Shrink-wrapping uses post-dominators to find a restore point that
post-dominates all the uses of CSR / stack.
The way dominator trees are modeled in LLVM today is that unreachable
blocks are not present in a generic dominator tree, so, an unreachable node is
dominated by anything: include/llvm/Support/GenericDomTree.h:467.
Since for post-dominators, a no-return block is considered
"unreachable", calling findNearestCommonDominator on an unreachable node
A and a non-unreachable node B, will return B, which can be false. If we
find such node, we bail out since there is no good restore point
available.
rdar://problem/30186931
llvm-svn: 303130
We need to know whether or not a given basic block is in a loop for the analysis
to be correct.
Loop information may be incomplete on irreducible CFGs, therefore we may
generate incorrect code if we use it in those situations.
This fixes PR25988.
llvm-svn: 257012
FindIDom() can fail in two different ways - it can either return nullptr or the
block itself, depending on the circumstances. Some users of FindIDom() check
one error condition, while others check the other.
Change it to always return nullptr on failure.
This fixes PR26004.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15847
llvm-svn: 256955
The post-dominance property is not sufficient to guarantee that a restore point
inside a loop is safe.
E.g.,
while(1) {
Save
Restore
if (...)
break;
use/def CSRs
}
All the uses/defs of CSRs are dominated by Save and post-dominated
by Restore. However, the CSRs uses are still reachable after
Restore and before Save are executed.
This fixes PR25824
llvm-svn: 255613
The included test only checks for a compiler crash for now. Several people are
facing this issue, so we first resolve the crash, and will increase shrinkwrap's
coverage later in a follow-up patch.
llvm-svn: 253718
attribute.
Even if the target supports shrink-wrapping, the prologue and epilogue
must not move because a crash can happen anywhere and sanitizers need
to be able to unwind from the PC of the crash.
llvm-svn: 253116
ShrinkWrapping does not understand exception handling constraints for now, so
make sure we do not mess with them by aborting on functions that use EH
funclets.
llvm-svn: 252917
- Strenghten the logic to be sure we hoist the restore point out of the current
loop. (The fixes a bug with infinite loop, added as part of the patch.)
- Walk over the exit blocks of the current loop to conver to the desired restore
point in one iteration of the update loop.
llvm-svn: 247958
This may happen when the input program itself contains an infinite loop with no
exit block. In that case, we would fail to find a block post-dominating the loop
such that this block is outside of the loop.
This fixes PR24823.
Working on reducing the test case.
llvm-svn: 247710
Based on comments from Hal
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150810/292978.html),
I've changed the interface to add a callback mechanism to the
TargetFrameLowering class to query whether the specific target
supports shrink wrapping. By default, shrink wrapping is disabled by
default. Each target can override the default behaviour using the
TargetFrameLowering::targetSupportsShrinkWrapping() method. Shrink
wrapping can still be explicitly enabled or disabled from the command
line, using the existing -enable-shrink-wrap=<true|false> option.
Phabricator: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12293
llvm-svn: 246463
points.
There is an infinite loop that can occur in Shrink Wrapping while searching
for the Save/Restore points.
Part of this search checks whether the save/restore points are located in
different loop nests and if so, uses the (post) dominator trees to find the
immediate (post) dominator blocks. However, if the current block does not have
any immediate (post) dominators then this search will result in an infinite
loop. This can occur in code containing an infinite loop.
The modification checks whether the immediate (post) dominator is different from
the current save/restore block. If it is not, then the search terminates and the
current location is not considered as a valid save/restore point for shrink wrapping.
Phabricator: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11607
llvm-svn: 244247
It adds a new constructor, which takes a std::function predicate function that
is run at the beginning of shrink wrapping to determine whether the optimization
should run on the given machine function. The std::function can be overridden by
each target, allowing target-specific decisions to be made on each machine
function.
This is necessary for PowerPC, as the decision to run shrink wrapping is
partially based on the ABI. Futhermore, this operates nicely with the GCC iFunc
capability, which allows option overrides on a per-function basis.
Phabricator: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11421
llvm-svn: 244235
This was previously returning int. However there are no negative opcode
numbers and more importantly this was needlessly different from
MCInstrDesc::getOpcode() (which even is the value returned here) and
SDValue::getOpcode()/SDNode::getOpcode().
llvm-svn: 237611
This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the
prologue and epilogue of the function.
The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits
blocks.
As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also
implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64.
** Context **
Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the
entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when
those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed
places.
The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places.
** Motivating example **
Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of
a if:
define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
%tmp = alloca i32, align 4
%tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false
true:
store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4
%tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp)
br label %false
false:
%tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ]
ret i32 %tmp.0
}
On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease
readabilities):
_f: ; @f
; BB#0:
stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
mov x29, sp
sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16
cmp w0, w1
b.ge LBB0_2
; BB#1: ; %true
stur w0, [x29, #-4]
sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4
mov w0, wzr
bl _doSomething
LBB0_2: ; %false
mov sp, x29
ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
ret
With shrink-wrapping we could generate:
_f: ; @f
; BB#0:
cmp w0, w1
b.ge LBB0_2
; BB#1: ; %true
stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
mov x29, sp
sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16
stur w0, [x29, #-4]
sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4
mov w0, wzr
bl _doSomething
add sp, x29, #16 ; =16
ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
LBB0_2: ; %false
ret
Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if
we actually do the call.
** Proposed Solution **
This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping
analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details).
It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo
attached to the MachineFunction.
This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the
related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI.
Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of
shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack
to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and
loop properties.
The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the
EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig.
This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using
-enable-shrink-wrap.
Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your
emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not
necessarily the entry block.
** Design Decisions **
1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but
for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file.
2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some
point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted
component would then be:
- The pass itself: New algorithm needed.
- MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one
pointer.
- PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point.
Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting
to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating
examples.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210
<rdar://problem/3201744>
llvm-svn: 236507
Matthias Braun