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
In the testcase attached, we believe %tmp1 implies %tmp4.
where:
br i1 %tmp1, label %bb2, label %bb7
br i1 %tmp4, label %bb5, label %bb7
because Wwhile looking at PredicateInfo stuffs we end up calling
isImpliedTrueByMatchingCmp() with the arguments backwards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32718
llvm-svn: 301849
We may not be able to rewrite indirect branch target, but we also want to take it into
account when folding, i.e. if it and all its successor's predecessors go to the same
destination, we can fold, i.e. no need to thread.
llvm-svn: 301816
Summary: [JumpThread] Do RAUW in case Cond folds to a constant in the CFG
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32407
llvm-svn: 301804
Summary:
programUndefinedIfPoison makes more sense, given what the function
does; and I'm about to add a function with a name similar to
isKnownNotFullPoison (so do the rename to avoid confusion).
Reviewers: broune, majnemer, bjarke.roune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30444
llvm-svn: 301776
I fixed my miscompile in r301722 and I hope I don't have to take
a look at this code again now that Chandler has a new LoopUnswitch
pass, but maybe this could be of use for somebody else in the
meanwhile.
llvm-svn: 301723
This broke the Clang build. (Clang-side patch missing?)
Original commit message:
> [IR] Make add/remove Attributes use AttrBuilder instead of
> AttributeList
>
> This change cleans up call sites and avoids creating temporary
> AttributeList objects.
>
> NFC
llvm-svn: 301712
While looking at pure addressing expressions, it's possible
for the value to appear later in Postorder.
I haven't been able to come up with a testcase where this
exhibits an actual issue, but if you insert a dump before
the value map lookup, a few testcases crash.
llvm-svn: 301705
Eliminates some more cases where some subset of the addressing
computation remains flat. Some cases with addrspacecasts
in nested constant expressions are still left behind however.
llvm-svn: 301704
While debugging a miscompile I realized loopunswitch doesn't
put newlines when printing the instruction being replacement.
Ending up with a single line with many instruction replaced isn't
the best for readability and/or mental sanity.
llvm-svn: 301692
The method is called "get *Param* Alignment", and is only used for
return values exactly once, so it should take argument indices, not
attribute indices.
Avoids confusing code like:
IsSwiftError = CS->paramHasAttr(ArgIdx, Attribute::SwiftError);
Alignment = CS->getParamAlignment(ArgIdx + 1);
Add getRetAlignment to handle the one case in Value.cpp that wants the
return value alignment.
This is a potentially breaking change for out-of-tree backends that do
their own call lowering.
llvm-svn: 301682
EarlyCSE should not just ignore assumes. It should use the fact that its condition is true for all dominated instructions.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32482
llvm-svn: 301625
If a condition is calculated only once, and there are multiple guards on this condition, we should be able
to remove all guards dominated by the first of them. This patch allows EarlyCSE to try to find the condition
of a guard among the known values, and if it is true, remove the guard. Otherwise we keep the guard and
mark its condition as 'true' for future consideration.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, skatkov, anna, dberlin
Reviewed By: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32476
llvm-svn: 301623
Currently, this pass only focuses on *trivial* loop unswitching. At that
reduced problem it remains significantly better than the current loop
unswitch:
- Old pass is worse than cubic complexity. New pass is (I think) linear.
- New pass is much simpler in its design by focusing on full unswitching. (See
below for details on this).
- New pass doesn't carry state for thresholds between pass iterations.
- New pass doesn't carry state for correctness (both miscompile and
infloop) between pass iterations.
- New pass produces substantially better code after unswitching.
- New pass can handle more trivial unswitch cases.
- New pass doesn't recompute the dominator tree for the entire function
and instead incrementally updates it.
I've ported all of the trivial unswitching test cases from the old pass
to the new one to make sure that major functionality isn't lost in the
process. For several of the test cases I've worked to improve the
precision and rigor of the CHECKs, but for many I've just updated them
to handle the new IR produced.
My initial motivation was the fact that the old pass carried state in
very unreliable ways between pass iterations, and these mechansims were
incompatible with the new pass manager. However, I discovered many more
improvements to make along the way.
This pass makes two very significant assumptions that enable most of these
improvements:
1) Focus on *full* unswitching -- that is, completely removing whatever
control flow construct is being unswitched from the loop. In the case
of trivial unswitching, this means removing the trivial (exiting)
edge. In non-trivial unswitching, this means removing the branch or
switch itself. This is in opposition to *partial* unswitching where
some part of the unswitched control flow remains in the loop. Partial
unswitching only really applies to switches and to folded branches.
