As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Currently merge conditional stores can't handle cases where PostBB (the block we need to move the store to) has more than 2 predecessors.
This patch removes that restriction by creating a new block with only the 2 predecessors we care about and an unconditional branch to the original block. This provides a place to put the store.
Reviewers: efriedma, jmolloy, ABataev
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39760
llvm-svn: 329142
Currently we choose PostBB as the single successor of QFB, but its possible that QTB's single successor is QFB which would make QFB the correct choice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32323
llvm-svn: 300992
One potential way to make InstCombine (very slightly?) faster is to recycle instructions
when possible instead of creating new ones. It's not explicitly stated AFAIK, but we don't
consider this an "InstSimplify". We could, however, make a new layer to house transforms
like this if that makes InstCombine more manageable (just throwing out an idea; not sure
how much opportunity is actually here).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31863
llvm-svn: 300067
In conditional store merging, we were creating PHIs when we didn't
need to. If the value to be predicated isn't defined in the block
we're predicating, then it doesn't need a PHI at all (because we only
deal with triangles and diamonds, any value not in the predicated BB
must dominate the predicated BB).
This fixes a large code size increase in some benchmarks in a popular embedded benchmark suite.
llvm-svn: 255489
We can often end up with conditional stores that cannot be speculated. They can come from fairly simple, idiomatic code:
if (c & flag1)
*a = x;
if (c & flag2)
*a = y;
...
There is no dominating or post-dominating store to a, so it is not legal to move the store unconditionally to the end of the sequence and cache the intermediate result in a register, as we would like to.
It is, however, legal to merge the stores together and do the store once:
tmp = undef;
if (c & flag1)
tmp = x;
if (c & flag2)
tmp = y;
if (c & flag1 || c & flag2)
*a = tmp;
The real power in this optimization is that it allows arbitrary length ladders such as these to be completely and trivially if-converted. The typical code I'd expect this to trigger on often uses binary-AND with constants as the condition (as in the above example), which means the ending condition can simply be truncated into a single binary-AND too: 'if (c & (flag1|flag2))'. As in the general case there are bitwise operators here, the ladder can often be optimized further too.
This optimization involves potentially increasing register pressure. Even in the simplest case, the lifetime of the first predicate is extended. This can be elided in some cases such as using binary-AND on constants, but not in the general case. Threading 'tmp' through all branches can also increase register pressure.
The optimization as in this patch is enabled by default but kept in a very conservative mode. It will only optimize if it thinks the resultant code should be if-convertable, and additionally if it can thread 'tmp' through at least one existing PHI, so it will only ever in the worst case create one more PHI and extend the lifetime of a predicate.
This doesn't trigger much in LNT, unfortunately, but it does trigger in a big way in a third party test suite.
llvm-svn: 252051
Eric Christopher