The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 375429
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 375426
Summary:
When MemCpyOpt is handling aggregate type values, if an instruction (let's call it P) between the targeting load (L) and store (S) clobbers the source pointer of L, it will try to hoist S before P. This process will also hoist S's data dependency instructions.
However, the current implementation has a bug that if one of S's dependency instructions is //also// a user of P, MemCpyOpt will not prevent it from being hoisted above P and cause a use-before-define error. For example, in the newly added test file (i.e. `aggregate-type-crash.ll`), it will try to hoist both `store %my_struct %1, %my_struct* %3` and its dependent, `%3 = bitcast i8* %2 to %my_struct*`, above `%2 = call i8* @my_malloc(%my_struct* %0)`. Creating the following BB:
```
entry:
%1 = bitcast i8* %4 to %my_struct*
%2 = bitcast %my_struct* %1 to i8*
%3 = bitcast %my_struct* %0 to i8*
call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* align 4 %2, i8* align 4 %3, i64 8, i1 false)
%4 = call i8* @my_malloc(%my_struct* %0)
ret void
```
Where there is a use-before-define error between `%1` and `%4`.
Update: The compiler for the Pony Programming Language [also encounter the same bug](https://github.com/ponylang/ponyc/issues/3140)
Patch by Min-Yih Hsu (myhsu)
Reviewers: eugenis, pcc, dblaikie, dneilson, t.p.northover, lattner
Reviewed By: eugenis
Subscribers: lenary, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66060
llvm-svn: 375403
We can end up with two loop exits whose exit counts are equivalent, but whose textual representation is different and non-obvious. For the sub-case where we have a series of exits which dominate one another (common), eliminate any exits which would iterate *after* a previous exit on the exiting iteration.
As noted in the TODO being removed, I'd always thought this was a good idea, but I've now seen this in a real workload as well.
Interestingly, in review, Nikita pointed out there's let another oppurtunity to leverage SCEV's reasoning. If we kept track of the min of dominanting exits so far, we could discharge exits with EC >= MDE. This is less powerful than the existing transform (since later exits aren't considered), but potentially more powerful for any case where SCEV can prove a >= b, but neither a == b or a > b. I don't have an example to illustrate that oppurtunity, but won't be suprised if we find one and return to handle that case as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69009
llvm-svn: 375379
Summary:
CVP, unlike InstCombine, does not run till exaustion.
It only does a single pass.
When dealing with those special binops, if we prove that they can
safely be demoted into their usual binop form,
we do set the no-wrap we deduced. But when dealing with usual binops,
we try to deduce both no-wraps.
So if we convert e.g. @llvm.uadd.with.overflow() to `add nuw`,
we won't attempt to check whether it can be `add nuw nsw`.
This patch proposes to call `processBinOp()` on newly-created binop,
which is identical to what we do for div/rem already.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69183
llvm-svn: 375273
Summary:
It looks like this is the only missing statistic in the CVP pass.
Since we prove NSW and NUW separately i'd think we should count them separately too.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68740
llvm-svn: 375230
In the process of writing D69009, I realized we have two distinct sets of invariants within this single function, and basically no shared logic. The optimize loop exit transforms (including the new one in D69009) only care about *analyzeable* exits. Loop predication, on the other hand, has to reason about *all* exits. At the moment, we have the property (due to the requirement for an exact btc) that all exits are analyzeable, but that will likely change in the future as we add widenable condition support.
llvm-svn: 375138
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 375103
We can't normally stumble into that assertion because a tautological
*conditional* `br` in loop body is required, one that always
branches to loop latch. But that should have been always folded
to an unconditional branch before we get it.
But that is not guaranteed if the pass is run standalone.
So let's just promote the assertion into a proper check.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43687
llvm-svn: 375100
Summary:
There are two cases where a block is merged into its predecessor and the
MergeBlockIntoPredecessor API is not used. Update the API so it can be
reused in the other cases, in order to avoid code duplication.
Cleanup motivated by D68659.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy.google, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68670
llvm-svn: 375050
The problem is that we can have two loop exits, 'a' and 'b', where 'a' and 'b' would exit at the same iteration, 'a' precedes 'b' along some path, and 'b' is predicated while 'a' is not. In this case (see the previously submitted test case), we causing the loop to exit through 'b' whereas it should have exited through 'a'.
This only applies to loop exits where the exit counts are not provably inequal, but that isn't as much of a restriction as it appears. If we could order the exit counts, we'd have already removed one of the two exits. In theory, we might be able to prove inequality w/o ordering, but I didn't really explore that piece. Instead, I went for the obvious restriction and ensured we didn't predicate exits following non-predicateable exits.
Credit goes to Evgeny Brevnov for figuring out the problematic case. Fuzzing probably also found it (failures seen), but due to some silly infrastructure problems I hadn't gotten to the results before Evgeny hand reduced it from a benchmark (he manually enabled the transform). Once this is fixed, I'll try to filter through the fuzzer failures to see if there's anything additional lurking.
Differential Revision https://reviews.llvm.org/D68956
llvm-svn: 375038
Check that a call has an attached MemoryAccess before calling
getClobbering on the instruction.
If no access is attached, the instruction does not access memory.