These are very similar to full unrolling and partial unrolling. The
full form is an effective canonicalization, the partial form needs
a complex cost model, cannot be iterated, isn't canonicalizing, and
should be a separate pass that runs very late (much like unrolling).
2) Leverage LLVM's Loop machinery to the fullest. The original unswitch
dates from a time when a great deal of LLVM's loop infrastructure was
missing, ineffective, and/or unreliable. As a consequence, a lot of
complexity was added which we no longer need.
With these two overarching principles, I think we can build a fast and
effective unswitcher that fits in well in the new PM and in the
canonicalization pipeline. Some of the remaining functionality around
partial unswitching may not be relevant today (not many test cases or
benchmarks I can find) but if they are I'd like to add support for them
as a separate layer that runs very late in the pipeline.
Purely to make reviewing and introducing this code more manageable, I've
split this into first a trivial-unswitch-only pass and in the next patch
I'll add support for full non-trivial unswitching against a *fixed*
threshold, exactly like full unrolling. I even plan to re-use the
unrolling thresholds, as these are incredibly similar cost tradeoffs:
we're cloning a loop body in order to end up with simplified control
flow. We should only do that when the total growth is reasonably small.
One of the biggest changes with this pass compared to the previous one
is that previously, each individual trivial exiting edge from a switch
was unswitched separately as a branch. Now, we unswitch the entire
switch at once, with cases going to the various destinations. This lets
us unswitch multiple exiting edges in a single operation and also avoids
numerous extremely bad behaviors, where we would introduce 1000s of
branches to test for thousands of possible values, all of which would
take the exact same exit path bypassing the loop. Now we will use
a switch with 1000s of cases that can be efficiently lowered into
a jumptable. This avoids relying on somehow forming a switch out of the
branches or getting horrible code if that fails for any reason.
Another significant change is that this pass actively updates the CFG
based on unswitching. For trivial unswitching, this is actually very
easy because of the definition of loop simplified form. Doing this makes
the code coming out of loop unswitch dramatically more friendly. We
still should run loop-simplifycfg (at the least) after this to clean up,
but it will have to do a lot less work.
Finally, this pass makes much fewer attempts to simplify instructions
based on the unswitch. Something like loop-instsimplify, instcombine, or
GVN can be used to do increasingly powerful simplifications based on the
now dominating predicate. The old simplifications are things that
something like loop-instsimplify should get today or a very, very basic
loop-instcombine could get. Keeping that logic separate is a big
simplifying technique.
Most of the code in this pass that isn't in the old one has to do with
achieving specific goals:
- Updating the dominator tree as we go
- Unswitching all cases in a switch in a single step.
I think it is still shorter than just the trivial unswitching code in
the old pass despite having this functionality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32409
llvm-svn: 301576
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
Commits were:
"Use WeakVH instead of WeakTrackingVH in AliasSetTracker's UnkownInsts"
"Add a new WeakVH value handle; NFC"
"Rename WeakVH to WeakTrackingVH; NFC"
The changes assumed pointers are 8 byte aligned on all architectures.
llvm-svn: 301429
Summary:
I plan to use WeakVH to mean "nulls itself out on deletion, but does
not track RAUW" in a subsequent commit.
Reviewers: dblaikie, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: arsenm, mehdi_amini, mcrosier, mzolotukhin, jfb, llvm-commits, nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32266
llvm-svn: 301424
This reverts commit r300732. This breaks a few tests.
I think the problem is related to adding more uses of
the condition that don't yet exist at this point.
llvm-svn: 301242
Summary:
Instead of keeping a variable indicating whether there are early exits
in the loop. We keep all the early exits. This improves LICM's ability to
move instructions out of the loop based on is-guaranteed-to-execute.
I am going to update compilation time as well soon.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, efriedma, mkuper
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32433
llvm-svn: 301196
Summary:
In case all predecessor go to a single successor of current BB. We want to fold (not thread).
I failed to update the phi nodes properly in the last patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300657.
Phi nodes values are per predecessor in LLVM.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32400
llvm-svn: 301139
Fixes leaving intermediate flat addressing computations
where a GEP instruction's source is a constant expression.
