This is a simple pass that flattens nested loops. The intention is to optimise
loop nests like this, which together access an array linearly:
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < M; ++j)
f(A[i*M+j]);
into one loop:
for (int i = 0; i < (N*M); ++i)
f(A[i]);
It can also flatten loops where the induction variables are not used in the
loop. This can help with codesize and runtime, especially on simple cpus
without advanced branch prediction.
This is only worth flattening if the induction variables are only used in an
expression like i*M+j. If they had any other uses, we would have to insert a
div/mod to reconstruct the original values, so this wouldn't be profitable.
This partially fixes PR40581 as this pass triggers on one of the two cases. I
will follow up on this to learn LoopFlatten a few more (small) tricks. Please
note that LoopFlatten is not yet enabled by default.
Patch by Oliver Stannard, with minor tweaks from Dave Green and myself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42365
This pass is like DeadCodeEliminationPass, but only does one pass
through a function instead of iterating on users of eliminated
instructions.
DeadCodeEliminationPass should be used in all cases.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87933
This patch is a first draft of a new pass that adds a more flexible way
to eliminate compares based on more complex constraints collected from
dominating conditions.
In particular, it aims at simplifying conditions of the forms below
using a forward propagation approach, rather than instcomine-style
ad-hoc backwards walking of def-use chains.
if (x < y)
if (y < z)
if (x < z) <- simplify
or
if (x + 2 < y)
if (x + 1 < y) <- simplify assuming no wraps
The general approach is to collect conditions and blocks, sort them by
dominance and then iterate over the sorted list. Conditions are turned
into a linear inequality and add it to a system containing the linear
inequalities that hold on entry to the block. For blocks, we check each
compare against the system and see if it is implied by the constraints
in the system.
We also keep a stack of processed conditions and remove conditions from
the stack and the constraint system once they go out-of-scope (= do not
dominate the current block any longer).
Currently there still are the least the following areas for improvements
* Currently large unsigned constants cannot be added to the system
(coefficients must be represented as integers)
* The way constraints are managed currently is not very optimized.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84547
As discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143801.html.
Currently no users outside of unit tests.
Replace all instances in tests of -constprop with -instsimplify.
Notable changes in tests:
* vscale.ll - @llvm.sadd.sat.nxv16i8 is evaluated by instsimplify, use a fake intrinsic instead
* InsertElement.ll - insertelement undef is removed by instsimplify in @insertelement_undef
llvm/test/Transforms/ConstProp moved to llvm/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/ConstProp
Reviewed By: lattner, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85159
This patch adds a new variant of the matrix lowering pass that only does
a minimal lowering and only depends on TTI. The main purpose of this pass
is to have a pass with minimal dependencies to run as part of the backend
pipeline.
At the moment, the only difference to the regular lowering pass is that it
does not support remarks. But in subsequent patches add support for tiling
to the lowering pass which will require more analysis, which we do not want
to run in the backend, as the lowering should happen in the middle-end in
practice and running it in the backend is mostly for convenience when
running llc.
Reviewers: anemet, Gerolf, efriedma, hfinkel
Reviewed By: anemet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76867
This reverts commit 1067d3e176,
which reverted commit b2018198c3,
because it introduced a Dependency Cycle between Transforms/Scalar and
Transforms/Utils.
So let's just move SimplifyCFGOptions.h into Utils/, thus avoiding
the cycle.
This reverts commit b2018198c3.
This commit introduced a Dependency Cycle between Transforms/Scalar and
Transforms/Utils. Transforms/Scalar already depends on Transforms/Utils,
so if SimplifyCFGOptions.h is moved to Scalar, and Utils/Local.h still
depends on it, we have a cycle.
Taking so many parameters is simply unmaintainable.
We don't want to include the entire llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h into
llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h so i've split SimplifyCFGOptions into
it's own header.
Summary:
Add a RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs to BasicBlockUtils with the
goal to remove redundant dbg intrinsics from a basic block.
This can be useful after various transforms, as it might
be simpler to do a filtering of dbg intrinsics after the
transform than during the transform.
One primary use case would be to replace a too aggressive
removal done by MergeBlockIntoPredecessor, seen at loop
rotate (not done in this patch).
The elimination algorithm currently focuses on dbg.value
intrinsics and is doing two iterations over the BB.
First we iterate backward starting at the last instruction
in the BB. Whenever a consecutive sequence of dbg.value
instructions are found we keep the last dbg.value for
each variable found (variable fragments are identified
using the {DILocalVariable, FragmentInfo, inlinedAt}
triple as given by the DebugVariable helper class).
Next we iterate forward starting at the first instruction
in the BB. Whenever we find a dbg.value describing a
DebugVariable (identified by {DILocalVariable, inlinedAt})
we save the {DIValue, DIExpression} that describes that
variables value. But if the variable already was mapped
to the same {DIValue, DIExpression} pair we instead drop
the second dbg.value.
To ease the process of making lit tests for this utility a
new pass is introduced called RedundantDbgInstElimination.
It can be executed by opt using -redundant-dbg-inst-elim.
Reviewers: aprantl, jmorse, vsk
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71478
This is the first patch adding an initial set of matrix intrinsics and a
corresponding lowering pass. This has been discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136240.html
The first patch introduces four new intrinsics (transpose, multiply,
columnwise load and store) and a LowerMatrixIntrinsics pass, that
lowers those intrinsics to vector operations.
Matrixes are embedded in a 'flat' vector (e.g. a 4 x 4 float matrix
embedded in a <16 x float> vector) and the intrinsics take the dimension
information as parameters. Those parameters need to be ConstantInt.
