Combine expression patterns to form expressions with fewer, simple instructions.
This pass does not modify the CFG.
For example, this pass reduce width of expressions post-dominated by TruncInst
into smaller width when applicable.
It differs from instcombine pass in that it contains pattern optimization that
requires higher complexity than the O(1), thus, it should run fewer times than
instcombine pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38313
llvm-svn: 323321
This applies to most pipelines except the LTO and ThinLTO backend
actions - it is for use at the beginning of the overall pipeline.
This extension point will be used to add the GCOV pass when enabled in
Clang.
llvm-svn: 323166
Summary:
New pass manager driver passes DebugPM (-debug-pass-manager) flag into
individual PassManager constructors in order to enable debug logging.
FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor has its own internal LoopCanonicalizationPM
which never gets its debug logging enabled and that means canonicalization
passes like LoopSimplify are never present in -debug-pass-manager output.
Extending FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor's constructor and
createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor wrapper with an optional
boolean DebugLogging argument.
Passing debug-logging flags there as appropriate.
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, eraman, llvm-commits, JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41586
llvm-svn: 321548
This should solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
...by preventing SimplifyCFG from altering redundant instructions before early-cse has a chance to run.
It changes the default (canonical-forming) behavior of SimplifyCFG, so we're only doing the
sinking transform later in the optimization pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38566
llvm-svn: 320749
Summary:
Passing AliasAnalysis results instead of nullptr appears to work just fine.
A couple new-pass-manager tests updated to align with new order of analyses.
Reviewers: chandlerc, spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41203
llvm-svn: 320687
The core idea is to (re-)introduce some redundancies where their cost is
hidden by the cost of materializing immediates for constant operands of
PHI nodes. When the cost of the redundancies is covered by this,
avoiding materializing the immediate has numerous benefits:
1) Less register pressure
2) Potential for further folding / combining
3) Potential for more efficient instructions due to immediate operand
As a motivating example, consider the remarkably different cost on x86
of a SHL instruction with an immediate operand versus a register
operand.
This pattern turns up surprisingly frequently, but is somewhat rarely
obvious as a significant performance problem.
The pass is entirely target independent, but it does rely on the target
cost model in TTI to decide when to speculate things around the PHI
node. I've included x86-focused tests, but any target that sets up its
immediate cost model should benefit from this pass.
There is probably more that can be done in this space, but the pass
as-is is enough to get some important performance on our internal
benchmarks, and should be generally performance neutral, but help with
more extensive benchmarking is always welcome.
One awkward part is that this pass has to be scheduled after
*everything* that can eliminate these kinds of redundancies. This
includes SimplifyCFG, GVN, etc. I'm open to suggestions about better
places to put this. We could in theory make it part of the codegen pass
pipeline, but there doesn't really seem to be a good reason for that --
it isn't "lowering" in any sense and only relies on pretty standard cost
model based TTI queries, so it seems to fit well with the "optimization"
pipeline model. Still, further thoughts on the pipeline position are
welcome.
I've also only implemented this in the new pass manager. If folks are
very interested, I can try to add it to the old PM as well, but I didn't
really see much point (my use case is already switched over to the new
PM).
I've tested this pretty heavily without issue. A wide range of
benchmarks internally show no change outside the noise, and I don't see
any significant changes in SPEC either. However, the size class
computation in tcmalloc is substantially improved by this, which turns
into a 2% to 4% win on the hottest path through tcmalloc for us, so
there are definitely important cases where this is going to make
a substantial difference.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467
llvm-svn: 319164
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
This patch adds a new pass for attaching !callees metadata to indirect call
sites. The pass propagates values to call sites by performing an IPSCCP-like
analysis using the generic sparse propagation solver. For indirect call sites
having a small set of possible callees, the attached metadata indicates what
those callees are. The metadata can be used to facilitate optimizations like
intersecting the function attributes of the possible callees, refining the call
graph, performing indirect call promotion, etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37355
llvm-svn: 316576
This is the same exact change we did for the current pass manager
in rL314997, but the new pass manager pipeline already happened
to run GlobalOpt after the inliner, so we just insert a run of
GDCE here.
llvm-svn: 315003
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
Summary:
Detect when the working set size of a profiled application is huge,
by comparing the number of counts required to reach the hot percentile
in the profile summary to a large threshold*.