Still leaves behind a trivial addrspacecast + gep pair that
instcombine is able to handle, which ideally could be folded
here directly.
llvm-svn: 301044
places based on it.
Existing constant hoisting pass will merge a group of contants in a small range
and hoist the const materialization code to the common dominator of their uses.
However, if the uses are all in cold pathes, existing implementation may hoist
the materialization code from cold pathes to a hot place. This may hurt performance.
The patch introduces BFI to the pass and selects the best insertion places based
on it.
The change is controlled by an option consthoist-with-block-frequency which is
off by default for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28962
llvm-svn: 300989
The most common case for a branch condition is
a single use compare. Directly invert the branch
predicate rather than adding a lot of xor i1 true
which the DAG will have to fold later.
This produces nicer to read structurizer output.
This produces some random changes in codegen
due to the DAG swapping branch conditions itself,
and then does a poor job of dealing with those
inverts.
llvm-svn: 300732
Summary: In case all predecessor go to a single successor of current BB. We want to fold (not thread).
Reviewers: efriedma, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: dberlin, majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30869
llvm-svn: 300657
This avoids the confusing 'CS.paramHasAttr(ArgNo + 1, Foo)' pattern.
Previously we were testing return value attributes with index 0, so I
introduced hasReturnAttr() for that use case.
llvm-svn: 300367
It is cleaner to have a callback based system where the logic of
whether an add recurrence is normalized or not lives on IVUsers.
This is one step in a multi-step cleanup.
llvm-svn: 300330
getArithmeticInstrCost(), getShuffleCost(), getCastInstrCost(),
getCmpSelInstrCost(), getVectorInstrCost(), getMemoryOpCost(),
getInterleavedMemoryOpCost() implemented.
Interleaved access vectorization enabled.
BasicTTIImpl::getCastInstrCost() improved to check for legal extending loads,
in which case the cost of the z/sext instruction becomes 0.
Review: Ulrich Weigand, Renato Golin.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29631
llvm-svn: 300052
Summary:
Dead basic blocks may be forming a loop, for which SSA form is
fulfilled, but with a circular def-use chain. LoadCombine could
enter an infinite loop when analysing such dead code. This patch
solves the problem by simply avoiding to analyse all basic blocks
that aren't forward reachable, from function entry, in LoadCombine.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27065
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, chandlerc, grosser, Bigcheese, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: dberlin, zzheng, bjope, grandinj, Ka-Ka, materi, jholewinski, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31032
llvm-svn: 300034
and to expose a handle to represent the actual case rather than having
the iterator return a reference to itself.
All of this allows the iterator to be used with common STL facilities,
standard algorithms, etc.
Doing this exposed some missing facilities in the iterator facade that
I've fixed and required some work to the actual iterator to fully
support the necessary API.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31548
llvm-svn: 300032
Analysis, it has Analysis passes, and once NewGVN is made an Analysis,
this removes the cross dependency from Analysis to Transform/Utils.
NFC.
llvm-svn: 299980
From a user prospective, it forces the use of an annoying nullptr to mark the end of the vararg, and there's not type checking on the arguments.
The variadic template is an obvious solution to both issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31070
llvm-svn: 299949
Module::getOrInsertFunction is using C-style vararg instead of
variadic templates.
From a user prospective, it forces the use of an annoying nullptr
to mark the end of the vararg, and there's not type checking on the
arguments. The variadic template is an obvious solution to both
issues.
llvm-svn: 299925
When allowed, we can hoist a division out of a loop in favor of a
multiplication by the reciprocal. Fixes PR32157.
Patch by vit9696!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30819
llvm-svn: 299911
This re-lands r299875.
I introduced a bug in Clang code responsible for replacing K&R, no
prototype declarations with a real function definition with a prototype.
The bug was here:
// Collect any return attributes from the call.
- if (oldAttrs.hasAttributes(llvm::AttributeList::ReturnIndex))
- newAttrs.push_back(llvm::AttributeList::get(newFn->getContext(),
- oldAttrs.getRetAttributes()));
+ newAttrs.push_back(oldAttrs.getRetAttributes());
Previously getRetAttributes() carried AttributeList::ReturnIndex in its
AttributeList. Now that we return the AttributeSetNode* directly, it no
longer carries that index, and we call this overload with a single node:
AttributeList::get(LLVMContext&, ArrayRef<AttributeSetNode*>)
That aborted with an assertion on x86_32 targets. I added an explicit
triple to the test and added CHECKs to help find issues like this in the
future sooner.
llvm-svn: 299899
LLVM makes several assumptions about address space 0. However,
alloca is presently constrained to always return this address space.
