Add an intrinsic type class to represent the
llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic, to make code
working with it a bit nicer by hiding the metadata extraction
from view.
With the addition of the `willreturn` attribute, functions that may
not return (e.g. due to an infinite loop) are well defined, if they are
not marked as `willreturn`.
This patch updates `wouldInstructionBeTriviallyDead` to not consider
calls that may not return as dead.
This patch still provides an escape hatch for intrinsics, which are
still assumed as willreturn unconditionally. It will be removed once
all intrinsics definitions have been reviewed and updated.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94106
If i change it to AssertingVH instead, a number of existing tests fail,
which means we don't consistently remove from the set when deleting blocks,
which means newly-created blocks may happen to appear in that set
if they happen to occupy the same memory chunk as did some block
that was in the set originally.
There are many places where we delete blocks,
and while we could probably consistently delete from LoopHeaders
when deleting a block in transforms located in SimplifyCFG.cpp itself,
transforms located elsewhere (Local.cpp/BasicBlockUtils.cpp) also may
delete blocks, and it doesn't seem good to teach them to deal with it.
Since we at most only ever delete from LoopHeaders,
let's just delegate to WeakVH to do that automatically.
But to be honest, personally, i'm not sure that the idea
behind LoopHeaders is sound.
Insert a llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic that identifies where a noalias argument was inlined.
This patch includes some refactorings from D90104.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93040
This builds on the restricted after initial revert form of D93906, and adds back support for breaking backedges of inner loops. It turns out the original invalidation logic wasn't quite right, specifically around the handling of LCSSA.
When breaking the backedge of an inner loop, we can cause blocks which were in the outer loop only because they were also included in a sub-loop to be removed from both loops. This results in the exit block set for our original parent loop changing, and thus a need for new LCSSA phi nodes.
This case happens when the inner loop has an exit block which is also an exit block of the parent, and there's a block in the child which reaches an exit to said block without also reaching an exit to the parent loop.
(I'm describing this in terms of the immediate parent, but the problem is general for any transitive parent in the nest.)
The approach implemented here involves a potentially expensive LCSSA rebuild. Perf testing during review didn't show anything concerning, but we may end up needing to revert this if anyone encounters a practical compile time issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94378
I have previously tried doing that in
b33fbbaa34 / d38205144f,
but eventually it was pointed out that the approach taken there
was just broken wrt how the uses of bonus instructions are updated
to account for the fact that they should now use either bonus instruction
or the cloned bonus instruction. In particluar, all that manual handling
of PHI nodes in successors was just wrong.
But, the fix is actually much much simpler than my initial approach:
just tell SSAUpdate about both instances of bonus instruction,
and let it deal with all the PHI handling.
Alive2 confirms that the reproducers from the original bugs (@pr48450*)
are now handled correctly.
This effectively reverts commit 59560e8589,
effectively relanding b33fbbaa34.
NewBonusInst just took name from BonusInst, so BonusInst has no name,
so BonusInst.getName() makes no sense.
So we need to ask NewBonusInst for the name.
This is to support the memory routines vec_malloc, vec_calloc, vec_realloc, and vec_free. These routines manage memory that is 16-byte aligned. And they are only available on AIX.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94710
If the call result is unused, we should let it get DCEd rather
than replacing it. Also, don't try to replace an existing sincos
with another one (unless it's as part of combining sin and cos).
This avoids an infinite combine loop if the calls are not DCEd
as expected, which can happen with D94106 and lack of willreturn
annotation in hand-crafted IR.
I'm intentionally structuring it this way, so that the actual fold only
does the fold, and no legality/correctness checks, all of which must be
done by the caller. This allows for the fold code to be more compact
and more easily grokable.
Hoist the successor updating out of the code that deals with branch
weight updating, and hoist the 'has weights' check from the latter,
making code more consistent and easier to follow.
While we already ignore uncond branches, we could still potentially
end up with a conditional branches with identical destinations
due to the visitation order, or because we were called as an utility.
But if we have such a disguised uncond branch,
we still probably shouldn't deal with it here.
The case where BB ends with an unconditional branch,
and has a single predecessor w/ conditional branch
to BB and a single successor of BB is exactly the pattern
SpeculativelyExecuteBB() transform deals with.