Resolves PR43441.
llvm-svn: 374920
As reported by Joerg Sonnenberger in IRC, for 32-bit systems,
where pointer and size_t are 32-bit, if you use 64-bit-wide variable
in the loop, you could end up with loop exit count being of the type
wider than the size_t. Now, i'm not sure if we can produce `bcmp`
from that (just truncate?), but we certainly should not assert/miscompile.
llvm-svn: 374811
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
Summary:
If the underlying alloca did not change, we do not necessarily need new
lifetime markers. This patch adds a check and reuses the old ones if
possible.
Reviewers: reames, ssarda, t.p.northover, hfinkel
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68900
llvm-svn: 374692
Summary:
This is a recommit, this originally landed in rL370454 but was
subsequently reverted in rL370788 due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43206
The reduced testcase was added to bcmp-negative-tests.ll
as @pr43206_different_loops - we must ensure that the SCEV's
we got are both for the same loop we are currently investigating.
Original commit message:
@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.
In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.
libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ
libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)
So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}
```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
if (*a != *b) return false;
}
return true;
}
template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen(rd());
std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
std::vector<T> v;
v.reserve(count);
std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
[&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
assert(v.size() == count);
return v;
}
struct Identical {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
}
};
struct InequalHalfway {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
auto V1 = V0;
V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++; // just change the value.
return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
}
};
template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
const size_t Length = state.range(0);
const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());
benchmark::ClobberMemory();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());
for (auto _ : state) {
const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
}
state.SetComplexityN(Length);
state.counters["eltcnt"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}
template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
}
return 0;
}();
// What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
/*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 432131 ns 432101 ns 1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.86 N 0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 8 % 8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 161408 ns 161409 ns 4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.67 N 0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 25 % 25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 81497 ns 81488 ns 8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.71 N 0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 42 % 42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 50138 ns 50138 ns 10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.84 N 0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 27 % 27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 192405 ns 192392 ns 3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.38 N 0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 3 % 3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 127858 ns 127860 ns 5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 0 % 0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 49140 ns 49140 ns 14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.40 N 0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 18 % 18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 32101 ns 32099 ns 21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 1 % 1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 18593 ns 18590 ns 37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 37 % 37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 18950 ns 18948 ns 37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 34 % 34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 18627 ns 18627 ns 37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 35 % 35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 18855 ns 18855 ns 37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.32 N 0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 33 % 33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 9570 ns 9569 ns 73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.02 N 0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 9547 ns 9547 ns 74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 9396 ns 9394 ns 73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 30 % 30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 9499 ns 9498 ns 73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 28 % 28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 -0.9570 -0.9570 432131 18593 432101 18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 -0.8826 -0.8826 161408 18950 161409 18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 -0.7714 -0.7714 81497 18627 81488 18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 -0.6239 -0.6239 50138 18855 50138 18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 -0.9503 -0.9503 192405 9570 192392 9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 -0.9253 -0.9253 127858 9547 127860 9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 -0.8088 -0.8088 49140 9396 49140 9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 -0.7041 -0.7041 32101 9499 32099 9498
```
What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
linearly decreases with element size.
For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
element count is less than 8.
So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.
Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp
Program result-new
MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser 3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla 2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg 1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon 1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs 1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc 1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text
Program result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test 753.00 833.00 10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 1001697.00 966657.00 -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test 32369.00 32321.00 -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 89585.00 89505.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 40817.00 40785.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 47281.00 47249.00 -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 250065.00 250113.00 0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 149889.00 149873.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 769585.00 769569.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 770049.00 770049.00 0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4 NaN NaN nan%
Geomean difference nan%
result-old result-new diff
count 1.000000e+01 10.00000 10.000000
mean 3.152090e+05 311695.40000 0.006749
std 3.790398e+05 372091.42232 0.036605
min 7.530000e+02 833.00000 -0.034981
25% 4.243300e+04 42401.00000 -0.000866
50% 1.197370e+05 119689.00000 -0.000392
75% 6.397050e+05 639705.00000 -0.000005
max 1.001697e+06 966657.00000 0.106242
```
I don't have timings though.
And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.
Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: miyuki, hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144
llvm-svn: 374662
In loop-vectorize, interleave count and vector factor depend on target register number. Currently, it does not
estimate different register pressure for different register class separately(especially for scalar type,
float type should not be on the same position with int type), so it's not accurate. Specifically,
it causes too many times interleaving/unrolling, result in too many register spills in loop body and hurting performance.
So we need classify the register classes in IR level, and importantly these are abstract register classes,
and are not the target register class of backend provided in td file. It's used to establish the mapping between
the types of IR values and the number of simultaneous live ranges to which we'd like to limit for some set of those types.
For example, POWER target, register num is special when VSX is enabled. When VSX is enabled, the number of int scalar register is 32(GPR),
float is 64(VSR), but for int and float vector register both are 64(VSR). So there should be 2 kinds of register class when vsx is enabled,
and 3 kinds of register class when VSX is NOT enabled.
It runs on POWER target, it makes big(+~30%) performance improvement in one specific bmk(503.bwaves_r) of spec2017 and no other obvious degressions.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67148
llvm-svn: 374634
This is really a known bits style transformation, but known bits isn't context sensitive. The particular case which comes up happens to involve a range which allows range based reasoning to eliminate the mask pattern, so handle that case specifically in CVP.
