As a reminder, a "widenable branch" is the pattern "br i1 (and i1 X, WC()), label %taken, label %untaken" where "WC" is the widenable condition intrinsics. The semantics of such a branch (derived from the semantics of WC) is that a new condition can be added into the condition arbitrarily without violating legality.
Broaden the definition in two ways:
Allow swapped operands to the br (and X, WC()) form
Allow widenable branch w/trivial condition (i.e. true) which takes form of br i1 WC()
The former is just general robustness (e.g. for X = non-instruction this is what instcombine produces). The later is specifically important as partial unswitching of a widenable range check produces exactly this form above the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70502
This code has never been enabled. While it is tested, it's complicating some refactoring. If we decide to re-implement this, doing it in SimplifyCFG would probably make more sense anyways.
With the widenable condition construct, we have the ability to reason about branches which can be 'widened' (i.e. made to fail more often). We've got a couple o transforms which leverage this. This patch just cleans up the API a bit.
This is prep work for generalizing our definition of a widenable branch slightly. At the moment "br i1 (and A, wc()), ..." is considered widenable, but oddly, neither "br i1 (and wc(), B), ..." or "br i1 wc(), ..." is. That clearly needs addressed, so first, let's centralize the code in one place.
This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.
I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h
Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.
Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211
We had a subtle, but nasty bug in our definition of a widenable branch, and thus in the transforms which used that utility. Specifically, we returned true for any branch which included a widenable condition within it's condition, regardless of whether that widenable condition also had other uses.
The problem is that the result of the WC() call is defined to be one particular value. As such, all users must agree as to what that value is. If we widen a branch without also updating *all other users* of the WC in the same way, we have broken the required semantics.
Most of the textual diff is updating existing transforms not to leave dead uses hanging around. They're largely NFC as the dead instructions would be immediately deleted by other passes. The reason to make these changes is so that the transforms preserve the widenable branch form.
In practice, we don't get bitten by this only because it isn't profitable to CSE WC() calls and the lowering pass from guards uses distinct WC calls per branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69916
This patch adds support of guards expressed in explicit form via
`widenable_condition` in Guard Widening pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56075
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 353932
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
rL340921 has been reverted by rL340923 due to linkage dependency
from Transform/Utils to Analysis which is not allowed. In this patch
this has been fixed, a new utility function moved to Analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51152
llvm-svn: 341014
We have multiple places in code where we try to identify whether or not
some instruction is a guard. This patch factors out this logic into a separate
utility function which works uniformly in all places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51152
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
llvm-svn: 340921
Guard widening should not spend efforts on dealing with guards with trivial true/false conditions.
Such guards can easily be eliminated by any further cleanup pass like instcombine. However we
should not unconditionally delete them because it may be profitable to widen other conditions
into such guards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50247
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
llvm-svn: 340381
This is a second part of D49974 that handles widening of conditional branches that
have very likely `false` branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50040
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 339537
If there is a frequently taken branch dominated by a guard, and its condition is available
at the point of the guard, we can widen guard with condition of this branch and convert
the branch into unconditional:
guard(cond1)
if (cond2) {
// taken in 99.9% cases
// do something
} else {
// do something else
}
Converts to
guard(cond1 && cond2)
// do something
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49974
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 338988
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
llvm-svn: 332240
The effect of doing so is not disrupting the LoopPassManager when mixing this pass with other loop passes. This should help locality of access substaintially and avoids the cost of computing PostDom.
The assumption here is that the full GuardWidening (which does use PostDom) is run as a canonicalization before loop opts and that this version is just catching cases exposed by other loop passes. (i.e. LoopPredication, IndVarSimplify, LoopUnswitch, etc..)
llvm-svn: 331094
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
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 the comments section in D44363 for a list of all the required patches.
Reviewers: kcc, pcc, danielcdh, jmolloy, sanjoy, dberlin, ruiu
Reviewed By: ruiu
Subscribers: ruiu, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45142
llvm-svn: 330059
Summary:
Since r293359, most dump() function are only defined when
`!defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)` holds. print() functions
only used by dump() functions are now unused in release builds,
generating lots of warnings. This patch only defines some print()
functions if they are used.
Reviewers: MatzeB
Reviewed By: MatzeB
Subscribers: arsenm, mzolotukhin, nhaehnle, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35949
llvm-svn: 309553
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
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
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
As suggested by clang-tidy's performance-unnecessary-copy-initialization.
This can easily hit lifetime issues, so I audited every change and ran the
tests under asan, which came back clean.
llvm-svn: 272126
I had used `std::remove_if` under the assumption that it moves the
predicate matching elements to the end, but actaully the elements
remaining towards the end (after the iterator returned by
`std::remove_if`) are indeterminate. Fix the bug (and make the code
more straightforward) by using a temporary SmallVector, and add a test
case demonstrating the issue.
llvm-svn: 270306
Philip Reames