(and in this case they both allow speculating only a single instruction)
Well, or FoldTwoEntryPHINode(), if the final block
has only those two predecessors.
Here, in FoldBranchToCommonDest(), only a weird subset of that
transform is supported, and it's glued on the side in a weird way.
In particular, it took me a bit to understand that the Cond
isn't actually a branch condition in that case, but just the value
we allow to speculate (otherwise it reads as a miscompile to me).
Additionally, this only supports for the speculated instruction
to be an ICmp.
So let's just unclutter FoldBranchToCommonDest(), and leave
this transform up to SpeculativelyExecuteBB(). As far as i can tell,
this shouldn't really impact optimization potential, but if it does,
improving SpeculativelyExecuteBB() will be more beneficial anyways.
Notably, this only affects a single test,
but EarlyCSE should have run beforehand in the pipeline,
and then FoldTwoEntryPHINode() would have caught it.
This reverts commit rL158392 / commit d33f4efbfd.
In https://llvm.org/PR48810 , we are crashing while trying to
propagate attributes from mempcpy (returns void*) to memcpy
(returns nothing - void).
We can avoid the crash by removing known incompatible
attributes for the void return type.
I'm not sure if this goes far enough (should we just drop all
attributes since this isn't the same function?). We also need
to audit other transforms in LibCallSimplifier to make sure
there are no other cases that have the same problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95088
This is related to D94982. We want to call these APIs from the Analysis
component, so we can't leave them under Transforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95079
Branch/assume conditions in PredicateInfo are currently handled in
a rather ad-hoc manner, with some arbitrary limitations. For example,
an `and` of two `icmp`s will be handled, but an `and` of an `icmp`
and some other condition will not. That also includes the case where
more than two conditions and and'ed together.
This patch makes the handling more general by looking through and/ors
up to a limit and considering all kinds of conditions (though operands
will only be taken for cmps of course).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94447
When using 2 InlinePass instances in the same CGSCC - one for other
mandatory inlinings, the other for the heuristic-driven ones - the order
in which the ImportedFunctionStats would be output-ed would depend on
the destruction order of the inline passes, which is not deterministic.
This patch moves the ImportedFunctionStats responsibility to the
InlineAdvisor to address this problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94982
Loop peeling assumes that the loop's latch is a conditional branch. Add
a check to canPeel that explicitly checks for this, and testcases that
otherwise fail an assertion when trying to peel a loop whose back-edge
is a switch case or the non-unwind edge of an invoke.
Reviewed By: skatkov, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94995
D84108 exposed a bad interaction between inlining and loop-rotation
during regular LTO, which is causing notable regressions in at least
CINT2006/473.astar.
The problem boils down to: we now rotate a loop just before the vectorizer
which requires duplicating a function call in the preheader when compiling
the individual files ('prepare for LTO'). But this then prevents further
inlining of the function during LTO.
This patch tries to resolve this issue by making LoopRotate more
conservative with respect to rotating loops that have inline-able calls
during the 'prepare for LTO' stage.
I think this change intuitively improves the current situation in
general. Loop-rotate tries hard to avoid creating headers that are 'too
big'. At the moment, it assumes all inlining already happened and the
cost of duplicating a call is equal to just doing the call. But with LTO,
inlining also happens during full LTO and it is possible that a previously
duplicated call is actually a huge function which gets inlined
during LTO.
From the perspective of LV, not much should change overall. Most loops
calling user-provided functions won't get vectorized to start with
(unless we can infer that the function does not touch memory, has no
other side effects). If we do not inline the 'inline-able' call during
the LTO stage, we merely delayed loop-rotation & vectorization. If we
inline during LTO, chances should be very high that the inlined code is
itself vectorizable or the user call was not vectorizable to start with.
There could of course be scenarios where we inline a sufficiently large
function with code not profitable to vectorize, which would have be
vectorized earlier (by scalarzing the call). But even in that case,
there probably is no big performance impact, because it should be mostly
down to the cost-model to reject vectorization in that case. And then
the version with scalarized calls should also not be beneficial. In a way,
LV should have strictly more information after inlining and make more
accurate decisions (barring cost-model issues).
