : NumFoo;
The first version reads from MaxNumFoo one time and uncontionally rwrites to it. The second version possibly reads it twice depending on the result of the first compare. But we have no way of knowing if the value was changed by another thread between the reads and the writes.
This patch adds a method to the Statistic object that can ensure that we only store if our value is the max and the previous max didn't change after we read it. If it changed we'll recheck if our value should still be the max or not and try again.
This spawned from an audit I'm trying to do of all places we uses the implicit conversion to unsigned on the Statistics objects. See my previous thread on llvm-dev https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/llvm-dev/yfvxiorKrDQ
Reviewers: dberlin, chandlerc, hfinkel, dblaikie
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33301
llvm-svn: 303318
I believe this technically fixes a multithreaded race condition in this code. But my primary concern was as part of looking at removing the ability to treat Statistics like a plain unsigned. There are many weird operations on Statistics in the codebase.
llvm-svn: 303314
CTLZ idiom recognition (r303102).
Summary:
The following case:
i = 1;
if(n)
while (n >>= 1)
i++;
use(i);
Was converted to:
i = 1;
if(n)
i += builtin_ctlz(n >> 1, false);
use(i);
Which is not correct. The patch make it:
i = 1;
if(n)
i += builtin_ctlz(n >> 1, true);
use(i);
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 303212
Summary:
The following loops should be recognized:
i = 0;
while (n) {
n = n >> 1;
i++;
body();
}
use(i);
And replaced with builtin_ctlz(n) if body() is empty or
for CPUs that have CTLZ instruction converted to countable:
for (j = 0; j < builtin_ctlz(n); j++) {
n = n >> 1;
i++;
body();
}
use(builtin_ctlz(n));
Reviewers: rengolin, joerg
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D32605
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 303102
verifyMemoryCongruency() filters out trivially dead MemoryDef(s),
as we find them immediately dead, before moving from TOP to a new
congruence class.
This fixes the same problem for PHI(s) skipping MemoryPhis if all
the operands are dead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33044
llvm-svn: 303100
This code was missing a check for stores, so we were thinking the
congruency class didn't have any memory members, and reset the
memory leader.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33056
llvm-svn: 302905
invariant PHI inputs and to rewrite PHI nodes during the actual
unswitching.
The checking is quite easy, but rewriting the PHI nodes is somewhat
surprisingly challenging. This should handle both branches and switches.
I think this is now a full featured trivial unswitcher, and more full
featured than the trivial cases in the old pass while still being (IMO)
somewhat simpler in how it works.
Next up is to verify its correctness in more widespread testing, and
then to add non-trivial unswitching.
Thanks to Davide and Sanjoy for the excellent review. There is one
remaining question that I may address in a follow-up patch (see the
review thread for details) but it isn't related to the functionality
specifically.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32699
llvm-svn: 302867
This pass doesn't correctly handle testing for when it is legal to hoist
arbitrary instructions. The whitelist happens to make it safe, so before
it is removed the pass's legality checks will need to be enhanced.
Details have been added to the code review thread for the patch.
llvm-svn: 302640
The way we currently define congruency for two PHIExpression(s) is:
1) The operands to the phi functions are congruent
2) The PHIs are defined in the same BasicBlock.
NewGVN works under the assumption that phi operands are in predecessor
order, or at least in some consistent order. OTOH, is valid IR:
patatino:
%meh = phi i16 [ %0, %winky ], [ %conv1, %tinky ]
%banana = phi i16 [ %0, %tinky ], [ %conv1, %winky ]
br label %end
and the in-memory representations of the two SSA registers have an
inconsistent order. This violation of NewGVN assumptions results into
two PHIs found congruent when they're not. While we think it's useful
to have always a consistent order enforced, let's fix this in NewGVN
sorting uses in predecessor order before creating a PHI expression.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32990
llvm-svn: 302552
Loop Idiom recognition was generating memset in a case that
would result generating a division operation to an unsafe location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32674
llvm-svn: 302238
Compares always return a scalar integer or vector of integers. isIntegerTy returns false for vectors, but that's not completely obvious. So using isVectorTy is less confusing.
llvm-svn: 302198
Summary:
Do three things to help with that:
- Add AttributeList::FirstArgIndex, which is an enumerator currently set
to 1. It allows us to change the indexing scheme with fewer changes.
- Add addParamAttr/removeParamAttr. This just shortens addAttribute call
sites that would otherwise need to spell out FirstArgIndex.
- Remove some attribute-specific getters and setters from Function that
take attribute list indices. Most of these were only used from
BuildLibCalls, and doesNotAlias was only used to test or set if the
return value is malloc-like.
I'm happy to split the patch, but I think they are probably easier to
review when taken together.
This patch should be NFC, but it sets the stage to change the indexing
scheme to this, which is more convenient when indexing into an array:
0: func attrs
1: retattrs
2...: arg attrs
Reviewers: chandlerc, pete, javed.absar
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32811
llvm-svn: 302060
Summary:
Currently, loop deletion deletes loop where the only values
that are used outside the loop are loop-invariant.
This patch adds logic to delete loops where the loop is proven to be
never executed (i.e. the only predecessor of the loop preheader has a
constant conditional branch as terminator, and the preheader is not the
taken target). This will remove loops that become dead after
loop-unswitching generates constant conditional branches.
The next steps are:
1. moving the loop deletion implementation to LoopUtils.
2. Add logic in loop-simplifyCFG which will support changing conditional
constant branches to unconditional branches. If loops become unreachable in this
process, they can be removed using `deleteDeadLoop` function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, efriedma, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed by: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32494
llvm-svn: 302015
Nirav Dave