InstCombine likes to generate the mask-by-low-bits pattern when widening an arithmetic expression which includes a zext in the middle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68811
llvm-svn: 374506
Summary:
The rule for the moveAllAfterMergeBlocks API si for all instructions
from `From` to have been moved to `To`, while keeping the CFG edges (and
block terminators) unchanged.
Update all the callsites for moveAllAfterMergeBlocks to follow this.
Pending follow-up: since the same behavior is needed everytime, merge
all callsites into one. The common denominator may be the call to
`MergeBlockIntoPredecessor`.
Resolves PR43569.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68659
llvm-svn: 374177
Also Revert "[LoopVectorize] Fix non-debug builds after rL374017"
This reverts commit 9f41deccc0.
This reverts commit 18b6fe07bc.
The patch is breaking PowerPC internal build, checked with author, reverting
on behalf of him for now due to timezone.
llvm-svn: 374091
* Adds a TypeSize struct to represent the known minimum size of a type
along with a flag to indicate that the runtime size is a integer multiple
of that size
* Converts existing size query functions from Type.h and DataLayout.h to
return a TypeSize result
* Adds convenience methods (including a transparent conversion operator
to uint64_t) so that most existing code 'just works' as if the return
values were still scalars.
* Uses the new size queries along with ElementCount to ensure that all
supported instructions used with scalable vectors can be constructed
in IR.
Reviewers: hfinkel, lattner, rkruppe, greened, rovka, rengolin, sdesmalen
Reviewed By: rovka, sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53137
llvm-svn: 374042
Summary: LoopRotate is a loop pass and SE should always be available.
Reviewers: anemet, asbirlea
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68573
llvm-svn: 374026
In loop-vectorize, interleave count and vector factor depend on target register number. Currently, it does not
estimate different register pressure for different register class separately(especially for scalar type,
float type should not be on the same position with int type), so it's not accurate. Specifically,
it causes too many times interleaving/unrolling, result in too many register spills in loop body and hurting performance.
So we need classify the register classes in IR level, and importantly these are abstract register classes,
and are not the target register class of backend provided in td file. It's used to establish the mapping between
the types of IR values and the number of simultaneous live ranges to which we'd like to limit for some set of those types.
For example, POWER target, register num is special when VSX is enabled. When VSX is enabled, the number of int scalar register is 32(GPR),
float is 64(VSR), but for int and float vector register both are 64(VSR). So there should be 2 kinds of register class when vsx is enabled,
and 3 kinds of register class when VSX is NOT enabled.
It runs on POWER target, it makes big(+~30%) performance improvement in one specific bmk(503.bwaves_r) of spec2017 and no other obvious degressions.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67148
llvm-svn: 374017
Doing this makes MSVC complain that `empty(someRange)` could refer to
either C++17's std::empty or LLVM's llvm::empty, which previously we
avoided via SFINAE because std::empty is defined in terms of an empty
member rather than begin and end. So, switch callers over to the new
method as it is added.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68439
llvm-svn: 373935
There are no users that pass in LazyValueInfo, so we can simplify the
function a bit.
Reviewers: brzycki, asbirlea, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68297
llvm-svn: 373488
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<PHINode> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373481
This patch implements a variation of a well known techniques for JIT compilers - we have an implementation in tree as LoopPredication - but with an interesting twist. This version does not assume the ability to execute a path which wasn't taken in the original program (such as a guard or widenable.condition intrinsic). The benefit is that this works for arbitrary IR from any frontend (including C/C++/Fortran). The tradeoff is that it's restricted to read only loops without implicit exits.
This builds on SCEV, and can thus eliminate the loop varying portion of the any early exit where all exits are understandable by SCEV. A key advantage is that fixing deficiency exposed in SCEV - already found one while writing test cases - will also benefit all of full redundancy elimination (and most other loop transforms).
I haven't seen anything in the literature which quite matches this. Given that, I'm not entirely sure that keeping the name "loop predication" is helpful. Anyone have suggestions for a better name? This is analogous to partial redundancy elimination - since we remove the condition flowing around the backedge - and has some parallels to our existing transforms which try to make conditions invariant in loops.
Factoring wise, I chose to put this in IndVarSimplify since it's a generally applicable to all workloads. I could split this off into it's own pass, but we'd then probably want to add that new pass every place we use IndVars. One solid argument for splitting it off into it's own pass is that this transform is "too good". It breaks a huge number of existing IndVars test cases as they tend to be simple read only loops. At the moment, I've opted it off by default, but if we add this to IndVars and enable, we'll have to update around 20 test files to add side effects or disable this transform.
Near term plan is to fuzz this extensively while off by default, reflect and discuss on the factoring issue mentioned just above, and then enable by default. I also need to give some though to supporting widenable conditions in this framing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67408
llvm-svn: 373351
Summary:
The BasicBlockManager is potentially broken and should not be used.
Replace all uses of the BasicBlockPass with a FunctionBlockPass+loop on
blocks.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jholewinski, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68234
llvm-svn: 373254
If we happen to have the same div in two basic blocks,
and in one of those we also happen to have the rem part,
we'd match the div-rem pair, but the wrong ones.
