NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: thopre, yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
Assume bundle can have more than one entry with the same name,
but at least AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass::extractAlignmentInfo() uses
getOperandBundle("align"), which internally assumes that it isn't the
case, and happily crashes otherwise.
Minimal reduced reproducer: run `opt -alignment-from-assumptions` on
target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
%0 = type { i64, %1*, i8*, i64, %2, i32, %3*, i8* }
%1 = type opaque
%2 = type { i8, i8, i16 }
%3 = type { i32, i32, i32, i32 }
; Function Attrs: nounwind
define i32 @f(%0* noalias nocapture readonly %arg, %0* noalias %arg1) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
bb:
call void @llvm.assume(i1 true) [ "align"(%0* %arg, i64 8), "align"(%0* %arg1, i64 8) ]
ret i32 0
}
; Function Attrs: nounwind willreturn
declare void @llvm.assume(i1) #1
attributes #0 = { nounwind "reciprocal-estimates"="none" }
attributes #1 = { nounwind willreturn }
This is what we'd have with -mllvm -enable-knowledge-retention
This reverts commit c95ffadb24.
Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
If we're going to assume references are dereferenceable, we should also
assume they're aligned: otherwise, we can't actually dereference them.
See also D80072.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80166
Summary:
Clang -fpic defaults to -fno-semantic-interposition (GCC -fpic defaults
to -fsemantic-interposition).
Users need to specify -fsemantic-interposition to get semantic
interposition behavior.
Semantic interposition is currently a best-effort feature. There may
still be some cases where it is not handled well.
Reviewers: peter.smith, rnk, serge-sans-paille, sfertile, jfb, jdoerfert
Subscribers: dschuff, jyknight, dylanmckay, nemanjai, jvesely, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, arphaman, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, Jim, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, sameer.abuasal, apazos, luismarques, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73865
We already add the align parameter attribute for function parameters that have
the align_value attribute (or those with a typedef type having that attribute),
which is an important special case, but does not handle pointers with value
alignment assumptions that come into scope in any other way. To handle the
general case, emit an @llvm.assume-based alignment assumption whenever we load
the pointer-typed lvalue of an align_value-attributed variable (except for
function parameters, which we already deal with at entry).
I'll also note that this is more general than Intel's described support in:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/data-alignment-to-assist-vectorization
which states that the compiler inserts __assume_aligned directives in response
to align_value-attributed variables only for function parameters and for the
initializers of local variables. I think that we can make the optimizer deal
with this more-general scheme (which could lead to a lot of calls to
@llvm.assume inside of loop bodies, for example), but if not, I'll rework this
to be less aggressive.
llvm-svn: 219052
This adds support for the align_value attribute. This attribute is supported by
Intel's compiler (versions 14.0+), and several of my HPC users have requested
support in Clang. It specifies an alignment assumption on the values to which a
pointer points, and is used by numerical libraries to encourage efficient
generation of vector code.
Of course, we already have an aligned attribute that can specify enhanced
alignment for a type, so why is this additional attribute important? The
problem is that if you want to specify that an input array of T is, say,
64-byte aligned, you could try this:
typedef double aligned_double attribute((aligned(64)));
void foo(aligned_double *P) {
double x = P[0]; // This is fine.
double y = P[1]; // What alignment did those doubles have again?
}
the access here to P[1] causes problems. P was specified as a pointer to type
aligned_double, and any object of type aligned_double must be 64-byte aligned.
But if P[0] is 64-byte aligned, then P[1] cannot be, and this access causes
undefined behavior. Getting round this problem requires a lot of awkward
casting and hand-unrolling of loops, all of which is bad.
With the align_value attribute, we can accomplish what we'd like in a well
defined way:
typedef double *aligned_double_ptr attribute((align_value(64)));
void foo(aligned_double_ptr P) {
double x = P[0]; // This is fine.
double y = P[1]; // This is fine too.
}
This attribute does not create a new type (and so it not part of the type
system), and so will only "propagate" through templates, auto, etc. by
optimizer deduction after inlining. This seems consistent with Intel's
implementation (thanks to Alexey for confirming the various Intel-compiler
behaviors).
As a final note, I would have chosen to call this aligned_value, not
align_value, for better naming consistency with the aligned attribute, but I
think it would be more useful to users to adopt Intel's name.
llvm-svn: 218910
Tyker