When the working set size is determined to be huge, disable peeling
to avoid bloating the working set further.
*Note that the selected threshold (15K) is significantly larger than the
largest working set value in SPEC cpu2006 (which is gcc at around 11K).
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36288
llvm-svn: 310005
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
Summary:
This changes SimplifyLibCalls to use the new OptimizationRemarkEmitter
API.
In fact, as SimplifyLibCalls is only ever called via InstCombine,
(as far as I can tell) the OptimizationRemarkEmitter is added there,
and then passed through to SimplifyLibCalls later.
I have avoided changing any remark text.
This closes PR33787
Patch by Sam Elliott!
Reviewers: anemet, davide
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: davide, mehdi_amini, eraman, fhahn, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35608
llvm-svn: 309158
Summary:
This patch adds a callback registration API to the PassBuilder,
enabling registering out-of-tree passes with it.
Through the Callback API, callers may register callbacks with the
various stages at which passes are added into pass managers, including
parsing of a pass pipeline as well as at extension points within the
default -O pipelines.
Registering utilities like `require<>` and `invalidate<>` needs to be
handled manually by the caller, but a helper is provided.
Additionally, adding passes at pipeline extension points is exposed
through the opt tool. This patch adds a `-passes-ep-X` commandline
option for every extension point X, which opt parses into pipelines
inserted into that extension point.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: lksbhm, grosser, davide, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33464
llvm-svn: 307532
Based on the original patch by Davide, but I've adjusted the API exposed
to just be different entry points rather than exposing more state
parameters. I've factored all the common logic out so that we don't have
any duplicate pipelines, we just stitch them together in different ways.
I think this makes the build easier to reason about and understand.
This adds a direct method for getting the module simplification pipeline
as well as a method to get the optimization pipeline. While not my
express goal, this seems nice and gives a good place comment about the
restrictions that are imposed on them.
I did make some minor changes to the way the pipelines are structured
here, but hopefully not ones that are significant or controversial:
1) I sunk the PGO indirect call promotion to only be run when we have
PGO enabled (or as part of the special ThinLTO pipeline).
2) I made the extra GlobalOpt run in ThinLTO just happen all the time
and at a slightly more powerful place (before we remove available
externaly functions). This seems like general goodness and not a big
compile time sink, so it didn't make sense to *only* use it in
ThinLTO. Fewer differences in the pipeline makes everything simpler
IMO.
3) I hoisted the ThinLTO stop point pre-link above the the RPO function
attr inference. The RPO inference won't infer anything terribly
meaningful pre-link (recursiveness?) so it didn't make a lot of
sense. But if the placement of RPO inference starts to matter, we
should move it to the canonicalization phase anyways which seems like
a better place for it (and there is a FIXME to this effect!). But
that seemed a bridge too far for this patch.
If we ever need to parameterize these pipelines more heavily, we can
always sink the logic to helper functions with parameters to keep those
parameters out of the public API. But the changes above seemed minor
that we could possible get away without the parameters entirely.
I added support for parsing 'thinlto' and 'thinlto-pre-link' names in
pass pipelines to make it easy to test these routines and play with them
in larger pipelines. I also added a really basic manifest of passes test
that will show exactly how the pipelines behave and work as well as
making updates to them clear.
Lastly, this factoring does introduce a nesting layer of module pass
managers in the default pipeline. I don't think this is a big deal and
the flexibility of decoupling the pipelines seems easily worth it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33540
llvm-svn: 304407
also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling
it.
The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this
is in the review thread for r300200.
llvm-svn: 301505
Summary:
Otherwise we might end up with some empty basic blocks or
single-entry-single-exit basic blocks.
This fixes PR32085
Reviewers: chandlerc, danielcdh
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30468
llvm-svn: 301395
entire SCC before iterating on newly-introduced call edges resulting
from any inlined function bodies.