So let's drop overly-ambiguous assert.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43500
llvm-svn: 373167
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<StructType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373095
Summary:
This patch extends the current capabilities in loop fusion to fuse guarded loops
(as defined in https://reviews.llvm.org/D63885). The patch adds the necessary
safety checks to ensure that it safe to fuse the guarded loops (control flow
equivalent, no intervening code, and same guard conditions). It also provides an
alternative method to perform the actual fusion of guarded loops. The mechanics
to fuse guarded loops are slightly different then fusing non-guarded loops, so I
opted to keep them separate methods. I will be cleaning this up in later
patches, and hope to converge on a single method to fuse both guarded and
non-guarded loops, but for now I think the review will be easier to keep them
separate.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, Meinersbur, dmgreen, etiotto, Whitney
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65464
llvm-svn: 373018
For a runtime loop if we can compute its trip count upperbound:
Don't unroll if:
1. loop is not guaranteed to run either zero or upperbound iterations; and
2. trip count upperbound is less than UnrollMaxUpperBound
Unless user or TTI asked to do so.
If unrolling, limit unroll factor to loop's trip count upperbound.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62989
Change-Id: I6083c46a9d98b2e22cd855e60523fdc5a4929c73
llvm-svn: 373017
For large functions, verifying the whole function after each loop takes
non-linear time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67571
llvm-svn: 372924
While Promoting alloca instruction of Vector Type,
Check total size in bits of its slices too.
If they don't match, don't promote the alloca instruction.
Bug : https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42585
llvm-svn: 372480
Summary:
FlattenCFG may erase unnecessary blocks, which also invalidates iterators to those erased blocks.
Before this patch, `iterativelyFlattenCFG` could try to increment a BB iterator after that BB has been removed and crash.
This patch makes FlattenCFGPass use `WeakVH` to skip over erased blocks.
Reviewers: dblaikie, tstellar, davide, sanjoy, asbirlea, grosser
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67672
llvm-svn: 372347
In the example from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38502
...we hit infinite looping/crashing because we have non-standard IR -
an instruction operand is used before defined.
This and other unusual constructs are allowed in unreachable blocks,
so avoid the problem by using DominatorTree to step around landmines.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67766
llvm-svn: 372339
Add an ability to specify the max full unroll count for LoopUnrollPass pass
in pass options.
Reviewers: fhahn, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67701
llvm-svn: 372305
We use `< UP.Threshold` later on, so we should use LoopSize + 1, to
allow unrolling if the result won't exceed to loop size.
Fixes PR43305.
Reviewers: efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67594
llvm-svn: 372084
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371635
This reverts commit r371584. It introduced a dependency from compiler-rt
to llvm/include/ADT, which is problematic for multiple reasons.
One is that it is a novel dependency edge, which needs cross-compliation
machinery for llvm/include/ADT (yes, it is true that right now
compiler-rt included only header-only libraries, however, if we allow
compiler-rt to depend on anything from ADT, other libraries will
eventually get used).
Secondly, depending on ADT from compiler-rt exposes ADT symbols from
compiler-rt, which would cause ODR violations when Clang is built with
the profile library.
llvm-svn: 371598
Currently we only rely on the induction increment to come before the
condition to ensure the required instructions get moved to the new
latch.
This patch duplicates and moves the required instructions to the
newly created latch. We move the condition to the end of the new block,
then process its operands. We stop at operands that are defined
outside the loop, or are the induction PHI.
We duplicate the instructions and update the uses in the moved
instructions, to ensure other users remain intact. See the added
test2 for such an example.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67367
llvm-svn: 371595
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371584
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371484
Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use function attributes.
See discussion on D61634 for background. This is an enabler for fixing
handling of these options for LTO, for example.
This change should not affect behavior, as the provided function is not
yet used to build a specifically per-function TLI, but rather enables
that migration.
Most of the changes were very mechanical, e.g. passing a Function to the
legacy analysis pass's getTLI interface, or in Module level cases,
adding a callback. This is similar to the way the per-function TTI
analysis works.
There was one place where we were looking for builtins but not in the
context of a specific function. See FindCXAAtExit in
lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp. I'm somewhat concerned my workaround
could provide the wrong behavior in some corner cases. Suggestions
welcome.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: arsenm, dschuff, jvesely, nhaehnle, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, jfb, asbirlea, gchatelet, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66428
llvm-svn: 371284
If we have:
bb5:
br i1 %arg3, label %bb6, label %bb7
bb6:
%tmp = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp, align 4
br label %bb9
bb7:
%tmp8 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp8, align 4
br label %bb9
bb9: ; preds = %bb4, %bb6, %bb7
...
We can't sink stores directly into bb9.
This patch creates new BB that is successor of %bb6 and %bb7
and sinks stores into that block.
SplitFooterBB is the parameter to the pass that controls
that behavior.
Change-Id: I7fdf50a772b84633e4b1b860e905bf7e3e29940f
Differential: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66234
llvm-svn: 371089
When I dug into this, it turns out to be *much* more involved than I'd realized and doesn't actually simplify anything.
The general purpose of the leader table is that we want to find the most-dominating definition quickly. The problem for equivalance folding is slightly different; we want to find the most dominating *value* whose definition block dominates our use quickly.