There is of course plenty of room for things to go wrong unexpectedly,
so we need to keep a close look at actual performance and address any
follow-up issues.
I took a look at the impact on statistics for
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006. There are a few benchmarks with fewer
loops rotated, but no change to the number of loops vectorized.
Reviewed By: sanwou01
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94232
This patch teaches SimplifyCFG::SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain to understand select form of
(x == C1 || x == C2 || ...) / (x != C1 && x != C2 && ...) and optimize them into switch if possible.
D93065 has more context about the transition, including links to the list of optimizations being updated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93943
This patch adds the default value of 1 to drop_begin.
In the llvm codebase, 70% of calls to drop_begin have 1 as the second
argument. The interface similar to with std::next should improve
readability.
This patch converts a couple of calls to drop_begin as examples.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94858
This patch marks some library functions as willreturn. On the first pass, I
excluded most functions that interact with streams/the filesystem.
Along with willreturn, it also adds nounwind to a set of math functions.
There probably are a few additional attributes we can add for those, but
that should be done separately.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94684
When removing catchpad's from catchswitch, if that removes a successor,
we need to record that in DomTreeUpdater.
This fixes PostDomTree preservation failure in an existing test.
This appears to be the single issue that i see in my current test coverage.
DestBB might or might not already be a successor of SelectBB,
and it wasn't we need to ensure that we record the fact in DomTree.
The testcase used to crash in lazy domtree updater mode + non-per-function
domtree validity checks disabled.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
Even though not all it's users operate on DomTreeUpdater,
it itself internally operates on DomTreeUpdater,
so it must mean everything is fine with that,
so just do that globally.
Adding sample-profile-suffix-elision-policy attribute to functions whose linkage names are uniquefied so that their unique name suffix won't be trimmed when applying AutoFDO profiles.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94455
LoopVectorize uses some utilities on LoopVersioning, but doesn't actually use it for, you know, versioning. As a result, the precondition LoopVersioning expects is too strong for this user. At the moment, LoopVectorize supports any loop with a unique exit block, so check the same precondition here.
Really, the whole class structure here is a mess. We should separate the actual versioning from the metadata updates, but that's a bigger problem.
When DomTreeUpdater is in lazy update mode, the blocks
that were scheduled to be removed, won't be removed
until the updates are flushed, e.g. by asking
DomTreeUpdater for a up-to-date DomTree.
From the function's current code, it is pretty evident
that the support for the lazy mode is an afterthought,
see e.g. how we roll-back NumRemoved statistic..
So instead of considering all the unreachable blocks
as the blocks-to-be-removed, simply additionally skip
all the blocks that are already scheduled to be removed
When we are adding edges to the terminator and potentially turning it
into a switch (if it wasn't already), it is possible that the
case we're adding will share it's destination with one of the
preexisting cases, in which case there is no domtree edge to add.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
BB was already always branching to EdgeBB, there is no edge to add.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
SI is the terminator of BB, so the edge we are adding obviously already existed.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
Functions that are renamed under -funique-internal-linkage-names have their debug linkage name updated as well.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747
Please see D93747 for more context which tries to make linkage names of internal
linkage functions to be the uniqueified names. This causes a problem with gdb
because breaking using the demangled function name will not work if the new
uniqueified name cannot be demangled. The problem is the generated suffix which
is a mix of integers and letters which do not demangle. The demangler accepts
either all numbers or all letters. This patch simply converts the hash to decimal.
There is no loss of uniqueness by doing this as the precision is maintained.
The symbol names get longer by a few characters though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94154
Loop peeling as a last step triggers loop simplification and this
can change the loop structure. As a result all cashed values like
latch branch becomes invalid.
Patch re-structure the code to take into account the possible
changes caused by peeling.
Reviewers: dmgreen, Meinersbur, etiotto, fhahn, efriedma, bmahjour
Reviewed By: Meinersbur, fhahn
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93686
This is a resubmit of dd6bb367 (which was reverted due to stage2 build failures in 7c63aac), with the additional restriction added to the transform to only consider outer most loops.