For the memory layout, we initially assume column-major, but in the RFC
we also described how to extend the intrinsics to support row-major as
well.
For the initial lowering, we split the input of the intrinsics into a
set of column vectors, transform those column vectors and concatenate
the result columns to a flat result vector.
This allows us to lower the intrinsics without any shape propagation, as
mentioned in the RFC. In follow-up patches, we plan to submit the
following improvements:
* Shape propagation to eliminate the embedding/splitting for each
intrinsic.
* Fused & tiled lowering of multiply and other operations.
* Optimization remarks highlighting matrix expressions and costs.
* Generate loops for operations on large matrixes.
* More general block processing for operation on large vectors,
exploiting shape information.
We would like to add dedicated transpose, columnwise load and store
intrinsics, even though they are not strictly necessary. For example, we
could instead emit a large shufflevector instruction instead of the
transpose. But we expect that to
(1) become unwieldy for larger matrixes (even for 16x16 matrixes,
the resulting shufflevector masks would be huge),
(2) risk instcombine making small changes, causing us to fail to
detect the transpose, preventing better lowerings
For the load/store, we are additionally planning on exploiting the
intrinsics for better alias analysis.
Reviewers: anemet, Gerolf, reames, hfinkel, andrew.w.kaylor, efriedma, rengolin
Reviewed By: anemet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70456
Add a pass to lower is.constant and objectsize intrinsics
This pass lowers is.constant and objectsize intrinsics not simplified by
earlier constant folding, i.e. if the object given is not constant or if
not using the optimized pass chain. The result is recursively simplified
and constant conditionals are pruned, so that dead blocks are removed
even for -O0. This allows inline asm blocks with operand constraints to
work all the time.
The new pass replaces the existing lowering in the codegen-prepare pass
and fallbacks in SDAG/GlobalISEL and FastISel. The latter now assert
on the intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65280
llvm-svn: 374784
This pass lowers is.constant and objectsize intrinsics not simplified by
earlier constant folding, i.e. if the object given is not constant or if
not using the optimized pass chain. The result is recursively simplified
and constant conditionals are pruned, so that dead blocks are removed
even for -O0. This allows inline asm blocks with operand constraints to
work all the time.
The new pass replaces the existing lowering in the codegen-prepare pass
and fallbacks in SDAG/GlobalISEL and FastISel. The latter now assert
on the intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65280
llvm-svn: 374743
This allows later passes (in particular InstCombine) to optimize more
cases.
One that's important to us is `memcmp(p, q, constant) < 0` and memcmp(p, q, constant) > 0.
llvm-svn: 364412
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358607
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358543
Introduces a pass that provides default lowering strategy for the
`experimental.widenable.condition` intrinsic, replacing all its uses with
`i1 true`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56096
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 352739
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
Summary:
Adds LLVMAddUnifyFunctionExitNodesPass to expose
createUnifyFunctionExitNodesPass to the C and OCaml APIs.
Reviewers: whitequark, deadalnix
Reviewed By: whitequark
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52212
llvm-svn: 342476
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
and diretory.
Also cleans up all the associated naming to be consistent and removes
the public access to the pass ID which was unused in LLVM.
Also runs clang-format over parts that changed, which generally cleans
up a bunch of formatting.
This is in preparation for doing some internal cleanups to the pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47352
llvm-svn: 336028
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
The idea is to have a pass which performs the same transformation as GuardWidening, but can be run within a loop pass manager without disrupting the pass manager structure. As demonstrated by the test case, this doesn't quite get there because of issues with post dom, but it gives a good step in the right direction. the motivation is purely to reduce compile time since we can now preserve locality during the loop walk.
This patch only includes a legacy pass. A follow up will add a new style pass as well.
llvm-svn: 331060
(notionally Scalar.h is part of libLLVMScalarOpts, so it shouldn't be
included by InstCombine which doesn't/shouldn't need to depend on
ScalarOpts)
llvm-svn: 330669
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
LoopInstSimplify is unused and untested. Reading through the commit
history the pass also seems to have a high maintenance burden.
It would be best to retire the pass for now. It should be easy to
recover if we need something similar in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053
llvm-svn: 327329
Summary:
The port is nearly straightforward.
The only complication is related to the analyses handling,
since one of the analyses used in this module pass is domtree,
which is a function analysis. That requires asking for the results
of each function and disallows a single interface for run-on-module
pass action.
Decided to copy-paste the main body of this pass.
Most of its code is requesting analyses anyway, so not that much
of a copy-paste.
The rest of the code movement is to transform all the implementation
helper functions like stripNonValidData into non-member statics.
Extended all the related LLVM tests with new-pass-manager use.
No failures.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: skatkov, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41162
llvm-svn: 320796
Clang implements the -finstrument-functions flag inherited from GCC, which
inserts calls to __cyg_profile_func_{enter,exit} on function entry and exit.
This is useful for getting a trace of how the functions in a program are
executed. Normally, the calls remain even if a function is inlined into another
function, but it is useful to be able to turn this off for users who are
interested in a lower-level trace, i.e. one that reflects what functions are
called post-inlining. (We use this to generate link order files for Chromium.)
LLVM already has a pass for inserting similar instrumentation calls to
mcount(), which it does after inlining. This patch renames and extends that
pass to handle calls both to mcount and the cygprofile functions, before and/or
after inlining as controlled by function attributes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39287
llvm-svn: 318195
Sjoerd Meijer