Summary:
Update the check for the default exit block to not only check that the
terminator is not unreachable, but also check that unreachable block has
*only* the unreachable instruction.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: hiraditya, uabelho, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78277
loop nest.
Summary: As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D73129.
Example
Before unroll and jam:
for
A
for
B
for
C
D
E
After unroll and jam (currently):
for
A
A'
for
B
for
C
D
B'
for
C'
D'
E
E'
After unroll and jam (Ideal):
for
A
A'
for
B
B'
for
C
C'
D
D'
E
E'
This is the first patch to change unroll and jam to work in the ideal
way.
This patch change the safety checks needed to make sure is safe to
unroll and jam in the ideal way.
Reviewer: dmgreen, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, kbarton, bmahjour, etiotto
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, anhtuyen, prithayan
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76132
LSR has some logic that tries to aggressively reuse registers in
formula. This can lead to sub-optimal decision in complex loops where
the backend it trying to use shouldFavorPostInc. This disables the
re-use in those situations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79301
Make the kind of cost explicit throughout the cost model which,
apart from making the cost clear, will allow the generic parts to
calculate better costs. It will also allow some backends to
approximate and correlate the different costs if they wish. Another
benefit is that it will also help simplify the cost model around
immediate and intrinsic costs, where we currently have multiple APIs.
RFC thread:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-April/141263.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79002
This fixes potential reference invalidations, when no lattice value is
assigned for CopyOf. As the state of CopyOf won't change while in
handleCallResult, we can get a copy once and use that.
Should fix PR45749.
Summary: There is no need to create BPI explicitly. It should be requested through AM in a normal way.
Reviewers: skatkov
Reviewed By: skatkov
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79080
Summary: Currenlty BPI unconditionally creates post dominator tree each time. While this is not incorrect we can save compile time by reusing existing post dominator tree (when it's valid) provided by analysis manager.
Reviewers: skatkov, taewookoh, yrouban
Reviewed By: skatkov
Subscribers: hiraditya, steven_wu, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78987
This allows forward declarations of PointerCheck, which in turn reduce
the number of times LoopAccessAnalysis needs to be included.
Ultimately this helps with moving runtime check generation to
Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h, without having to include it there.
Reviewers: anemet, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78458
There are several different types of cost that TTI tries to provide
explicit information for: throughput, latency, code size along with
a vague 'intersection of code-size cost and execution cost'.
The vectorizer is a keen user of RecipThroughput and there's at least
'getInstructionThroughput' and 'getArithmeticInstrCost' designed to
help with this cost. The latency cost has a single use and a single
implementation. The intersection cost appears to cover most of the
rest of the API.
getUserCost is explicitly called from within TTI when the user has
been explicit in wanting the code size (also only one use) as well
as a few passes which are concerned with a mixture of size and/or
a relative cost. In many cases these costs are closely related, such
as when multiple instructions are required, but one evident diverging
cost in this function is for div/rem.
This patch adds an argument so that the cost required is explicit,
so that we can make the important distinction when necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78635
This method has been commented as deprecated for a while. Remove
it and replace all uses with the equivalent getCalledOperand().
I also made a few cleanups in here. For example, to removes use
of getElementType on a pointer when we could just use getFunctionType
from the call.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78882
Integer ranges can be used for loaded/stored values. Note that widening
can be disabled for loads/stores, as we only rely on instructions that
cause continued increases to ranges to be widened (like binary
operators).
Reviewers: efriedma, mssimpso, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78433
Using the existing NumFastStores statistic can be misleading when
comparing the impact of DSE patches.
For example, consider the case where a store gets removed from a
function before it is inlined into another function. A less
powerful DSE might only remove the store from functions it has
been inlined into, which will result in more stores being removed, but
no difference in the actual number of stores after DSE.
The new stat provides the absolute number of stores surviving after
DSE.
Reviewers: dmgreen, bryant, asbirlea, jfb
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78830
This patch slightly improves the formatting of the debug output, adds a
few missing outputs and makes some existing outputs more consistent with
the rest.
Summary:
This is RFC for fixes in poison-related functions of ValueTracking.
These functions assume that a value can be poison bitwisely, but the semantics
of bitwise poison is not clear at the moment.
Allowing a value to have bitwise poison adds complexity to reasoning about
correctness of optimizations.
This patch makes the analysis functions simply assume that a value is
either fully poison or not, which has been used to understand the correctness
of a few previous optimizations.
The bitwise poison semantics seems to be only used by these functions as well.
In terms of implementation, using value-wise poison concept makes existing
functions do more precise analysis, which is what this patch contains.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, reames, nikic, nlopes, regehr
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78503
Summary:
This is RFC for fixes in poison-related functions of ValueTracking.
These functions assume that a value can be poison bitwisely, but the semantics
of bitwise poison is not clear at the moment.
Allowing a value to have bitwise poison adds complexity to reasoning about
correctness of optimizations.
This patch makes the analysis functions simply assume that a value is
either fully poison or not, which has been used to understand the correctness
of a few previous optimizations.
The bitwise poison semantics seems to be only used by these functions as well.
In terms of implementation, using value-wise poison concept makes existing
functions do more precise analysis, which is what this patch contains.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, reames, nikic, nlopes, regehr
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78503
visitExtractValueInst uses mergeInValue, so it already can handle
constant ranges. Initially the early exit was using isOverdefined to
keep things as NFC during the initial move to ValueLatticeElement.
As the function already supports constant ranges, it can just use
ValueState[&I].isOverdefined.
Reviewers: efriedma, mssimpso, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78393
Use Instruction::comesBefore() instead of OrderedInstructions
inside InstructionPrecedenceTracking. This also removes the
dominator tree dependency.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78461
Summary:
The indexing operator in Scatterer may result in building new
instructions. When using multiple such operators in a function
argument list the order in which we build instructions depend on
argument evaluation order (which is undefined in C++).
This patch avoid such problems by expanding the components using
the [] operator prior to the function call.
Problem was seen when comparing output, while builing LLVM with
different compilers (clang vs gcc).
Reviewers: foad, cameron.mcinally, uabelho
Reviewed By: foad
Subscribers: hiraditya, mgrang, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78455
Some includes are not required and forward declarations can be used
instead. This also exposed a few places that were not directly including
required files.
This makes it easier to extend the merge options in the future and also
reduces the risk of accidentally setting a wrong option.
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, reames, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78368
There are also some adjustments to use MaybeAlign in here due
to CallBase::getParamAlignment() being deprecated. It would
be a little cleaner if getOrEnforceKnownAlignment was migrated
to Align/MaybeAlign.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78345
There are also some adjustments to use MaybeAlign in here due
to CallBase::getParamAlignment() being deprecated. It would
be cleaner if getOrEnforceKnownAlignment was migrated
to Align/MaybeAlign.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78345
Users of ValueLatticeElement currently have to ensure constant ranges
are not extended indefinitely. For example, in SCCP, mergeIn goes to
overdefined if a constantrange value is repeatedly merged with larger
constantranges. This is a simple form of widening.
In some cases, this leads to an unnecessary loss of information and
things can be improved by allowing a small number of extensions in the
hope that a fixed point is reached after a small number of steps.
To make better decisions about widening, it is helpful to keep track of
the number of range extensions. That state is tied directly to a
concrete ValueLatticeElement and some unused bits in the class can be
used. The current patch preserves the existing behavior by default:
CheckWiden defaults to false and if CheckWiden is true, a single change
to the range is allowed.
Follow-up patches will slightly increase the threshold for widening.
Reviewers: efriedma, davide, mssimpso
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78145
Alina Sbirlea