There's no real way to avoid using alloca, so without this
there is no way to opt out of these assumptions.
The problematic assumptions include:
- That the pointer size used for the stack is the same size as
the code size pointer, which is also the maximum sized pointer.
- That 0 is an invalid, non-dereferencable pointer value.
These are problems for AMDGPU because alloca is used to
implement the private address space, which uses a 32-bit
index as the pointer value. Other pointers are 64-bit
and behave more like LLVM's notion of generic address
space. By changing the address space used for allocas,
we can change our generic pointer type to be LLVM's generic
pointer type which does have similar properties.
llvm-svn: 299888
Summary:
AttributeList::get(Fn|Ret|Param)Attributes no longer creates a temporary
AttributeList just to hide the AttributeSetNode type.
I've also added a factory method to create AttributeLists from a
parallel array of AttributeSetNodes. I think this simplifies
construction of AttributeLists when rewriting function prototypes.
Previously we would test if a particular index had attributes, and
conditionally add a temporary attribute list to a vector. Now the
attribute set vector is parallel to the argument vector already that
these passes already construct.
My long term vision is to wrap AttributeSetNode* inside an AttributeSet
type that holds the enum attributes, but that will come in a follow up
change.
I haven't done any performance measurements for this change because
profiling hasn't shown that any of the affected code is hot.
Reviewers: pete, chandlerc, sanjoy, hfinkel
Reviewed By: pete
Subscribers: jfb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31198
llvm-svn: 299875
Summary:
Resolve indirect branch target when possible.
This potentially eliminates more basicblocks and result in better evaluation for phi and other things.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30322
llvm-svn: 299830
Module::getOrInsertFunction is using C-style vararg instead of
variadic templates.
From a user prospective, it forces the use of an annoying nullptr
to mark the end of the vararg, and there's not type checking on the
arguments. The variadic template is an obvious solution to both
issues.
Patch by: Serge Guelton <serge.guelton@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31070
llvm-svn: 299699
memorydefs, not just stores. Along the way, we audit and fixup issues
about how we were tracking memory leaders, and improve the verifier
to notice more memory congruency issues.
llvm-svn: 299682
Summary:
Depends on D30928.
This adds support for coercion of stores and memory instructions that do not require insertion to process.
Another few tests down.
I added the relevant tests from rle.ll
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30929
llvm-svn: 299330
processing the congruence class of the store.
Because we use the stored value of a store as the def, it isn't dead
just because it appears as a def when it comes from a store.
Note: I have not hit any cases with the memory code as it is where
this breaks anything, just because of what memory congruences we
actually allow. In a followup that improves memory congruence,
this bug actually breaks real stuff (but the verifier catches it).
llvm-svn: 299300
Summary:
Triggered by commit r298620: "[LV] Vectorize GEPs".
If we encounter a vector GEP with scalar arguments, we splat the scalar
into a vector of appropriate size before we scatter the argument.
Reviewers: arsenm, mehdi_amini, bkramer
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: bjope, mssimpso, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31416
llvm-svn: 299186
The first variant contains all current transformations except
transforming switches into lookup tables. The second variant
contains all current transformations.
The switch-to-lookup-table conversion results in code that is more
difficult to analyze and optimize by other passes. Most importantly,
it can inhibit Dead Code Elimination. As such it is often beneficial to
only apply this transformation very late. A common example is inlining,
which can often result in range restrictions for the switch expression.
Changes in execution time according to LNT:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/fp-convert +3.03%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -11.20%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/perimeter/perimeter -10.43%
and a couple of smaller changes. For perimeter it also results 2.6%
a smaller binary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30333
llvm-svn: 298799
This moves it to the iterator facade utilities giving it full random
access semantics, etc. It can also now be used with standard algorithms
like std::all_of and std::any_of and range adaptors like llvm::reverse.
Also make the semantics of iterating match what every other iterator
uses and forbid decrementing past the begin iterator. This was used as
a hacky way to work around iterator invalidation. However, every
instance trying to do this failed to actually avoid touching invalid
iterators despite the clear documentation that the removed and all
subsequent iterators become invalid including the end iterator. So I've
added a return of the next iterator to removeCase and rewritten the
loops that were doing this to correctly follow the iterator pattern of
either incremneting or removing and assigning fresh values to the
iterator and the end.
