Fix PR36484, as suggested:
<quote>
during moves, mark the direct users of the erased things that were phis as "not to be optimized"
<quote>
llvm-svn: 329621
Summary: @llvm.icall.branch.funnel is musttail with variable number of
arguments. After inlining current backend can't separate call targets from call
arguments.
Reviewers: pcc
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45116
llvm-svn: 329235
Summary:
Clang's __builtin_operator_new/delete was recently taught about the aligned allocation overloads (r328134). This patch makes LLVM aware of them as well.
This allows the compiler to perform certain optimizations including eliding new/delete calls.
Reviewers: rsmith, majnemer, dblaikie, vsk, bkramer
Reviewed By: bkramer
Subscribers: ckennelly, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44769
llvm-svn: 329218
Summary:
Clang's __builtin_operator_new/delete was recently taught about the aligned allocation overloads (r328134). This patch makes LLVM aware of them as well.
This allows the compiler to perform certain optimizations including eliding new/delete calls.
Reviewers: rsmith, majnemer, dblaikie, vsk, bkramer
Reviewed By: bkramer
Subscribers: ckennelly, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44769
llvm-svn: 329215
This patch teaches SCEV how to prove implications for SCEVUnknown nodes that are Phis.
If we need to prove `Pred` for `LHS, RHS`, and `LHS` is a Phi with possible incoming values
`L1, L2, ..., LN`, then if we prove `Pred` for `(L1, RHS), (L2, RHS), ..., (LN, RHS)` then we can also
prove it for `(LHS, RHS)`. If both `LHS` and `RHS` are Phis from the same block, it is sufficient
to prove the predicate for values that come from the same predecessor block.
The typical case that it handles is that we sometimes need to prove that `Phi(Len, Len - 1) >= 0`
given that `Len > 0`. The new logic was added to `isImpliedViaOperations` and only uses it and
non-recursive reasoning to prove the facts we need, so it should not hurt compile time a lot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44001
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 329150
Summary:
If the load/extractelement/extractvalue instructions are not originally
consecutive, the SLP vectorizer is unable to vectorize them. Patch
allows reordering of such instructions.
Patch does not support reordering of the repeated instruction, this must
be handled in the separate patch.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper, Ayal, ashahid
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43776
llvm-svn: 329085
The patch changes the usage of dominate to properlyDominate
to satisfy the condition !(a < a) while using std::max.
It is actually NFC due to set data structure is used to keep
the Loops and no two identical loops can be in collection.
So in reality there is no difference between usage of
dominate and properlyDominate in this particular case.
However it might be changed so it is better to fix it.
llvm-svn: 329051
Current implementation of `computeExitLimit` has a big piece of code
the only purpose of which is to prove that after the execution of this
block the latch will be executed. What it currently checks is actually a
subset of situations where the exiting block dominates latch.
This patch replaces all these checks for simple particular cases with
domination check over loop's latch which is the only necessary condition
of taking the exiting block into consideration. This change allows to
calculate exact loop taken count for simple loops like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (cond) {...} else {...}
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44677
Reviewed By: efriedma
llvm-svn: 329047
Summary:
If the load/extractelement/extractvalue instructions are not originally
consecutive, the SLP vectorizer is unable to vectorize them. Patch
allows reordering of such instructions.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper, Ayal, ashahid
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43776
llvm-svn: 328980
Summary:
r327219 added wrappers to std::sort which randomly shuffle the container before sorting.
This will help in uncovering non-determinism caused due to undefined sorting
order of objects having the same key.
To make use of that infrastructure we need to invoke llvm::sort instead of std::sort.
Note: This patch is one of a series of patches to replace *all* std::sort to llvm::sort.
Refer D44363 for a list of all the required patches.
Reviewers: sanjoy, dexonsmith, hfinkel, RKSimon
Reviewed By: dexonsmith
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44944
llvm-svn: 328925
Summary:
Useful to selectively disable importing into specific modules for
debugging/triaging/workarounds.
Reviewers: eraman
Subscribers: inglorion, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45062
llvm-svn: 328909
Eli pointed out that variadic functions are totally a thing, so this
assert is incorrect.
No test-case is provided, since the only way this assert fires is if a
specific DenseMap falls back to doing `isEqual` checks, and that seems
fairly brittle (and requires a pyramid of growing
`call void (i8, ...) @varargs(i8 0)`).
llvm-svn: 328755
We use a `DenseMap<MemoryLocOrCall, MemlocStackInfo>` to keep track of
prior work when optimizing uses in MemorySSA. Because we weren't
accounting for callsite arguments in either the hash code or equality
tests for `MemoryLocOrCall`s, we optimized uses too aggressively in
some rare cases.
Fix by Daniel Berlin.
Should fix PR36883.
llvm-svn: 328748
Summary:
This is an NFC refactoring of the OptBisect class to split it into an optional pass gate interface used by LLVMContext and the Optional Pass Bisector (OptBisect) used for debugging of optional passes.
This refactoring is needed for D44464, which introduces setOptPassGate() method to allow implementations other than OptBisect.
Patch by Yevgeny Rouban.