To make this change, we'd end up having to restructure the leader table (either the sorting thereof, or maybe even introducing multiple leader tables per value) and that complexity is just not worth it.
llvm-svn: 370824
This extends the existing logic for propagating constant expressions in an analogous manner for what we do across basic blocks. The core point is that we chose some order of operands, and canonicalize uses towards that one.
The heuristic used is inspired by the one used across blocks; in a follow up change, I'd plan to common them so that the cross block version uses the slightly stronger ordering herein.
As noted by the TODOs in the code, there's a good amount of room for improving the existing code and making it more powerful. Some follow up work planned.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66977
llvm-svn: 370791
Use a { iN undef, i1 false } struct as the base, and only insert
the first operand, instead of using { iN undef, i1 undef } as the
base and inserting both. This is the same as what we do in InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67034
llvm-svn: 370573
This is an updated version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D66909 to fix PR42605.
Basically, current phi translatation translates an old value number to an new
value number for a call instruction based on the literal equality of call
expression, without verifying there is no clobber in between. This is incorrect.
To get a finegrain check, use MachineDependence analysis to do the job. However,
this is still not ideal. Although given a call instruction,
`MemoryDependenceResults::getCallDependencyFrom` returns identical call
instructions without clobber in between using MemDepResult with its DepType to
be `Def`. However, identical is too strict here and we want it to be relaxed a
little to consider phi-translation -- callee is the same, param operands can be
different. That means changing the semantic of `MemDepResult::Def` and I don't
know the potential impact.
So currently the patch is still conservative to only handle
MemDepResult::NonFuncLocal, which means the current call has no function local
clobber. If there is clobber, even if the clobber doesn't stand in between the
current call and the call with the new value, we won't do phi-translate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67013
llvm-svn: 370547
Summary:
@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.
In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.
libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ
libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)
So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}
```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
if (*a != *b) return false;
}
return true;
}
template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen(rd());
std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
std::vector<T> v;
v.reserve(count);
std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
[&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
assert(v.size() == count);
return v;
}
struct Identical {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
}
};
struct InequalHalfway {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
auto V1 = V0;
V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++; // just change the value.
return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
}
};
template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
const size_t Length = state.range(0);
const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());
benchmark::ClobberMemory();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());
for (auto _ : state) {
const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
}
state.SetComplexityN(Length);
state.counters["eltcnt"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}
template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
}
return 0;
}();
// What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
/*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 432131 ns 432101 ns 1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.86 N 0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 8 % 8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 161408 ns 161409 ns 4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.67 N 0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 25 % 25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 81497 ns 81488 ns 8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.71 N 0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 42 % 42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 50138 ns 50138 ns 10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.84 N 0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 27 % 27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 192405 ns 192392 ns 3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.38 N 0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 3 % 3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 127858 ns 127860 ns 5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 0 % 0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 49140 ns 49140 ns 14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.40 N 0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 18 % 18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 32101 ns 32099 ns 21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 1 % 1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 18593 ns 18590 ns 37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 37 % 37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 18950 ns 18948 ns 37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 34 % 34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 18627 ns 18627 ns 37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 35 % 35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 18855 ns 18855 ns 37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.32 N 0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 33 % 33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 9570 ns 9569 ns 73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.02 N 0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 9547 ns 9547 ns 74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 9396 ns 9394 ns 73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 30 % 30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 9499 ns 9498 ns 73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 28 % 28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 -0.9570 -0.9570 432131 18593 432101 18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 -0.8826 -0.8826 161408 18950 161409 18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 -0.7714 -0.7714 81497 18627 81488 18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 -0.6239 -0.6239 50138 18855 50138 18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 -0.9503 -0.9503 192405 9570 192392 9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 -0.9253 -0.9253 127858 9547 127860 9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 -0.8088 -0.8088 49140 9396 49140 9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 -0.7041 -0.7041 32101 9499 32099 9498
```
What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
linearly decreases with element size.
For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
element count is less than 8.
So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.
Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp
Program result-new
MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser 3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla 2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg 1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon 1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs 1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc 1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text
Program result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test 753.00 833.00 10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 1001697.00 966657.00 -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test 32369.00 32321.00 -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 89585.00 89505.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 40817.00 40785.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 47281.00 47249.00 -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 250065.00 250113.00 0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 149889.00 149873.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 769585.00 769569.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 770049.00 770049.00 0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4 NaN NaN nan%
Geomean difference nan%
result-old result-new diff
count 1.000000e+01 10.00000 10.000000
mean 3.152090e+05 311695.40000 0.006749
std 3.790398e+05 372091.42232 0.036605
min 7.530000e+02 833.00000 -0.034981
25% 4.243300e+04 42401.00000 -0.000866
50% 1.197370e+05 119689.00000 -0.000392
75% 6.397050e+05 639705.00000 -0.000005
max 1.001697e+06 966657.00000 0.106242
```
I don't have timings though.
And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.
Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144
llvm-svn: 370454
The code we had isSafeToLoadUnconditionally was blatantly wrong. This function takes a "Size" argument which is supposed to describe the span loaded from. Instead, the code use the size of the pointer passed (which may be unrelated!) and only checks that span. For any Size > LoadSize, this can and does lead to miscompiles.