In one case we were trying to go backwards to make this cleaner but it
doesn't actually work. I've made that code match the code we use
everywhere else to remove cases as we iterate. This changes the order of
cases in one test output and I moved that test to CHECK-DAG so it
wouldn't care -- the order isn't semantically meaningful anyways.
llvm-svn: 298791
Summary:
This class is a list of AttributeSetNodes corresponding the function
prototype of a call or function declaration. This class used to be
called ParamAttrListPtr, then AttrListPtr, then AttributeSet. It is
typically accessed by parameter and return value index, so
"AttributeList" seems like a more intuitive name.
Rename AttributeSetImpl to AttributeListImpl to follow suit.
It's useful to rename this class so that we can rename AttributeSetNode
to AttributeSet later. AttributeSet is the set of attributes that apply
to a single function, argument, or return value.
Reviewers: sanjoy, javed.absar, chandlerc, pete
Reviewed By: pete
Subscribers: pete, jholewinski, arsenm, dschuff, mehdi_amini, jfb, nhaehnle, sbc100, void, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31102
llvm-svn: 298393
NFCI.
Summary:
This is ground work for the changes to enable coercion in NewGVN.
GVN doesn't care if they end up constant because it eliminates as it goes.
NewGVN cares.
IRBuilder and ConstantFolder deliberately present the same interface,
so we use this to our advantage to templatize our functions to make
them either constant only or not.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30928
llvm-svn: 298262
Summary: This Idom check seems unnecessary. The immediate children of a node on the Dominator Tree should always be the IDom of its immediate children in this case.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, dberlin
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: dberlin, davide, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26954
llvm-svn: 298232
Summary:
In case we are loading on a phi-load in SimplifyPartiallyRedundantLoad.
Try to phi translate it into incoming values in the predecessors before
we search for available loads.
This needs https://reviews.llvm.org/D30524
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy, efriedma, dberlin, rengolin
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: junbuml, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30543
llvm-svn: 298217
Summary:
iterateOnFunction creates a ReversePostOrderTraversal object which does a post order traversal in its constructor and stores the results in an internal vector. Iteration over it just reads from the internal vector in reverse order.
The GVN code seems to be unaware of this and iterates over ReversePostOrderTraversal object and makes a copy of the vector into a local vector. (I think at one point in time we used a DFS here instead which would have required the local vector).
The net affect of this is that we have two vectors containing the basic block list. As I didn't want to expose the implementation detail of ReversePostOrderTraversal's constructor to GVN, I've changed the code to do an explicit post order traversal storing into the local vector and then reverse iterate over that.
I've also removed the reserve(256) since the ReversePostOrderTraversal wasn't doing that. I can add it back if we thinks it important. Though it seemed weird that it wasn't based on the size of the function.
Reviewers: davide, anemet, dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31084
llvm-svn: 298191
Loop unswitching can be extremely harmful for a SIMT target. In case
if hoisted condition is not uniform a SIMT machine will execute both
clones of a loop sequentially. Therefor LoopUnswitch checks if the
condition is non-divergent.
Since DivergenceAnalysis adds an expensive PostDominatorTree analysis
not needed for non-SIMT targets a new option is added to avoid unneded
analysis initialization. The method getAnalysisUsage is called when
TargetTransformInfo is not yet available and we cannot use it here.
For that reason a new field DivergentTarget is added to PassManagerBuilder
to control the behavior and set this field from a target.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30796
llvm-svn: 298104
We were not handling getelemenptr instructions of vector type before.
Since getelemenptr instructions for vector types follow the same rule as
getelementptr instructions for non-vector types, we can just handle them
in the same way.
llvm-svn: 298028
Summary:
In commit r289548 ([ADCE] Add code to remove dead branches) a redundant loop
nest was accidentally introduced, which implements exactly the same
functionality as has already been available right after. This redundancy has
been found when inspecting the ADCE code in the context of our recent
discussions on post-dominator modeling. This redundant code was also eliminated
by r296535 (which sparked the discussion), but only as part of a larger semantic
change of the post-dominance modeling. As this redundency in [ADCE] is really
just an oversight completely independent of the post-dominance changes under
discussion, we remove this redundancy independently.