Reviewers: andrew.w.kaylor, fedor.sergeev, vsk, dberlin, Eugene.Zelenko, reames, skatkov
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44821
llvm-svn: 328637
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 328611
This patch teaches `computeConstantDifference` handle calculation of constant
difference between `(X + C1)` and `(X + C2)` which is `(C2 - C1)`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43759
Reviewed By: anna
llvm-svn: 328609
MemorySSAUpdater::getPreviousDefRecursive is a recursive algorithm, for
each block, it computes the previous definition for each predecessor,
then takes those definitions and combines them. But currently it doesn't
remember results which it already computed; this means it can visit the
same block multiple times, which adds up to exponential time overall.
To fix this, this patch adds a cache. If we computed the result for a
block already, we don't need to visit it again because we'll come up
with the same result. Well, unless we RAUW a MemoryPHI; in that case,
the TrackingVH will be updated automatically.
This matches the original source paper for this algorithm.
The testcase isn't really a test for the bug, but it adds coverage for
the case where tryRemoveTrivialPhi erases an existing PHI node. (It's
hard to write a good regression test for a performance issue.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44715
llvm-svn: 328577
Implement TTI interface for targets to indicate that the LSR should give
priority to post-incrementing addressing modes.
Combination of patches by Sebastian Pop and Brendon Cahoon.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44758
llvm-svn: 328490
Summary:
Revert r325687 workaround for PR36032 since
a fix was committed in r326154.
Reviewers: sbaranga
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D44768
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
<evgeny.v.stupachenko@intel.com>
llvm-svn: 328257
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
Most basic possible test for the logic used by LICM.
Also contains a speculative build fix for compiles which complain about a definition of a stuct K; followed by a declaration as class K;
llvm-svn: 328058
As suggested in the original review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524), use an annotation style printer instead.
Note: The switch from -analyze to -disable-output in tests was driven by the fact that seems to be the idiomatic style used in annoation passes. I tried to keep both working, but the old style pass API for printers really doesn't make this easy. It invokes (runOnFunction, print(Module)) repeatedly. I decided the extra state wasn't worth it given the old pass manager is going away soonish anyway.
llvm-svn: 328015
Many of our loop passes make use of so called "must execute" or "guaranteed to execute" facts to prove the legality of code motion. The basic notion is that we know (by assumption) an instruction didn't fault at it's original location, so if the location we move it to is strictly post dominated by the original, then we can't have introduced a new fault.
At the moment, the testing for this logic is somewhat adhoc and done mostly through LICM. Since I'm working on that code, I want to improve the testing. This patch is the first step in that direction. It doesn't actually test the variant used by the loop passes - I need to move that to the Analysis library first - but instead exercises an alternate implementation used by SCEV. (I plan on merging both implementations.)
Note: I'll be replacing the printing logic within this with an annotation based version in the near future. Anna suggested this in review, and it seems like a strictly better format.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524
llvm-svn: 328004
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
llvm-svn: 327822
As shown in the code comment, we don't need all of 'fast',
but we do need reassoc + nsz + nnan.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43765
llvm-svn: 327796
a long time.
The key thing is that we need to create value handles for every function
that we create a `FunctionInfo` object around. Without this, when that
function is deleted we can end up creating a new function that collides
with its address and look up a stale AA result. With that AA result we
can in turn miscompile code in ways that break.
This is seriously one of the most absurd miscompiles I've seen. It only
reproduced for us recently and only when building a very large server
with both ThinLTO and PGO.
A *HUGE* shout out to Wei Mi who tracked all of this down and came up
with this patch. I'm just landing it because I happened to still by at
a computer.
He or I can work on crafting a test case to hit this (now that we know
what to target) but it'll take a while, and we've been chasing this for
a long time and need it fix Right Now.
llvm-svn: 327761
This matcher implementation appears to be slightly more efficient than
the generic constant check that it is replacing because every use was
for matching FP patterns, but the previous code would check int and
pointer type nulls too.
llvm-svn: 327627
From the LangRef definition for frem:
"The value produced is the floating-point remainder of the two operands.
This is the same output as a libm ‘fmod‘ function, but without any
possibility of setting errno. The remainder has the same sign as the
dividend. This instruction is assumed to execute in the default
floating-point environment."
llvm-svn: 327626
Methods `computeExitLimitFromCondCached` and `computeExitLimitFromCondImpl` take
true and false branches as parameters and only use them for asserts and for identifying
whether true/false branch belongs to the loop (which can be done once earlier). This fact
complicates generalization of exit limit computation logic on guards because the guards
don't have blocks to which they go in case of failure explicitly.
The motivation of this patch is that currently this part of SCEV knows nothing about guards
and only works with explicit branches. As result, it fails to prove that a loop
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
guard(i < 10);
exits after 10th iteration, while in the equivalent example
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
if (i >= 10) break;
SCEV easily proves this fact. We are going to change it in near future, and this is why
we need to make these methods operate on more abstract level.
This patch refactors this code to get rid of these parameters as meaningless and prepare
ground for teaching these methods to work with guards as well as they work with explicit
branching instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44419
llvm-svn: 327615
As shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27151
...the existing fold could miscompile when X is NaN.
The fold was also dependent on 'ninf' but that's not necessary.
From IEEE-754 (with default rounding which we can assume for these opcodes):
"When the sum of two operands with opposite signs (or the difference of two
operands with like signs) is exactly zero, the sign of that sum (or difference)
shall be +0...However, x + x = x − (−x) retains the same sign as x even when
x is zero."
llvm-svn: 327575
George Burgess IV