This more closely matches the behavior of the old PM's inliner. While it
wasn't really clear to me initially, this behavior is actually essential
to the inliner behaving reasonably in its current design.
Because the inliner is fundamentally a bottom-up inliner and all of its
cost modeling is designed around that it often runs into trouble within
an SCC where we don't have any meaningful bottom-up ordering to use. In
addition to potentially cyclic, infinite inlining that we block with the
inline history mechanism, it can also take seemingly simple call graph
patterns within an SCC and turn them into *insanely* large functions by
accidentally working top-down across the SCC without any of the
threshold limitations that traditional top-down inliners use.
Consider this diabolical monster.cpp file that Richard Smith came up
with to help demonstrate this issue:
```
template <int N> extern const char *str;
void g(const char *);
template <bool K, int N> void f(bool *B, bool *E) {
if (K)
g(str<N>);
if (B == E)
return;
if (*B)
f<true, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
else
f<false, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
}
template <> void f<false, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<false, 0>(B, E); }
template <> void f<true, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<true, 0>(B, E); }
extern bool *arr, *end;
void test() { f<false, 0>(arr, end); }
```
When compiled with '-DMAX=N' for various values of N, this will create an SCC
with a reasonably large number of functions. Previously, the inliner would try
to exhaust the inlining candidates in a single function before moving on. This,
unfortunately, turns it into a top-down inliner within the SCC. Because our
thresholds were never built for that, we will incrementally decide that it is
always worth inlining and proceed to flatten the entire SCC into that one
function.
What's worse, we'll then proceed to the next function, and do the exact same
thing except we'll skip the first function, and so on. And at each step, we'll
also make some of the constant factors larger, which is awesome.
The fix in this patch is the obvious one which makes the new PM's inliner use
the same technique used by the old PM: consider all the call edges across the
entire SCC before beginning to process call edges introduced by inlining. The
result of this is essentially to distribute the inlining across the SCC so that
every function incrementally grows toward the inline thresholds rather than
allowing the inliner to grow one of the functions vastly beyond the threshold.
The code for this is a bit awkward, but it works out OK.
We could consider in the future doing something more powerful here such as
prioritized order (via lowest cost and/or profile info) and/or a code-growth
budget per SCC. However, both of those would require really substantial work
both to design the system in a way that wouldn't break really useful
abstraction decomposition properties of the current inliner and to be tuned
across a reasonably diverse set of code and workloads. It also seems really
risky in many ways. I have only found a single real-world file that triggers
the bad behavior here and it is generated code that has a pretty pathological
pattern. I'm not worried about the inliner not doing an *awesome* job here as
long as it does *ok*. On the other hand, the cases that will be tricky to get
right in a prioritized scheme with a budget will be more common and idiomatic
for at least some frontends (C++ and Rust at least). So while these approaches
are still really interesting, I'm not in a huge rush to go after them. Staying
even closer to the existing PM's behavior, especially when this easy to do,
seems like the right short to medium term approach.
I don't really have a test case that makes sense yet... I'll try to find a
variant of the IR produced by the monster template metaprogram that is both
small enough to be sane and large enough to clearly show when we get this wrong
in the future. But I'm not confident this exists. And the behavior change here
*should* be unobservable without snooping on debug logging. So there isn't
really much to test.
The test case updates come from two incidental changes:
1) We now visit functions in an SCC in the opposite order. I don't think there
really is a "right" order here, so I just update the test cases.
2) We no longer compute some analyses when an SCC has no call instructions that
we consider for inlining.
llvm-svn: 297374
All the invalidation issues and bugs in this seem to be fixed, it has
survived a full build of the test suite plus SPEC with asserts and ASan
enabled on the Clang binary used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29815
llvm-svn: 294887
Without any loops, we don't even bother to build the standard analyses
used by loop passes. Without these, we can't run loop analyses or
invalidate them properly. Unfortunately, we did these things in the
wrong order which would allow a loop analysis manager's proxy to be
built but then not have the standard analyses built. When we went to do
the invalidation in the proxy thing would fall apart. In the test case
provided, it would actually crash.