Worse, the generic code just a few lines above correctly handles the cases which *are* valid. So, let's delete said code.
Removing this code revealed two issues:
1) As noted by jdoerfert the removed code incorrectly handled external globals. The test update in SROA is to stop testing incorrect behavior.
2) SROA was confusing bytes and bits, but this wasn't obvious as the Size parameter was being essentially ignored anyway. Fixed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66778
llvm-svn: 370102
We were computing the loop exit value, but not ensuring the addrec belonged to the loop whose exit value we were computing. I couldn't actually trip this; the test case shows the basic setup which *might* trip this, but none of the variations I've tried actually do.
llvm-svn: 369730
The alignment is calculated incorrectly, thus sometimes it doesn't generate aligned mov instructions, as shown by the example below:
```
// b.cc
typedef long long index;
extern "C" index g_tid;
extern "C" index g_num;
void add3(float* __restrict__ a, float* __restrict__ b, float* __restrict__ c) {
index n = 64*1024;
index m = 16*1024;
index k = 4*1024;
index tid = g_tid;
index num = g_num;
__builtin_assume_aligned(a, 32);
__builtin_assume_aligned(b, 32);
__builtin_assume_aligned(c, 32);
for (index i0=tid*k; i0<m; i0+=num*k)
for (index i1=0; i1<n*m; i1+=m)
for (index i2=0; i2<k; i2++)
c[i1+i0+i2] = b[i0+i2] + a[i1+i0+i2];
}
```
Compile with `clang b.cc -Ofast -march=skylake -mavx2 -S`
```
vmovaps -224(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm0
vmovups -192(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm1 # should be movaps
vmovups -160(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm2 # should be movaps
vmovups -128(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm3 # should be movaps
vaddps -224(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm0, %ymm0
vaddps -192(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm1, %ymm1
vaddps -160(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm2, %ymm2
vaddps -128(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm3, %ymm3
vmovaps %ymm0, -224(%rdx,%rbx,4)
vmovups %ymm1, -192(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
vmovups %ymm2, -160(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
vmovups %ymm3, -128(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66575
Patch by Dun Liang
llvm-svn: 369723
Currently we do not properly translate addresses with PHIs if LoadBB !=
LI->getParent(), because PHITranslateAddr expects a direct predecessor as argument,
because it considers all instructions outside of the current block to
not requiring translation.
The amount of cases that trigger this should be very low, as most single
predecessor blocks should be folded into their predecessor by GVN before
we actually start with value numbering. It is still not guaranteed to
happen, so we should do PHI translation along all edges between the
loads' block and the predecessor where we have to place a load.
There are a few test cases showing current limits of the PHI translation, which
could be improved later.
Reviewers: spatel, reames, efriedma, john.brawn
Reviewed By: efriedma
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65020
llvm-svn: 369570
Summary:
Simplify the API using Optional<> and address comments in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66165
Reviewers: vitalybuka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, ostannard, pcc
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66317
llvm-svn: 369300
Summary:
When inserting uses from outside the MemorySSA creation, we don't
normally need to rename uses, based on the assumption that there will be
no inserted Phis (if Def existed that required a Phi, that Phi already
exists). However, when dealing with unreachable blocks, MemorySSA will
optimize away Phis whose incoming blocks are unreachable, and these Phis end
up being re-added when inserting a Use.
There are two potential solutions here:
1. Analyze the inserted Phis and clean them up if they are unneeded
(current method for cleaning up trivial phis does not cover this)
2. Leave the Phi in place and rename uses, the same way as whe inserting
defs.
This patch use approach 2.
Resolves first test in PR42940.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66033
llvm-svn: 369291
This patch applies only to the new pass manager.
Currently, when MSSA Analysis is available, and pass to each loop pass, it will be preserved by that loop pass.
Hence, mark the analysis preserved based on that condition, vs the current `EnableMSSALoopDependency`. This leaves the global flag to affect only the entry point in the loop pass manager (in FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor).
llvm-svn: 369181
Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.
llvm-svn: 369013
We already supported rewriting loop exit values for multiple exit loops, but if any of the loop exits were not computable, we gave up on all loop exit values. This patch generalizes the existing code to handle individual computable loop exits where possible.
As discussed in the review, this is a starting point for figuring out a better API. The code is a bit ugly, but getting it in lets us test as we go.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65544
llvm-svn: 368898
I'm planning on handling intrinsics that will benefit from checking
the address space enums. Don't bother moving the address collection
for now, since those won't need th enums.
llvm-svn: 368895
Summary:
We can't speculate around indirect branches: indirectbr and invoke. The
callbr instruction needs to be included here.
Reviewers: nickdesaulniers, manojgupta, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66200
llvm-svn: 368873
Summary:
Hoisting/sinking instruction out of a loop isn't always beneficial. Hoisting an instruction from a cold block inside a loop body out of the loop could hurt performance. This change makes Loop ICM profile aware - it now checks block frequency to make sure hoisting/sinking anly moves instruction to colder block.
Test Plan:
ninja check
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy, reames, nikic, hfinkel, vsk
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: fhahn, vsk, davidxl, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65060
llvm-svn: 368526
This is an extension of a transform that tries to produce positive floating-point
constants to improve canonicalization (and hopefully lead to more reassociation
and CSE).