As shown in the added test case, ensuring LCSSA is up to date when deleting an inner loop is tricky as we may actually need to remove blocks from any outer loops, thus changing the exit block set. For the moment, just avoid transforming this case. I plan to return to this case in a follow up patch and see if we can do better.
Original commit message follows...
The basic idea is that if SCEV can prove the backedge isn't taken, we can go ahead and get rid of the backedge (and thus the loop) while leaving the rest of the control in place. This nicely handles cases with dispatch between multiple exits and internal side effects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93906
Currently make_early_inc_range cannot be used with iterators with
operator* implementations that do not return a reference.
Most notably in the LLVM codebase, this means the User iterator ranges
cannot be used with make_early_inc_range, which slightly simplifies
iterating over ranges while elements are removed.
Instead of directly using BaseT::reference as return type of operator*,
this patch uses decltype to get the actual return type of the operator*
implementation in WrappedIteratorT.
This patch also updates a few places to use make use of
make_early_inc_range.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93992
Currently SimplifyCFG drops the debug locations of 'bonus' instructions.
Such instructions are moved before the first branch. The reason for the
current behavior is that this could lead to surprising debug stepping,
if the block that's folded is dead.
In case the first branch and the instructions to be folded have the same
debug location, this shouldn't be an issue and we can keep the debug
location.
Reviewed By: vsk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93662
We have modules with metadata on declarations, and out-of-tree passes
use that metadata, and we need to clone those modules. We really expect
such metadata is kept during the clone operation.
Reviewed by: arsenm, aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93451
We need to handle this case before dealing with the case of constant
branch condition, because if the destinations match, latter fold
would try to remove the DomTree edge that would still be present.
This allows to make that particular DomTree update non-permissive
I have added it in d15d81c because it *seemed* correct, was holding
for all the tests so far, and was validating the fix added in the same
commit, but as David Major is pointing out (with a reproducer),
the assertion isn't really correct after all. So remove it.
Note that the d15d81c still fine.
Summary:
Currently SplitEdge does not support passing in parameter which allows you to
name the newly created BasicBlock.
This patch updates the function such that the name of the block can be passed
in, if users of this utility decide to do so.
Reviewed By: Whitney, bmahjour, asbirlea, jamieschmeiser
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94176
Add support for mixed pre/post CFG views.
Update usages of the MemorySSAUpdater to use the new DT API by
requesting the DT updates to be done by the MSSAUpdater.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93371
Previously when trying to support CoroSplit's function splitting, we
added in a hack that simply added the new function's node into the
original function's SCC (https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798). This is
incorrect since it might be in its own SCC.
Now, more similar to the previous design, we have callers explicitly
notify the LazyCallGraph that a function has been split out from another
one.
In order to properly support CoroSplit, there are two ways functions can
be split out.
One is the normal expected "outlining" of one function into a new one.
The new function may only contain references to other functions that the
original did. The original function must reference the new function. The
new function may reference the original function, which can result in
the new function being in the same SCC as the original function. The
weird case is when the original function indirectly references the new
function, but the new function directly calls the original function,
resulting in the new SCC being a parent of the original function's SCC.
This form of function splitting works with CoroSplit's Switch ABI.
The second way of splitting is more specific to CoroSplit. CoroSplit's
Retcon and Async ABIs split the original function into multiple
functions that all reference each other and are referenced by the
original function. In order to keep the LazyCallGraph in a valid state,
all new functions must be processed together, else some nodes won't be
populated. To keep things simple, this only supports the case where all
new edges are ref edges, and every new function references every other
new function. There can be a reference back from any new function to the
original function, putting all functions in the same RefSCC.
This also adds asserts that all nodes in a (Ref)SCC can reach all other
nodes to prevent future incorrect hacks.
The original hacks in https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798 are no longer
necessary since all new functions should have been registered before
calling updateCGAndAnalysisManagerForPass.
This fixes all coroutine tests when opt's -enable-new-pm is true by
default. This also fixes PR48190, which was likely due to the previous
hack breaking SCC invariants.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93828
* Update valueCoversEntireFragment to use TypeSize.
* Add a regression test.
* Assertions have been added to protect untested codepaths.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91806
If the predecessor is a switch, and BB is not the default destination,
multiple cases could have the same destination. and it doesn't
make sense to re-process the predecessor, because we won't make any changes,
once is enough.
