This is a fix for PR33292 that shows a case of extremely long compilation
of a single .c file with clang, with most time spent within SCEV.
We have a mechanism of limiting recursion depth for getAddExpr to avoid
long analysis in SCEV. However, there are calls from getAddExpr to getMulExpr
and back that do not propagate the info about depth. As result of this, a chain
getAddExpr -> ... .> getAddExpr -> getMulExpr -> getAddExpr -> ... -> getAddExpr
can be extremely long, with every segment of getAddExpr's being up to max depth long.
This leads either to long compilation or crash by stack overflow. We face this situation while
analyzing big SCEVs in the test of PR33292.
This patch applies the same limit on max expression depth for getAddExpr and getMulExpr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33984
llvm-svn: 305463
The zero heuristic assumes that integers are more likely positive than negative,
but this also has the effect of assuming that strcmp return values are more
likely positive than negative. Given that for nonzero strcmp return values it's
the ordering of arguments that determines the sign of the result there's no
reason to assume that's true.
Fix this by inspecting the LHS of the compare and using TargetLibraryInfo to
decide if it's strcmp-like, and if so only assume that nonzero is more likely
than zero i.e. strings are more often different than the same. This causes a
slight code generation change in the spec2006 benchmark 403.gcc, but with no
noticeable performance impact. The intent of this patch is to allow better
optimisation of dhrystone on Cortex-M cpus, but currently it won't as there are
also some changes that need to be made to if-conversion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33934
llvm-svn: 304970
Summary:
LVIPrinter pass was previously relying on the LVICache. We now directly call the
the LVI functions which solves the value if the LVI information is not already
available in the cache. This has 2 benefits over the printing of LVI cache:
1. higher coverage (i.e. catches errors) in LVI code when cache value is
invalidated.
2. relies on the core functions, and not dependent on the LVI cache (which may
be scrapped at some point).
It would still catch any cache invalidation errors, since we first go through
the cache.
Reviewers: reames, dberlin, sanjoy
Reviewed by: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32135
llvm-svn: 304819
Thanks to Galina Kistanova for finding the missing break!
When trying to make a test for this, I realized our logic for handling
extractvalue/insertvalue/... is somewhat broken. This makes constructing
a test-case for this missing break nontrivial.
llvm-svn: 304275
The optimistic delinearization implemented in LLVM detects array sizes by
looking for non-linear products between parameters and induction variables.
In OpenCL code, such products often look like:
A[get_global_id(0) * N + get_global_id(1)]
Hence, the IV is hidden in the get_global_id() call and consequently
delinearization would fail as no induction variable is available that helps
us to identify N as array size parameter.
We now use a very simple heuristic to change this. We assume that each parameter
that comes directly from a function call is a hidden induction variable. As
a result, we can delinearize the access above to:
A[get_global_id(0)][get_global_id(1]
llvm-svn: 304073
The patch rL303730 was reverted because test lsr-expand-quadratic.ll failed on
many non-X86 configs with this patch. The reason of this is that the patch
makes a correctless fix that changes optimizer's behavior for this test.
Without the change, LSR was making an overconfident simplification basing on a
wrong SCEV. Apparently it did not need the IV analysis to do this. With the
change, it chose a different way to simplify (that wasn't so confident), and
this way required the IV analysis. Now, following the right execution path,
LSR tries to make a transformation relying on IV Users analysis. This analysis
is target-dependent due to this code:
// LSR is not APInt clean, do not touch integers bigger than 64-bits.
// Also avoid creating IVs of non-native types. For example, we don't want a
// 64-bit IV in 32-bit code just because the loop has one 64-bit cast.
uint64_t Width = SE->getTypeSizeInBits(I->getType());
if (Width > 64 || !DL.isLegalInteger(Width))
return false;
To make a proper transformation in this test case, the type i32 needs to be
legal for the specified data layout. When the test runs on some non-X86
configuration (e.g. pure ARM 64), opt gets confused by the specified target
and does not use it, rejecting the specified data layout as well. Instead,
it uses some default layout that does not treat i32 as a legal type
(currently the layout that is used when it is not specified does not have
legal types at all). As result, the transformation we expect to happen does
not happen for this test.
This re-enabling patch does not have any source code changes compared to the
original patch rL303730. The only difference is that the failing test is
moved to X86 directory and now has requirement of running on x86 only to comply
with the specified target triple and data layout.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33543
llvm-svn: 303971
When folding arguments of AddExpr or MulExpr with recurrences, we rely on the fact that
the loop of our base recurrency is the bottom-lost in terms of domination. This assumption
may be broken by an expression which is treated as invariant, and which depends on a complex
Phi for which SCEVUnknown was created. If such Phi is a loop Phi, and this loop is lower than
the chosen AddRecExpr's loop, it is invalid to fold our expression with the recurrence.
