As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch makes the DoesKMove argument non-optional, to force people
to think about it. Most cases where it is false are either code hoisting
or code sinking, where we pick one instruction from a set of
equal instructions among different code paths.
Reviewers: dberlin, nlopes, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47475
llvm-svn: 340606
This patch implements Chandler's idea [0] for supporting languages that
require support for infinite loops with side effects, such as Rust, providing
part of a solution to bug 965 [1].
Specifically, it adds an `llvm.sideeffect()` intrinsic, which has no actual
effect, but which appears to optimization passes to have obscure side effects,
such that they don't optimize away loops containing it. It also teaches
several optimization passes to ignore this intrinsic, so that it doesn't
significantly impact optimization in most cases.
As discussed on llvm-dev [2], this patch is the first of two major parts.
The second part, to change LLVM's semantics to have defined behavior
on infinite loops by default, with a function attribute for opting into
potential-undefined-behavior, will be implemented and posted for review in
a separate patch.
[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html
[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118632.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38336
llvm-svn: 317729
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
Cameron McInally