Reviewers: dberlin, david2050
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31023
llvm-svn: 297929
Summary:
These are the functions used to determine when values of loads can be
extracted from stores, etc, and to perform the necessary insertions to
do this. There are no changes to the functions themselves except
reformatting, and one case where memdep was informed of a removed load
(which was pushed into the caller).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30478
llvm-svn: 297438
Summary: Use AA when scanning to find an available load value.
Reviewers: rengolin, mcrosier, hfinkel, trentxintong, dberlin
Reviewed By: rengolin, dberlin
Subscribers: aemerson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30352
llvm-svn: 297284
Recommitting patch which was previously reverted in r297159. These
changes should address the casting issues.
The original patch enables dbg.value intrinsics to be attached to
newly inserted PHI nodes.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30701
llvm-svn: 297269
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.
This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243
llvm-svn: 296897
and also "clang-format GenericDomTreeConstruction.h, since the current
formatting makes it look like their is a bug in the loop indentation, and there
is not"
This reverts commit r296535.
There are still some open design questions which I would like to discuss. I
revert this for Daniel (who gave the OK), as he is on vacation.
llvm-svn: 296812
Now that terminators can be EH pads, this code needs to iterate over the
immediate dominators of the EH pad to find a valid insertion point.
Fix for PR32107
Patch by Robert Olliff!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30511
llvm-svn: 296698
Summary:
Currently, our post-dom tree tries to ignore and remove the effects of
infinite loops. It fails miserably at this, because it tries to do it
ahead of time, and thus can only detect self-loops, and any other type
of infinite loop, it pretends doesn't exist at all.
This can, in a bunch of cases, lead to wrong answers and a completely
empty post-dom tree.
Wrong answer:
```
declare void foo()
define internal void @f() {
entry:
br i1 undef, label %bb35, label %bb3.i
bb3.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bb3.i
bb35.loopexit3:
br label %bb35
bb35:
ret void
}
```
We get:
```
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,7}
[2] %bb35 {1,6}
[3] %bb35.loopexit3 {2,3}
[3] %entry {4,5}
```
This is a trivial modification of the testcase for PR 6047
Note that we pretend bb3.i doesn't exist.
We also pretend that bb35 post-dominates entry.
While it's true that it does not exit in a theoretical sense, it's not
really helpful to try to ignore the effect and pretend that bb35
post-dominates entry. Worse, we pretend the infinite loop does
nothing (it's usually considered a side-effect), and doesn't even
exist, even when it calls a function. Sadly, this makes it impossible
to use when you are trying to move code safely. All compilers also
create virtual or real single exit nodes (including us), and connect
infinite loops there (which this patch does). In fact, others have
worked around our behavior here, to the point of building their own
post-dom trees:
https://zneak.github.io/fcd/2016/02/17/structuring.html and pointing
out the region infrastructure is near-useless for them with postdom in
this state :(
Completely empty post-dom tree:
```
define void @spam() #0 {
bb:
br label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb1, %bb
br label %bb1
bb2: ; No predecessors!
ret void
}
```
Printing analysis 'Post-Dominator Tree Construction' for function 'foo':
=============================--------------------------------
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,1}
:(
(note that even if you ignore the effects of infinite loops, bb2
should be present as an exit node that post-dominates nothing).
This patch changes post-dom to properly handle infinite loops and does
root finding during calculation to prevent empty tress in such cases.
We match gcc's (and the canonical theoretical) behavior for infinite
loops (find the backedge, connect it to the exit block).
Testcases coming as soon as i finish running this on a ton of random graphs :)
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: bryant, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29705
llvm-svn: 296535
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
llvm-svn: 296345
Summary:
BranchInst, SwitchInst (with non-default case) with Undef as input is not
possible at this point. As we always default-fold terminator to one target in
ResolvedUndefsIn and set the input accordingly.
So we should only have constantint/blockaddress here.
If ConstantFoldTerminator fails, that could mean 2 things.
1. ConstantFoldTerminator is doing something unexpected, i.e. not folding on constantint
or blockaddress and not making blocks that should be dead dead.
2. This is not a terminator on constantint or blockaddress. Its on a constant or
overdefined, then this block should not be dead.
In both cases, we should assert.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30381
llvm-svn: 296281
LoopUnswitch/simplify-with-nonvalness.ll is the test case for this.
The LIC has 2 users and deleting the 1st user when it can be simplified
invalidated the iterator for the 2nd user.
llvm-svn: 296069
Summary: In case we do not know what the condition is in an unswitched loop, but we know its definitely NOT a known constant. We can perform simplifcations based on this information.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chenli, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28968
llvm-svn: 296041
While not CVP's fault, this caused miscompiles (PR31181). Reverting
until those are resolved.