The fix is to carefully check for loops first, and to in fact build the
standard analyses before building the proxy. This allows it to
correctly trigger invalidation for those standard analyses.
An alternative might seem to be to look at whether there are any loops
when doing invalidation, but this doesn't work when during the loop
pipeline run we delete the last loop. I've even included that as a test
case. It is both simpler and more robust to defer building the proxy
until there are definitely the standard set of analyses and indeed
loops.
This bug was uncovered by enabling GlobalsAA in the pipeline.
llvm-svn: 294728
This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before
loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the
inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner
could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595
llvm-svn: 294670
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
llvm-svn: 293249
With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the
legacy PM. The missing pieces are:
- PruneEH (or some equivalent)
- ArgumentPromotion
- LoopLoadElimination
- LoopUnswitch
I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems
like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state.
One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've
consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the
pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening
passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have
any effect other than minor improvement to locality.
Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the
compiler doesn't crash or assert.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114
llvm-svn: 293241
loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM.
All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the
test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures.
There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new
PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at
least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and
they aren't completely broken.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113
llvm-svn: 293225
a lazy-asserting PoisoningVH.
AssertVH is fundamentally incompatible with cache-invalidation of
analysis results. The invaliadtion happens after the AssertingVH has
already fired. Instead, use a PoisoningVH that will assert if the
dangling handle is ever used rather than merely be assigned or
destroyed.
This patch also removes all of the (numerous) doomed attempts to work
around this fundamental incompatibility. It is a pretty significant
simplification IMO.
The most interesting change is in the Inliner where we still do some
clearing because we don't want to rely on the coarse grained
invalidation strategy of the containing pass manager. However, I prefer
the approach that contains this logic to the cleanup phase of the
Inliner, and I think we could enhance the CGSCC analysis management
layer to make this even better in the future if desired.
The rest is straight cleanup.
I've also added a test for one of the harder cases to work around: when
a *module analysis* contains many AssertingVHes pointing at functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29006
llvm-svn: 292928
invalidation of deleted functions in GlobalDCE.
This was always testing a bug really triggered in GlobalDCE. Right now
we have analyses with asserting value handles into IR. As long as those
remain, when *deleting* an IR unit, we cannot wait for the normal
invalidation scheme to kick in even though it was designed to work
correctly in the face of these kinds of deletions. Instead, the pass
needs to directly handle invalidating the analysis results pointing at
that IR unit.
I've tought the Inliner about this and this patch teaches GlobalDCE.
This will handle the asserting VH case in the existing test as well as
other issues of the same fundamental variety. I've moved the test into
the GlobalDCE directory and added a comment explaining what is going on.
Note that we cannot simply require LVI here because LVI is too lazy.
llvm-svn: 292773
become unavailable.
The AssumptionCache is now immutable but it still needs to respond to
DomTree invalidation if it ended up caching one.
This lets us remove one of the explicit invalidates of LVI but the
other one continues to avoid hitting a latent bug.
llvm-svn: 292769
new PM's inliner.
The bug happens when we refine an SCC after having computed a proxy for
the FunctionAnalysisManager, and then proceed to compute fresh analyses
for functions in the *new* SCC using the manager provided by the old
SCC's proxy. *And* when we manage to mutate a function in this new SCC
in a way that invalidates those analyses. This can be... challenging to
reproduce.
I've managed to contrive a set of functions that trigger this and added
a test case, but it is a bit brittle. I've directly checked that the
passes run in the expected ways to help avoid the test just becoming
silently irrelevant.
This gets the new PM back to passing the LLVM test suite after the PGO
improvements landed.
llvm-svn: 292757
This adds the last remaining core feature of the loop pass pipeline in
the new PM and removes the last of the really egregious hacks in the
LICM tests.
Sadly, this requires really substantial changes in the unittests in
order to provide and maintain simplified loops. This is particularly
hard because for example LoopSimplify will try to fold undef branches to
an ideal direction and simplify the loop accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28766
llvm-svn: 292709
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences
in type pretty-printing.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292536
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292530
Amjad Aboud