The original patches were:
D4904
D5363 (rL221721)
But as the test diffs show, these were limited to basic patterns by walking from
an instruction to its single user rather than recursively moving up the def-use
sequence. No fast-math is required here because we're only rearranging implicit
FP negations in intermediate ops.
A motivating bug is:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32939
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65954
llvm-svn: 368512
Summary:
Make sure that we report that changes has been made
by InstSimplify also in situations when only trivially
dead instructions has been removed. If for example a call
is removed the call graph must be updated.
Bug seem to have been introduced by llvm-svn r367173
(commit 02b9e45a7e), since the code in question
was rewritten in that commit.
Reviewers: spatel, chandlerc, foad
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65973
llvm-svn: 368401
For some targets the LICM pass can result in sub-optimal code in some
cases where it would be better not to run the pass, but it isn't
always possible to suppress the transformations heuristically.
Where the front-end has insight into such cases it is beneficial
to attach loop metadata to disable the pass - this change adds the
llvm.licm.disable metadata to enable that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64557
llvm-svn: 368296
D62198 introduced an option to relax the checks for
hasOnlyUniformBranches. This commit turns the option on by default, for
better code generation in some cases in AMDGPU.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63198
Change-Id: I9cbff002a1e74d3b7eb96b4192dc8129936d537d
llvm-svn: 368042
This patch adds an ability to disable profile based peeling
causing the peeling of all iterations and as a result prohibits
further unroll/peeling attempts on that loop.
The motivation to get an ability to separate peeling usage in
pipeline where in the first part we peel only separate iterations if needed
and later in pipeline we apply the full peeling which will prohibit further peeling.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64983
llvm-svn: 367668
Current peeling cost model can decide to peel off not all iterations
but only some of them to eliminate conditions on phi. At the same time
if any peeling happens the door for further unroll/peel optimizations on that
loop closes because the part of the code thinks that if peeling happened
it is profile based peeling and all iterations are peeled off.
To resolve this inconsistency the patch provides the flag which states whether
the full peeling basing on profile is enabled or not and peeling cost model
is able to modify this field like it does not PeelCount.
In a separate patch I will introduce an option to allow/disallow peeling basing
on profile.
To avoid infinite loop peeling the patch tracks the total number of peeled iteration
through llvm.loop.peeled.count loop metadata.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64972
llvm-svn: 367647
Summary:
While there is always a `Value::replaceAllUsesWith()`,
sometimes the replacement needs to be conditional.
I have only cleaned a few cases where `replaceUsesWithIf()`
could be used, to both add test coverage,
and show that it is actually useful.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, spatel, RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: dschuff, sbc100, jgravelle-google, hiraditya, aheejin, george.burgess.iv, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65528
llvm-svn: 367548
This is a prepatory patch for future work on support exit value rewriting in loops with a mixture of computable and non-computable exit counts. The intention is to be "mostly NFC" - i.e. not enable any interesting new transforms - but in practice, there are some small output changes.
The test differences are caused by cases wherewhere getSCEVAtScope can simplify a single entry phi without needing any knowledge of the loop.
llvm-svn: 367485
We have some code marks instructions with struct operands as overdefined,
but if the instruction is a call to a function with tracked arguments,
this breaks the assumption that the lattice values of all call sites
are not overdefined and will be replaced by a constant.
This also re-adds the assertion from D65222, with additionally skipping
non-callsite uses. This patch should address the cases reported in which
the assertion fired.
Fixes PR42738.
Reviewers: efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65439
llvm-svn: 367430
Summary:
While `-div-rem-pairs` pass can decompose rem in div+rem pair when div-rem pair
is unsupported by target, nothing performs the opposite fold.
We can't do that in InstCombine or DAGCombine since neither of those has access to TTI.
So it makes most sense to teach `-div-rem-pairs` about it.
If we matched rem in expanded form, we know we will be able to place div-rem pair
next to each other so we won't regress the situation.
Also, we shouldn't decompose rem if we matched already-decomposed form.
This is surprisingly straight-forward otherwise.
The original patch was committed in rL367288 but was reverted in rL367289
because it exposed pre-existing RAUW issues in internal data structures
of the pass; those now have been addressed in a previous patch.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, efriedma, ZaMaZaN4iK, bogner
Reviewed By: bogner
Subscribers: bogner, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65298
llvm-svn: 367419
Summary:
`DivRemPairs` internally creates two maps:
* {sign, divident, divisor} -> div instruction
* {sign, divident, divisor} -> rem instruction
Then it iterates over rem map, and looks if there is an entry
in div map with the same key. Then depending on some internal logic
it may RAUW rem instruction with something else.
But if that rem instruction is an input to other div/rem,
then it was used as a key in these maps, so the old value (used in key)
is now dandling, because RAUW didn't update those maps.
And we can't even RAUW map keys in general, there's `ValueMap`,
but we don't have a single `Value` as key...
The bug was discovered via D65298, and the test there exists.
Now, i'm not sure how to expose this issue in trunk.
The bug is clearly there if i change the map keys to be `AssertingVH`/`PoisoningVH`,
but i guess this didn't miscompiled anything thus far?
I really don't think this is benin without that patch.
