This reverts commit r218918, effectively reapplying r218914 after fixing
an Ocaml bindings test and an Asan crash. The root cause of the latter
was a tightened-up check in `DILexicalBlock::Verify()`, so I'll file a
PR to investigate who requires the loose check (and why).
Original commit message follows.
--
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 219010
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 218914
When unsafe-fp-math is enabled, we can turn sqrt(X) * sqrt(X) into X.
This can happen in the real world when calculating x ** 3/2. This occurs
in test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/n-body.c.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5584
llvm-svn: 218906
My commit rL216160 introduced a bug PR21014: IndVars widens code 'for (i = ; i < ...; i++) arr[ CONST - i]' into 'for (i = ; i < ...; i++) arr[ i - CONST]'
thus inverting index expression. This patch fixes it.
Thanks to Jörg Sonnenberger for pointing.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5576
llvm-svn: 218867
`DIExpression`'s elements are 64-bit integers that are stored as
`ConstantInt`. The accessors already encapsulate the storage. This
commit updates the `DIBuilder` API to also encapsulate that.
llvm-svn: 218797
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
Note: I accidentally committed a bogus older version of this patch previously.
llvm-svn: 218787
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
llvm-svn: 218778
The icmp-select-icmp optimization made the implicit assumption
that the select-icmp instructions are in the same block and asserted on it.
The fix explicitly checks for that condition and conservatively suppresses
the optimization when it is violated.
llvm-svn: 218735
In special cases select instructions can be eliminated by
replacing them with a cheaper bitwise operation even when the
select result is used outside its home block. The instances implemented
are patterns like
%x=icmp.eq
%y=select %x,%r, null
%z=icmp.eq|neq %y, null
br %z,true, false
==> %x=icmp.ne
%y=icmp.eq %r,null
%z=or %x,%y
br %z,true,false
The optimization is integrated into the instruction
combiner and performed only when all uses of the select result can
be replaced by the select operand proper. For this dominator information
is used and dominance is now a required analysis pass in the combiner.
The optimization itself is iterative. The critical step is to replace the
select result with the non-constant select operand. So the select becomes
local and the combiner iteratively works out simpler code pattern and
eventually eliminates the select.
rdar://17853760
llvm-svn: 218721
Summary:
This patch adds a threshold that controls the number of bonus instructions
allowed for folding branches with common destination. The original code allows
at most one bonus instruction. With this patch, users can customize the
threshold to allow multiple bonus instructions. The default threshold is still
1, so that the code behaves the same as before when users do not specify this
threshold.
The motivation of this change is that tuning this threshold significantly (up
to 25%) improves the performance of some CUDA programs in our internal code
base. In general, branch instructions are very expensive for GPU programs.
Therefore, it is sometimes worth trading more arithmetic computation for a more
straightened control flow. Here's a reduced example:
__global__ void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int n,
const int *input, int *output) {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
sum += (((i ^ a) > b) && (((i | c ) ^ d) > e)) ? 0 : input[i];
*output = sum;
}
The select statement in the loop body translates to two branch instructions "if
((i ^ a) > b)" and "if (((i | c) ^ d) > e)" which share a common destination.
With the default threshold, SimplifyCFG is unable to fold them, because
computing the condition of the second branch "(i | c) ^ d > e" requires two
bonus instructions. With the threshold increased, SimplifyCFG can fold the two
branches so that the loop body contains only one branch, making the code
conceptually look like:
sum += (((i ^ a) > b) & (((i | c ) ^ d) > e)) ? 0 : input[i];
Increasing the threshold significantly improves the performance of this
particular example. In the configuration where both conditions are guaranteed
to be true, increasing the threshold from 1 to 2 improves the performance by
18.24%. Even in the configuration where the first condition is false and the
second condition is true, which favors shortcuts, increasing the threshold from
1 to 2 still improves the performance by 4.35%.
We are still looking for a good threshold and maybe a better cost model than
just counting the number of bonus instructions. However, according to the above
numbers, we think it is at least worth adding a threshold to enable more
experiments and tuning. Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Test Plan: Added one test case to check the threshold is in effect
Reviewers: nadav, eliben, meheff, resistor, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5529
llvm-svn: 218711
Runtime unrolling will create a prologue to execute the extra
iterations which is can't divided by the unroll factor. It
generates an if-then-else sequence to jump into a factor -1
times unrolled loop body, like
extraiters = tripcount % loopfactor
if (extraiters == 0) jump Loop:
if (extraiters == loopfactor) jump L1
if (extraiters == loopfactor-1) jump L2
...
