This is similar to D94106, but for the
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor() helper. We should not
assume that readonly functions will return, as this is only true for
mustprogress functions (in which case we already infer willreturn).
As with the DCE change, for now continue assuming that readonly
intrinsics will return, as not all target intrinsics have been
annotated yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95288
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch builds over https://reviews.llvm.org/rL303349 and replaces
the use of the condition only if it is safe to do so.
We should not blindly RAUW the condition if experimental.guard or assume
is a use of that
condition. This is because LVI may have used the guard/assume to
identify the
value of the condition, and RUAWing will fold the guard/assume and uses
before the guards/assumes.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong, mkazantsev
Reviewed by: sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
llvm-svn: 303633
Summary:
We have a bug when RAUWing the condition if experimental.guard or assumes is a use of that
condition. This is because LazyValueInfo may have used the guards/assumes to identify the
value of the condition at the end of the block. RAUW replaces the uses
at the guard/assume as well as uses before the guard/assume. Both of
these are incorrect.
For now, disable RAUW for conditions and fix the logic as a next
step: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33279
llvm-svn: 303349
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
See r230786 and r230794 for similar changes to gep and load
respectively.
Call is a bit different because it often doesn't have a single explicit
type - usually the type is deduced from the arguments, and just the
return type is explicit. In those cases there's no need to change the
IR.
When that's not the case, the IR usually contains the pointer type of
the first operand - but since typed pointers are going away, that
representation is insufficient so I'm just stripping the "pointerness"
of the explicit type away.
This does make the IR a bit weird - it /sort of/ reads like the type of
the first operand: "call void () %x(" but %x is actually of type "void
()*" and will eventually be just of type "ptr". But this seems not too
bad and I don't think it would benefit from repeating the type
("void (), void () * %x(" and then eventually "void (), ptr %x(") as has
been done with gep and load.
This also has a side benefit: since the explicit type is no longer a
pointer, there's no ambiguity between an explicit type and a function
that returns a function pointer. Previously this case needed an explicit
type (eg: a function returning a void() function was written as
"call void () () * @x(" rather than "call void () * @x(" because of the
ambiguity between a function returning a pointer to a void() function
and a function returning void).
No ambiguity means even function pointer return types can just be
written alone, without writing the whole function's type.
This leaves /only/ the varargs case where the explicit type is required.
Given the special type syntax in call instructions, the regex-fu used
for migration was a bit more involved in its own unique way (as every
one of these is) so here it is. Use it in conjunction with the apply.sh
script and associated find/xargs commands I've provided in rr230786 to
migrate your out of tree tests. Do let me know if any of this doesn't
cover your cases & we can iterate on a more general script/regexes to
help others with out of tree tests.
About 9 test cases couldn't be automatically migrated - half of those
were functions returning function pointers, where I just had to manually
delete the function argument types now that we didn't need an explicit
function type there. The other half were typedefs of function types used
in calls - just had to manually drop the * from those.
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r'((?:=|:|^|\s)call\s(?:[^@]*?))(\s*$|\s*(?:(?:\[\[[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\]\]|[@%](?:(")?[\\\?@a-zA-Z0-9_.]*?(?(3)"|)|{{.*}}))(?:\(|$)|undef|inttoptr|bitcast|null|asm).*$)')
addrspace_end = re.compile(r"addrspace\(\d+\)\s*\*$")
func_end = re.compile("(?:void.*|\)\s*)\*$")
def conv(match, line):
if not match or re.search(addrspace_end, match.group(1)) or not re.search(func_end, match.group(1)):
return line
return line[:match.start()] + match.group(1)[:match.group(1).rfind('*')].rstrip() + match.group(2) + line[match.end():]
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(conv(re.search(pat, line), line))
llvm-svn: 235145
This change teaches LazyValueInfo to use the @llvm.assume intrinsic. Like with
the known-bits change (r217342), this requires feeding a "context" instruction
pointer through many functions. Aside from a little refactoring to reuse the
logic that turns predicates into constant ranges in LVI, the only new code is
that which can 'merge' the range from an assumption into that otherwise
computed. There is also a small addition to JumpThreading so that it can have
LVI use assumptions in the same block as the comparison feeding a conditional
branch.
With this patch, we can now simplify this as expected:
int foo(int a) {
__builtin_assume(a > 5);
if (a > 3) {
bar();
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
llvm-svn: 217345
Nikita Popov