I'm not sure this can be really tested, other than via the assertion
being added here, which fires without the fix.
One would hope that it would have been already canonicalized into an
unconditional branch, but that isn't really guaranteed to happen
with SimplifyCFG's visitation order.
... which requires not removing a DomTree edge if the switch's default
still points at that destination, because it can't be removed;
... and not processing the same predecessor more than once.
From C11 and C++11 onwards, a forward-progress requirement has been
introduced for both languages. In the case of C, loops with non-constant
conditionals that do not have any observable side-effects (as defined by
6.8.5p6) can be assumed by the implementation to terminate, and in the
case of C++, this assumption extends to all functions. The clang
frontend will emit the `mustprogress` function attribute for C++
functions (D86233, D85393, D86841) and emit the loop metadata
`llvm.loop.mustprogress` for every loop in C11 or later that has a
non-constant conditional.
This patch modifies LoopDeletion so that only loops with
the `llvm.loop.mustprogress` metadata or loops contained in functions
that are required to make progress (`mustprogress` or `willreturn`) are
checked for observable side-effects. If these loops do not have an
observable side-effect, then we delete them.
Loops without observable side-effects that do not satisfy the above
conditions will not be deleted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844
... which requires not deleting an edge that just got deleted,
because we could be dealing with a block that didn't go through
ConstantFoldTerminator() yet, and thus has a degenerate cond br
with matching true/false destinations.
Notably, this doesn't switch *every* case, remaining cases
don't actually pass sanity checks in non-permissve mode,
and therefore require further analysis.
Note that SimplifyCFG still defaults to not preserving DomTree by default,
so this is effectively a NFC change.
While here, rename the inaccurate getRecurrenceBinOp()
because that was also used to get CmpInst opcodes.
The recurrence/reduction kind should always refer to the
expected opcode for a reduction. SLP appears to be the
only direct caller of createSimpleTargetReduction(), and
that calling code ideally should not be carrying around
both an opcode and a reduction kind.
This should allow us to generalize reduction matching to
use intrinsics instead of only binops.
Allow loop nests with empty basic blocks without loops in different
levels as perfect.
Reviewers: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93665
This reverts commit dd6bb367d1.
Multi-stage builders are showing an assertion failure w/LCSSA not being preserved on entry to IndVars. Reason isn't clear, reverting while investigating.
The basic idea is that if SCEV can prove the backedge isn't taken, we can go ahead and get rid of the backedge (and thus the loop) while leaving the rest of the control in place. This nicely handles cases with dispatch between multiple exits and internal side effects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93906
This is NFC since SimplifyCFG still currently defaults to not preserving DomTree.
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce() is only be called from SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
and can not be called externally, since SimplifyCFGOpt is defined in .cpp
This avoids some needless verifications, and is thus a bit faster
without sacrificing precision.
We only need to remove non-TrueBB/non-FalseBB successors,
and we only need to do that once. We don't need to insert
any new edges, because no new successors will be added.
There is a number of transforms in SimplifyCFG that take DomTree out of
DomTreeUpdater, and do updates manually. Until they are fixed,
user passes are unable to claim that PDT is preserved.
Note that the default for SimplifyCFG is still not to preserve DomTree,
so this is still effectively NFC.
This is almost all mechanical search-and-replace and
no-functional-change-intended (NFC). Having a single
enum makes it easier to match/reason about the
reduction cases.
The goal is to remove `Opcode` from reduction matching
code in the vectorizers because that makes it harder to
adapt the code to handle intrinsics.
The code in RecurrenceDescriptor::AddReductionVar() is
the only place that required closer inspection. It uses
a RecurrenceDescriptor and a second InstDesc to sometimes
overwrite part of the struct. It seem like we should be
able to simplify that logic, but it's not clear exactly
which cmp+sel patterns that we are trying to handle/avoid.
This pretty much concludes patch series for updating SimplifyCFG
to preserve DomTree. All 318 dedicated `-simplifycfg` tests now pass
with `-simplifycfg-require-and-preserve-domtree=1`.