L1: LoopBody;
L2: LoopBody;
...
if tripcount < loopfactor jump End
Loop:
...
End:
It means if the unroll factor is 4, the loop body will be 7
times unrolled, 3 are in loop prologue, and 4 are in the loop.
This commit is to use a loop to execute the extra iterations
in prologue, like
extraiters = tripcount % loopfactor
if (extraiters == 0) jump Loop:
else jump Prol
Prol: LoopBody;
extraiters -= 1 // Omitted if unroll factor is 2.
if (extraiters != 0) jump Prol: // Omitted if unroll factor is 2.
if (tripcount < loopfactor) jump End
Loop:
...
End:
Then when unroll factor is 4, the loop body will be copied by
only 5 times, 1 in the prologue loop, 4 in the original loop.
And if the unroll factor is 2, new loop won't be created, just
as the original solution.
llvm-svn: 218604
The doFinalization method checks that the LoopToAliasSetMap is
empty. LICM populates that map as it runs through the loop nest,
deleting the entries for child loops as it goes. However, if a child
loop is deleted by another pass (e.g. unrolling) then the loop will
never be deleted from the map because LICM walks the loop nest to
find entries it can delete.
The fix is to delete the loop from the map and free the alias set
when the loop is deleted from the loop nest.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5305
llvm-svn: 218387
Rather than slurping in and splatting out the whole ctor list, preserve
the existing array entries without trying to understand them. Only
remove the entries that we know we can optimize away. This way we don't
need to wire through priority and comdats or anything else we might add.
Fixes a linker issue where the .init_array or .ctors entry would point
to discarded initialization code if the comdat group from the TU with
the faulty global_ctors entry was dropped.
llvm-svn: 218337
shim between the TargetTransformInfo immutable pass and the Subtarget
via the TargetMachine and Function. Migrate a single call from
BasicTargetTransformInfo as an example and provide shims where TargetMachine
begins taking a Function to determine the subtarget.
No functional change.
llvm-svn: 218004
This type isn't owned polymorphically (as demonstrated by making the
dtor protected and everything still compiling) so just address the
warning by protecting the base dtor and making the derived class final.
llvm-svn: 217990
This improves other optimizations such as LSR. A sext may be added to the
compare's other operand, but this can often be hoisted outside of the loop.
llvm-svn: 217953
Example:
define i1 @foo(i32 %a) {
%shr = ashr i32 -9, %a
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %shr, -5
ret i1 %cmp
}
Before this fix, the instruction combiner wrongly thought that %shr
could have never been equal to -5. Therefore, %cmp was always folded to 'true'.
However, when %a is equal to 1, then %cmp evaluates to 'false'. Therefore,
in this example, it is not valid to fold %cmp to 'true'.
The problem was only affecting the case where the comparison was between
negative quantities where one of the quantities was obtained from arithmetic
shift of a negative constant.
This patch fixes the problem with the wrong folding (fixes PR20945).
With this patch, the 'icmp' from the example is now simplified to a
comparison between %a and 1. This still allows us to get rid of the arithmetic
shift (%shr).
llvm-svn: 217950
Summary: UsedByBranch is always true according to how BonusInst is defined.
Test Plan:
Passes check-all, and also verified
if (BonusInst && !UsedByBranch) {
...
}
is never entered during check-all.
Reviewers: resistor, nadav, jingyue
Reviewed By: jingyue
Subscribers: llvm-commits, eliben, meheff
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5324
llvm-svn: 217824
We used to crash processing any relevant @llvm.assume on a 32-bit target
(because we'd ask SE to subtract expressions of differing types). I've copied
our 'simple.ll' test, but with the data layout from arm-linux-gnueabihf to get
some meaningful test coverage here.
llvm-svn: 217574
With this a DataLayoutPass can be reused for multiple modules.
Once we have doInitialization/doFinalization, it doesn't seem necessary to pass
a Module to the constructor.
Overall this change seems in line with the idea of making DataLayout a required
part of Module. With it the only way of having a DataLayout used is to add it
to the Module.
llvm-svn: 217548
The routine that determines an alignment given some SCEV returns zero if the
answer is unknown. In a case where we could determine the increment of an
AddRec but not the starting alignment, we would compute the integer modulus by
zero (which is illegal and traps). Prevent this by returning early if either
the start or increment alignment is unknown (zero).
llvm-svn: 217544
"Unroll" is not the appropriate name for this variable. Clang already uses
the term "interleave" in pragmas and metadata for this.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5066
llvm-svn: 217528
Benjamin Kramer