The fix is actually rather straight-forward - instead of trying to somehow
shoe-horn `ValueMap` here (doesn't fit, key isn't just `Value`), or writing a new
`ValueMap` with key being a struct of `Value`s, we can just have an intermediate
data structure - a vector, each entry containing matching `Div, Rem` pair,
and pre-filling it before doing any modifications.
This way we won't need to query map after doing RAUW, so no bug is possible.
Reviewers: spatel, bogner, RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, hans, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65451
llvm-svn: 367417
LoopInfo can be easily preserved by passing it to the functions that
modify the CFG (SplitCriticalEdge and MergeBlockIntoPredecessor.
SplitCriticalEdge also preserves LoopSimplify and LCSSA form when when passing in
LoopInfo. The test case shows that we preserve LoopSimplify and
LoopInfo. Adding addPreservedID(LCSSAID) did not preserve LCSSA for some
reason.
Also I am not sure if it is possible to preserve those in the new pass
manager, as they aren't analysis passes.
Reviewers: reames, hfinkel, davide, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65137
llvm-svn: 367332
Summary:
This patch extends the use of the OptimizationRemarkEmitter to provide
information about loops that are not fused, and loops that are not eligible for
fusion. In particular, it uses the OptimizationRemarkAnalysis to identify loops
that are not eligible for fusion and the OptimizationRemarkMissed to identify
loops that cannot be fused.
It also reuses the statistics to provide the messages used in the
OptimizationRemarks. This provides common message strings between the
optimization remarks and the statistics.
I would like feedback on this approach, in general. If people are OK with this,
I will flesh out additional remarks in subsequent commits.
Subscribers: hiraditya, jsji, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63844
llvm-svn: 367327
test-suite/MultiSource/Benchmarks/DOE-ProxyApps-C/miniGMG broke:
Only PHI nodes may reference their own value!
%sub33 = srem i32 %sub33, %ranks_in_i
This reverts commit r367288.
llvm-svn: 367289
Summary:
While `-div-rem-pairs` pass can decompose rem in div+rem pair when div-rem pair
is unsupported by target, nothing performs the opposite fold.
We can't do that in InstCombine or DAGCombine since neither of those has access to TTI.
So it makes most sense to teach `-div-rem-pairs` about it.
If we matched rem in expanded form, we know we will be able to place div-rem pair
next to each other so we won't regress the situation.
Also, we shouldn't decompose rem if we matched already-decomposed form.
This is surprisingly straight-forward otherwise.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, efriedma, ZaMaZaN4iK, bogner
Reviewed By: bogner
Subscribers: bogner, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65298
llvm-svn: 367288
The test case from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42771
...shows a ~30x slowdown caused by the awkward loop iteration (rL207302) that is
seemingly done just to avoid invalidating the instruction iterator. We can instead
delay instruction deletion until we reach the end of the block (or we could delay
until we reach the end of all blocks).
There's a test diff here for a degenerate case with llvm.assume that is not
meaningful in itself, but serves to verify this change in logic.
This change probably doesn't result in much overall compile-time improvement
because we call '-instsimplify' as a standalone pass only once in the standard
-O2 opt pipeline currently.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65336
llvm-svn: 367173
unreachable loop.
updatePredecessorProfileMetadata in jumpthreading tries to find the
first dominating predecessor block for a PHI value by searching upwards
the predecessor block chain.
But jumpthreading may see some temporary IR state which contains
unreachable bb not being cleaned up. If an unreachable loop happens to
be on the predecessor block chain, keeping chasing the predecessor
block will run into an infinite loop.
The patch fixes it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65310
llvm-svn: 367154
Just move the utility function to LoopUtils.cpp to re-use it in loop peeling.
Reviewers: reames, Ashutosh
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65264
llvm-svn: 367085
We should only zap returns in functions, where all live users have a
replace-able value (are not overdefined). Unused return values should be
undefined.
This should make it easier to detect bugs like in PR42738.
Alternatively we could bail out of zapping the function returns, but I
think it would be better to address those divergences between function
and call-site values where they are actually caused.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65222
llvm-svn: 366998
The original code failed to account for the fact that one exit can have a pointer exit count without all of them having pointer exit counts. This could cause two separate bugs:
1) We might exit the loop early, and leave optimizations undone. This is what triggered the assertion failure in the reported test case.
2) We might optimize one exit, then exit without indicating a change. This could result in an analysis invalidaton bug if no other transform is done by the rest of indvars.
Note that the pointer exit counts are a really fragile concept. They show up only when we have a pointer IV w/o a datalayout to provide their size. It's really questionable to me whether the complexity implied is worth it.
llvm-svn: 366829
I don't have an IR sample which is actually failing, but the issue described in the comment is theoretically possible, and should be guarded against even if there's a different root cause for the bot failures.
llvm-svn: 366241
Continue in the spirit of D63618, and use exit count reasoning to prove away loop exits which can not be taken since the backedge taken count of the loop as a whole is provably less than the minimal BE count required to take this particular loop exit.
As demonstrated in the newly added tests, this triggers in a number of cases where IndVars was previously unable to discharge obviously redundant exit tests. And some not so obvious ones.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63733
llvm-svn: 365920
Simon Pilgrim