To match NewPM pass name, and also for readability.
Also rename rpo-functionattrs -> rpo-function-attrs while we're here.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84694
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Use UnaryOperator::CreateFNeg instead.
Summary:
With the introduction of the native fneg instruction, the
fsub -0.0, %x idiom is obsolete. This patch makes LLVM
emit fneg instead of the idiom in all places.
Reviewed By: cameron.mcinally
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75130
As discussed in the motivating PR44509:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44509
...we can end up with worse code using fast-math than without.
This is because the reassociate pass greedily transforms fsub
into fneg/fadd and apparently (based on the regression tests
seen here) expects instcombine to clean that up if it wasn't
profitable. But we were missing this fold:
(X - Y) - Z --> X - (Y + Z)
There's another, more specific case that I think we should
handle as shown in the "fake" fneg test (but missed with a real
fneg), but that's another patch. That may be tricky to get
right without conflicting with existing transforms for fneg.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72521
This is an extension of a transform that tries to produce positive floating-point
constants to improve canonicalization (and hopefully lead to more reassociation
and CSE).
The original patches were:
D4904
D5363 (rL221721)
But as the test diffs show, these were limited to basic patterns by walking from
an instruction to its single user rather than recursively moving up the def-use
sequence. No fast-math is required here because we're only rearranging implicit
FP negations in intermediate ops.
A motivating bug is:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32939
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65954
llvm-svn: 368512
Reverse the canonicalization of fneg relative to fmul/fdiv. That makes it
easier to implement the transforms (and possibly other fneg transforms) in
1 place because we can always start the pattern match from fneg (either the
legacy binop or the new unop).
There's a secondary practical benefit seen in PR21914 and PR42681:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21914https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42681
...hoisting fneg rather than sinking seems to play nicer with LICM in IR
(although this change may expose analysis holes in the other direction).
1. The instcombine test changes show the expected neutral IR diffs from
reversing the order.
2. The reassociation tests show that we were missing an optimization
opportunity to fold away fneg-of-fneg. My reading of IEEE-754 says
that all of these transforms are allowed (regardless of binop/unop
fneg version) because:
"For all other operations [besides copy/abs/negate/copysign], this
standard does not specify the sign bit of a NaN result."
In all of these transforms, we always have some other binop
(fadd/fsub/fmul/fdiv), so we are free to flip the sign bit of a
potential intermediate NaN operand.
(If that interpretation is wrong, then we must already have a bug in
the existing transforms?)
3. The clang tests shouldn't exist as-is, but that's effectively a
revert of rL367149 (the test broke with an extension of the
pre-existing fneg canonicalization in rL367146).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65399
llvm-svn: 367447
Also, add a FIXME for the unsafe transform on a unary FNeg. A unary FNeg can only be transformed to a FMul by -1.0 when the nnan flag is present. The unary FNeg project is a WIP, so the unsafe transformation is acceptable until that work is complete.
The bogus assert with introduced in D63445.
llvm-svn: 363998
Reassociation's NegateValue moved instructions to the beginning of
blocks (after PHIs) without checking for exception handling pads.
It's possible for reassociation to move something into an exception
handling block so we need to make sure we don't move things too early
in the block. This change advances the insertion point past any
exception handling pads.
If the block we want to move into contains a catchswitch, we cannot
move into it. In that case just create a new neg as if we had not
found an existing neg to move.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61089
llvm-svn: 360262
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Between building the pair map and querying it there are a few places that
erase and create Values. It's rare but the address of these newly created
Values is occasionally the same as a just-erased Value that we already
have in the pair map. These coincidences should be accounted for to avoid
non-determinism.
Thanks to Roman Tereshin for the test case.
Reviewers: rtereshin, bogner
Reviewed By: rtereshin
Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59401
llvm-svn: 356803
This patch fixes the issue noticed in D54532.
The problem is that cst_pred_ty-based matchers like m_Zero() currently do not match
scalar undefs (as expected), but *do* match vector undefs. This may lead to optimization
inconsistencies in rare cases.
There is only one existing test for which output changes, reverting the change from D53205.
The reason here is that vector fsub undef, %x is no longer matched as an m_FNeg(). While I
think that the new output is technically worse than the previous one, it is consistent with
scalar, and I don't think it's really important either way (generally that undef should have
been folded away prior to reassociation.)
I've also added another test case for this issue based on InstructionSimplify. It took some
effort to find that one, as in most cases undef folds are either checked first -- and in the
cases where they aren't it usually happens to not make a difference in the end. This is the
only case I was able to come up with. Prior to this patch the test case simplified to undef
in the scalar case, but zeroinitializer in the vector case.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54631
llvm-svn: 347318
This work is to avoid regressions when we seperate FNeg from the FSub IR instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53205
llvm-svn: 345146
We need to update this code before introducing an 'fneg' instruction in IR,
so we might as well kill off the integer neg/not queries too.
This is no-functional-change-intended for scalar code and most vector code.
For vectors, we can see that the 'match' API allows for undef elements in
constants, so we optimize those cases better.
Ideally, there would be a test for each code diff, but I don't see evidence
of that for the existing code, so I didn't try very hard to come up with new
vector tests for each code change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53533
llvm-svn: 345042
I was trying to provide test coverage for D53533
with rL344964, but these don't do it...and I don't
think they add any value, so deleting.
llvm-svn: 344969
Also, regenerate checks for these files. We should do better
on the vector tests by using the PatternMatch API instead of
BinaryOperator::isNot/isNeg.
llvm-svn: 344964
If we have a pair of binops feeding another pair of binops, rearrange the operands so
the matching pair are together because that allows easy factorization folds to happen
in instcombine:
((X << S) & Y) & (Z << S) --> ((X << S) & (Z << S)) & Y (reassociation)
--> ((X & Z) << S) & Y (factorize shift from 'and' ops optimization)
This is part of solving PR37098:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37098
Note that there's an instcombine version of this patch attached there, but we're trying
to make instcombine have less responsibility to improve compile-time efficiency.