There are a few leftovers that apparently don't have good test coverage.
I do not yet know what gaps in test coverage will the wider-scale testing
reveal, but the default flip might be close.
Test clang/test/Misc/loop-opt-setup.c fails when executed in Release.
This reverts commit 6f1503d598.
Reviewed By: SureYeaah
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93956
From C11 and C++11 onwards, a forward-progress requirement has been
introduced for both languages. In the case of C, loops with non-constant
conditionals that do not have any observable side-effects (as defined by
6.8.5p6) can be assumed by the implementation to terminate, and in the
case of C++, this assumption extends to all functions. The clang
frontend will emit the `mustprogress` function attribute for C++
functions (D86233, D85393, D86841) and emit the loop metadata
`llvm.loop.mustprogress` for every loop in C11 or later that has a
non-constant conditional.
This patch modifies LoopDeletion so that only loops with
the `llvm.loop.mustprogress` metadata or loops contained in functions
that are required to make progress (`mustprogress` or `willreturn`) are
checked for observable side-effects. If these loops do not have an
observable side-effect, then we delete them.
Loops without observable side-effects that do not satisfy the above
conditions will not be deleted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844
I don't know if there's some way this changes what the vectorizers
may produce for reductions, but I have added test coverage with
3567908 and 5ced712 to show that both passes already have bugs in
this area. Hopefully this does not make things worse before we can
really fix it.
This is no-functional-change-intended (AFAIK, we can't
isolate this difference in a regression test).
That's because the callers should be setting the IRBuilder's
FMF field when creating the reduction and/or setting those
flags after creating. It doesn't make sense to override this
one flag alone.
This is part of a multi-step process to clean up the FMF
setting/propagation. See PR35538 for an example.
As mentioned in D93793, there are quite a few places where unary `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Mask)` can be used
instead of `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Undef, Mask)`.
Let's update them.
Actually, it would have been more natural if the patches were made in this order:
(1) let them use unary CreateShuffleVector first
(2) update IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector to use poison as a placeholder value (D93793)
The order is swapped, but in terms of correctness it is still fine.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93923
The switch duplicated the translation in getRecurrenceBinOp().
This code is still weird because it translates to the TTI
ReductionFlags for min/max, but then createSimpleTargetReduction()
converts that back to RecurrenceDescriptor::MinMaxRecurrenceKind.
We might be dealing with an unreachable code,
so the bonus instruction we clone might be self-referencing.
There is a sanity check that all uses of bonus instructions
that are not in the original block with said bonus instructions
are PHI nodes, and that is obviously not the case
for self-referencing instructions..
So if we find such an use, just rewrite it.
Thanks to Mikael Holmén for the reproducer!
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48450#c8
The function FoldSingleEntryPHINodes() is changed to return if
it has changed IR or not. This return value is used by RS4GC to
set the MadeChange flag respectively.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93810
Previously the branch from the middle block to the scalar preheader & exit
was being set-up at the end of skeleton creation in completeLoopSkeleton.
Inserting SCEV or runtime checks may result in LCSSA phis being created,
if they are required. Adjusting branches afterwards may break those
PHIs.
To avoid this, we can instead create the branch from the middle block
to the exit after we created the middle block, so we have the final CFG
before potentially adjusting/creating PHIs.
This fixes a crash for the included test case. For the non-crashing
case, this is almost a NFC with respect to the generated code. The
only change is the order of the predecessors of the involved branch
targets.
Note an assertion was moved from LoopVersioning() to
LoopVersioning::versionLoop. Adjusting the branches means loop-simplify
form may be broken before constructing LoopVersioning. But LV only uses
LoopVersioning to annotate the loop instructions with !noalias metadata,
which does not require loop-simplify form.
This is a fix for an existing issue uncovered by D93317.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Apparently, there were no dedicated tests just for that functionality,
so i'm adding one here.
And that exposes that a number of tests don't *actually* manage to
maintain DomTree validity, which is inline with my observations.
Once again, SimlifyCFG pass currently does not require/preserve DomTree
by default, so this is effectively NFC.