(This also reverts the follow-ups r288154 and r288161 which removed the
flag.)
llvm-svn: 296030
In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
llvm-svn: 296003
Summary:
Depends on D29606 and D29682
Makes us pass GVN's edge.ll (we also will pass a few other testcases
they just need cleaning up).
Thoughts on the Predicate* hiearchy of classes especially welcome :)
(it's not clear to me how best to organize it, and currently, the getBlock* seems ... uglier than maybe wasting a field somewhere or something).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29747
llvm-svn: 295889
Add updater to passes that now need it.
Move around code in MemorySSA to expose needed functions.
Summary: Mostly cleanup
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30221
llvm-svn: 295887
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
This enables peeling of loops with low dynamic iteration count by default,
when profile information is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27734
llvm-svn: 295796
The new method introduced under "-lsr-exp-narrow" option (currenlty set to true).
Summary:
The method is based on registers number mathematical expectation and should be
generally closer to optimal solution.
Please see details in comments to
"LSRInstance::NarrowSearchSpaceByDeletingCostlyFormulas()" function
(in lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D29862
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 295704
Summary: This begins using the predicateinfo pass in NewGVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29682
llvm-svn: 295583
Summary:
JumpThreading for guards feature has been reverted at https://reviews.llvm.org/rL295200
due to the following problem: the feature used the following algorithm for detection of
diamond patters:
1. Find a block with 2 predecessors;
2. Check that these blocks have a common single parent;
3. Check that the parent's terminator is a branch instruction.
The problem is that these checks are insufficient. They may pass for a non-diamond
construction in case if those two predecessors are actually the same block. This may
happen if parent's terminator is a br (either conditional or unconditional) to a block
that ends with "switch" instruction with exactly two branches going to one block.
This patch re-enables the JumpThreading for guards and fixes this issue by adding the
check that those found predecessors are actually different blocks. This guarantees that
parent's terminator is a conditional branch with exactly 2 different successors, which
is now ensured by assertions. It also adds two more tests for this situation (with parent's
terminator being a conditional and an unconditional branch).
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: anna, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30036
llvm-svn: 295410
In rL294814, we allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from loops
other than current loop. This is good for the case when induction variable
of outerloop being used in expr in innerloop. But it is very bad to allow
such Reg from sibling loop because we may need to add lsr.iv in other sibling
loops when scev expanding those SCEVAddRecExpr type exprs. For the testcase
below, one loop can be inserted with a bunch of lsr.iv because of LSR for
other loops.
// The induction variable j from a loop in the middle will have initial
// value generated from previous sibling loop and exit value used by its
// next sibling loop.
void goo(long i, long j);
long cond;
void foo(long N) {
long i = 0;
long j = 0;
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
}
The fix is to only allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from current
loop or its parents.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30021
llvm-svn: 295378
Summary:
Function isCompatibleIVType is already used as a guard before the call to
SE.getMinusSCEV(OperExpr, PrevExpr);
in LSRInstance::ChainInstruction. getMinusSCEV requires the expressions
to be of the same type, so we now consider two pointers with different
address spaces to be incompatible, since it is possible that the pointers
in fact have different sizes.
Reviewers: qcolombet, eli.friedman
Reviewed By: qcolombet
Subscribers: nhaehnle, Ka-Ka, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29885
llvm-svn: 295033
Extend our store promotion code to deal with unordered atomic accesses. Ordered atomics continue to be unhandled.
Most of the change is straight-forward, the only complicated bit is in the reasoning around mixing of atomic and non-atomic memory access. Rather than trying to reason about the complex semantics in these cases, I simply disallowed promotion when both atomic and non-atomic accesses are present. This is conservatively correct.
It seems really tempting to just promote all access to atomics, but the original accesses might have been conditional. Since we can't lower an arbitrary atomic type, it might not be safe to promote all access to atomic. Consider a loop like the following:
while(b) {
load i128 ...
if (can lower i128 atomic)
store atomic i128 ...
else
store i128
}
It could be there's no race on the location and thus the code is perfectly well defined even if we can't lower a i128 atomically.
It's not clear we need to be this conservative - arguably the program above is brocken since it can't be lowered unless the branch is folded - but I didn't want to have to fix any fallout which might result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15592
llvm-svn: 295015
Davide Italiano