For reasons I still don't completely understand, reassociate does this kind of transform
sometimes, but misses everything in my motivating cases.
This patch on its own is gluing an independent cleanup chunk to the end of the existing
RewriteExprTree() loop. We can build on it and do something stronger to better order the
full expression tree like D40049. That might be an alternative to the proposal to add a
separate reassociation pass like D41574.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45842
llvm-svn: 341288
As the test diffs show, the current users of getBinOpIdentity()
are InstCombine and Reassociate. SLP vectorizer is a candidate
for using this functionality too (D28907).
The InstCombine shuffle improvements are part of the planned
enhancements noted in D48830.
InstCombine actually has several other uses of getBinOpIdentity()
via SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws(), but we don't call that for
any FP ops. Fixing that might be another part of removing the
custom reassociation in InstCombine that is only done for fadd+fmul.
llvm-svn: 336215
Phi nodes can reside in live blocks but one of their incoming
arguments can come from a dead block. Dead blocks and reassociate
don't play nice together. In fact, reassociate performs an RPO
as a first step to avoid processing dead blocks.
The reason why Reassociate might not fixpoint when examining
dead blocks is that the following:
%xor0 = xor i16 %xor1, undef
%xor1 = xor i16 %xor0, undef
is perfectly valid LLVM IR (if it appears in a dead block),
so the worklist algorithm keeps pushing the two instructions for
reexamination. Note that this is not Reassociate fault, at least
not entirely. It's llvm that has a weird definition of dominance.
Fixes PR37390.
llvm-svn: 332100
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
Summary:
Some of our internal testing detected a major compile time regression which I've
tracked down to:
r278938 - Revert "Reassociate: Reprocess RedoInsts after each inst".
It appears that processing long chains of reassociatable instructions causes
non-linear (potentially exponential) growth in the number of times an
instruction is revisited. For example, the included test revisits instructions
220 times in a 20-instruction test.
It appears that r278938 reversed the order instructions were visited and that
this is preventing scheduled revisits from being cancelled as a result of
visiting the instructions naturally during normal processing. However, simply
reversing the order also harmed the generated code. Upon closer inspection, it
was discovered that revisits occurred in the opposite order to the first pass
(Thanks to escha for spotting that).
This patch makes the revisit order consistent with the first pass which allows
more revisits to be cancelled. This does appear to have a small impact on the
generated code in few cases but it significantly reduces compile-time.
After this patch, our internal test that was most affected by the regression
dropped from ~2 million revisits to ~4k resulting in Reassociate having 0.46%
of the runtime it had before (99.54% improvement).
Here's the summaries reported by lnt for the LLVM test-suite with --benchmarking-only:
| metric | geomean before patch | geomean after patch | delta |
| ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| compile time | 0.1956 | 0.1261 | -35.54% |
| execution time | 0.3240 | 0.3237 | - |
| code size | 7365.4459 | 7365.6079 | - |
The results have a few wins and losses on compile-time, mostly in the +/- 2.5% range. There was one outlier though:
| Performance Regressions - compile_time | Δ | Previous | Current |
| MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk | 9.82% | 2.0473 | 2.2483 |
Reviewers: javed.absar, dberlin
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45734
llvm-svn: 331381
As suggested in D45842
(although still not sure if we're going to advance that),
we must invalidate references to instructions that have
been recycled (operands were changed, so result is different).
llvm-svn: 331083
Summary:
When Reassociate is rewriting an expression tree it may
reuse old binary expression nodes, for new expressions.
Whenever an expression node is reused, but with a non-trivial
change in the result, we need to invalidate any debug info
that is associated with the node.
If for example rewriting
x = mul a, b
y = mul c, x
into
x = mul c, b
y = mul a, x
we still get the same result for 'y', but 'x' is a new expression.
All debug info referring to 'x' must be invalidated (marked as
optimized out) since we no longer calculate the expected value.
As a side-effect this patch avoid (at least some) problems where
reassociate could end up creating IR with debug-use before def.
Earlier the dbg.value nodes where left untouched in the IR, while
the reused binary nodes where sinked to just before the root node
of the rewritten expression tree. See PR27273 for more info about
such problems.
Reviewers: dblaikie, aprantl, dexonsmith
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Tags: #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45975
llvm-svn: 330804
Similar to rL330086, I don't know if we want to do these
transforms here, but we might as well have the tests
here either way to show that this pass is missing
potential functionality (intentionally or not).
llvm-svn: 330368
These simplifications were previously enabled only with isFast(), but that
is more restrictive than required. Since r317488, FMF has 'reassoc' to
control these cases at a finer level.
llvm-svn: 330089
These are uncontroversial and independent of a proposed LangRef edits (D44216).
I tried to fix tests that would fold away:
rL327004
rL327028
rL327030
rL327034
I'm not sure if the Reassociate tests are meaningless yet, but they probably will be
as we add more folds, so if anyone has suggestions or wants to fix those, please do.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44258
llvm-svn: 327058
This is a retry of r326502 with updates to the reassociate
test file that I missed the first time.
@test15_reassoc in the supposed -reassociate test file
(except that it tests 2 other passes too...) shows that
there's no clear responsiblity for reassociation transforms.
Instcombine now gets that case, but only because the
constant values are identical. Otherwise, it would still
miss that pattern.
Reassociate doesn't get that case because it hasn't been
updated to use less than 'fast' FMF.
llvm-svn: 326513
Arthur Eubanks