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
Pretty boring, removeUnwindEdge() already known how to update DomTree,
so if we are to call it, we must first flush our own pending updates;
otherwise, we just stop predecessors from branching to us,
and for certain predecessors, stop their predecessors from
branching to them also.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
The LCSSA pass makes use of a function insertDebugValuesForPHIs() to
propogate dbg.value() intrinsics to newly inserted PHI instructions. Faulty
behaviour occurs when the parent PHI of a newly inserted PHI is not the
most recent assignment to a source variable. insertDebugValuesForPHIs ends
up propagating a value that isn't the most recent assignemnt.
This change removes the call to insertDebugValuesForPHIs() from LCSSA,
preventing incorrect dbg.value intrinsics from being propagated.
Propagating variable locations between blocks will occur later, during
LiveDebugValues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92576
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
When folding a branch to a common destination, preserve !annotation on
the created instruction, if the terminator of the BB that is going to be
removed has !annotation. This should ensure that !annotation is attached
to the instructions that 'replace' the original terminator.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93410
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
Two observations:
1. Unavailability of DomTree makes it impossible to make
`FoldBranchToCommonDest()` transform in certain cases,
where the successor is dominated by predecessor,
because we then don't have PHI's, and can't recreate them,
well, without handrolling 'is dominated by' check,
which doesn't really look like a great solution to me.
2. Avoiding invalidating DomTree in SimplifyCFG will
decrease the number of `Dominator Tree Construction` by 5
(from 28 now, i.e. -18%) in `-O3` old-pm pipeline
(as per `llvm/test/Other/opt-O3-pipeline.ll`)
This might or might not be beneficial for compile time.
So the plan is to make SimplifyCFG preserve DomTree, and then
eventually make DomTree fully required and preserved by the pass.
Now, SimplifyCFG is ~7KLOC. I don't think it will be nice
to do all this uplifting in a single mega-commit,
nor would it be possible to review it in any meaningful way.
But, i believe, it should be possible to do this in smaller steps,
introducing the new behavior, in an optional way, off-by-default,
opt-in option, and gradually fixing transforms one-by-one
and adding the flag to appropriate test coverage.
Then, eventually, the default should be flipped,
and eventually^2 the flag removed.
And that is what is happening here - when the new off-by-default option
is specified, DomTree is required and is claimed to be preserved,
and SimplifyCFG-internal assertions verify that the DomTree is still OK.
his is a preparation patch for supporting multiple exits in the loop vectorizer, by itself it should be mostly NFC. This patch moves the loop structure checks from LAA to their respective consumers (where duplicates don't already exist). Moving the checks does end up changing some of the optimization warnings and debug output slightly, but nothing that appears to be a regression.
Why do this? Well, after auditing the code, I can't actually find anything in LAA itself which relies on having all instructions within a loop execute an equal number of times. This patch simply makes this explicit so that if one consumer - say LV in the near future (hopefully) - wants to handle a broader class of loops, it can do so.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92066
Even though d38205144f was mostly a correct
fix for the external non-PHI users, it's not a *generally* correct fix,
because the 'placeholder' values in those trivial PHI's we create
shouldn't be *always* 'undef', but the PHI itself for the backedges,
else we end up with wrong value, as the `@pr48450_2` test shows.
But we can't just do that, because we can't check that the PHI
can be it's own incoming value when coming from certain predecessor,
because we don't have a dominator tree.
So until we can address this correctness problem properly,
ensure that we don't perform the transformation
if there are such problematic external uses.
Making dominator tree available there is going to be involved,
since `-simplifycfg` pass currently does not preserve/update domtree...
In particular, if the successor block, which is about to get a new
predecessor block, currently only has a single predecessor,
then the bonus instructions will be directly used within said successor,
which is fine, since the block with bonus instructions dominates that
successor. But once there's a new predecessor, the IR is no longer valid,
and we don't fix it, because we only update PHI nodes.
Which means, the live-out bonus instructions must be exclusively used
by the PHI nodes in successor blocks. So we have to form trivial PHI nodes.
which will then be successfully updated to recieve cloned bonus instns.
This all works fine, except for the fact that we don't have access to
the dominator tree, and we don't ignore unreachable code,
so we sometimes do end up having to deal with some weird IR.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48450
This migrates all LLVM (except Kaleidoscope and
CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp) DebugLoc::get to DILocation::get.
The CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp usage may have a nullptr Scope
and can trigger an assertion failure, so I don't migrate it.
Reviewed By: #debug-info, dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93087
I'm not sure if it would be legal by the IR reference to introduce
an addrspacecast here, since the IR reference is a bit vague on
the exact semantics, but at least for our usage of it (and I
suspect for many other's usage) it is not. For us, addrspacecasts
between non-integral address spaces carry frontend information that the
optimizer cannot deduce afterwards in a generic way (though we
have frontend specific passes in our pipline that do propagate
these). In any case, I'm sure nobody is using it this way at
the moment, since it would have introduced inttoptrs, which
are definitely illegal.
Fixes PR38375
Co-authored-by: Keno Fischer <keno@alumni.harvard.edu>
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50010
This reverts commit 4bd35cdc3a.
The patch was reverted during the investigation. The investigation
shown that the patch did not cause any trouble, but just exposed
the existing problem that is addressed by the previous patch
"[IndVars] Quick fix LHS/RHS bug". Returning without changes.
The code relies on fact that LHS is the NarrowDef but never
really checks it. Adding the conservative restrictive check,
will follow-up with handling of case where RHS is a NarrowDef.
1. Removed #include "...AliasAnalysis.h" in other headers and modules.
2. Cleaned up includes in AliasAnalysis.h.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92489
This reverts commit 0c9c6ddf17.
We are seeing some failures with this patch locally. Not clear
if it's causing them or just triggering a problem in another
place. Reverting while investigating.
In this patch I have added support for a new loop hint called
vectorize.scalable.enable that says whether we should enable scalable
vectorization or not. If a user wants to instruct the compiler to
vectorize a loop with scalable vectors they can now do this as
follows:
br i1 %exitcond, label %for.end, label %for.body, !llvm.loop !2
...
!2 = !{!2, !3, !4}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.width", i32 8}
!4 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.scalable.enable", i1 true}
Setting the hint to false simply reverts the behaviour back to the
default, using fixed width vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88962
There is no correctness need for that, and since we allow live-out
uses, this could theoretically happen, because currently nothing
will move the cond to right before the branch in those tests.
But regardless, lifting that restriction even makes the transform
easier to understand.
This makes the transform happen in 81 more cases (+0.55%)
)
If we decided to widen IV with zext, then unsigned comparisons
should not prevent widening (same for sext/sign comparisons).
The result of comparison in wider type does not change in this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92207
Reviewed By: nikic
This was orginally committed in 2245fb8aaa.
but was immediately reverted in f3abd54958
because of a PHI handling issue.
Original commit message:
1. It doesn't make sense to enforce that the bonus instruction
is only used once in it's basic block. What matters is
whether those user instructions fit within our budget, sure,
but that is another question.
2. It doesn't make sense to enforce that said bonus instructions
are only used within their basic block. Perhaps the branch
condition isn't using the value computed by said bonus instruction,
and said bonus instruction is simply being calculated
to be used in successors?
So iff we can clone bonus instructions, to lift these restrictions,
we just need to carefully update their external uses
to use the new cloned instructions.
Notably, this transform (even without this change) appears to be
poison-unsafe as per alive2, but is otherwise (including the patch) legal.
We don't introduce any new PHI nodes, but only "move" the instructions
around, i'm not really seeing much potential for extra cost modelling
for the transform, especially since now we allow at most one such
bonus instruction by default.
This causes the fold to fire +11.4% more (13216 -> 14725)
as of vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed.
The motivational pattern is IEEE-754-2008 Binary16->Binary32
extension code:
ca57d77fb2/src/librawspeed/common/FloatingPoint.h (L115-L120)
^ that should be a switch, but it is not now: https://godbolt.org/z/bvja5v
That being said, even thought this seemed like this would fix it: https://godbolt.org/z/xGq3TM
apparently that fold is happening somewhere else afterall,
so something else also has a similar 'artificial' restriction.
When widening an IndVar that has LCSSA Phi users outside
the loop, we can safely widen it as usual and then truncate
the result outside the loop without hurting the performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91593
Reviewed By: skatkov
Roman Lebedev