Another reason why it might be invalid to fold SCEVUnknown into Phi start value is that unlike
other SCEVs, SCEVUnknown are sometimes position-bound. For example, here:
for (...) { // loop
phi = {A,+,B}
}
X = load ...
Folding phi + X into {A+X,+,B}<loop> actually makes no sense, because X does not exist and cannot
exist while we are iterating in loop (this memory can be even not allocated and not filled by this moment).
It is only valid to make such folding if X is defined before the loop. In this case the recurrence {A+X,+,B}<loop>
may be existant.
This patch prohibits folding of SCEVUnknown (and those who use them) into the start value of an AddRecExpr,
if this instruction is dominated by the loop. Merging the dominating unknown values is still valid. Some tests that
relied on the fact that some SCEVUnknown should be folded into AddRec's are changed so that they no longer
expect such behavior.
llvm-svn: 303730
This is a re-application of a r303497 that was reverted in r303498.
I thought it had broken a bot when it had not (the breakage did not
go away with the revert).
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303531
This change makes the split between the "exact" backedge taken count
and the "maximum" backedge taken count a bit more obvious. Both of
these are upper bounds on the number of times the loop header
executes (since SCEV does not account for most kinds of abnormal
control flow), but the latter is guaranteed to be a constant.
There were a few places where the max backedge taken count *was* a
non-constant; I've changed those to compute constants instead.
At this point, I'm not sure if the constant max backedge count can be
computed by calling `getUnsignedRange(Exact).getUnsignedMax()` without
losing precision. If it can, we can simplify even further by making
`getMaxBackedgeTakenCount` a thin wrapper around
`getBackedgeTakenCount` and `getUnsignedRange`.
llvm-svn: 303497
The probability of edge coming to unreachable block should be as low as possible.
The change reduces the probability to minimal value greater than zero.
The bug https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32214 show the example when
the probability of edge coming to unreachable block is greater than for edge
coming to out of the loop and it causes incorrect loop rotation.
Please note that with this change the behavior of unreachable heuristic is a bit different
than others. Specifically, before this change the sum of probabilities
coming to unreachable blocks have the same weight for all branches
(it was just split over all edges of this block coming to unreachable blocks).
With this change it might be slightly different but not to much due to probability of
taken branch to unreachable block is really small.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, vsk, congh, junbuml, davidxl, dexonsmith
Reviewed By: chandlerc, dexonsmith
Subscribers: reames, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30633
llvm-svn: 303327
The existing sorting order in defined CompareSCEVComplexity sorts AddRecExprs
by loop depth, but does not pay attention to dominance of loops. This can
lead us to the following buggy situation:
for (...) { // loop1
op1 = {A,+,B}
}
for (...) { // loop2
op2 = {A,+,B}
S = add op1, op2
}
In this case there is no guarantee that in operand list of S the op2 comes
before op1 (loop depth is the same, so they will be sorted just
lexicographically), so we can incorrectly treat S as a recurrence of loop1,
which is wrong.
This patch changes the sorting logic so that it places the dominated recs
before the dominating recs. This ensures that when we pick the first recurrency
in the operands order, it will be the bottom-most in terms of domination tree.
The attached test set includes some tests that produce incorrect SCEV
estimations and crashes with oldlogic.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33121
llvm-svn: 303148
Update a few tests to use llvm.masked.load/store instead of arm neon
vector loads and stores, and move the tests that are actually specific
to those arm intrinsics to their own files. This lets us mark the
tests that use target specific intrinsics as requiring those targets.
llvm-svn: 302972
This is a follow up patch for https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300440
to address a comment.
To make implementation to be consistent with other cases we just
ignore the remainder after distribution of remaining probability between
reachable edges.
If we reduced the probability of some edges coming to unreachable
blocks we should distribute the remaining part across other edges
coming to reachable blocks to satisfy the condition that sum of all
probabilities should be equal to one. If this remaining part is not
divided by number of "reachable" edges then we get this remainder.
This remainder probability should be pretty small. Other cases just ignore
if the sum of probabilities is not equal to one so we do the same.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, vsk, junbuml, reames
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: reames, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32124
llvm-svn: 302883
The AArch64 instruction set has a few "widening" instructions (e.g., uaddl,
saddl, uaddw, etc.) that take one or more doubleword operands and produce
quadword results. The operands are automatically sign- or zero-extended as
appropriate. However, in LLVM IR, these extends are explicit. This patch
updates TTI to consider these widening instructions as single operations whose
cost is attached to the arithmetic instruction. It marks extends that are part
of a widening operation "free" and applies a sub-target specified overhead
(zero by default) to the arithmetic instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32706
llvm-svn: 302582
Account for subvector extraction/insertion, helps prevent the vectorizers from selecting 256-bit vectors that will have to be split anyhow on AVX1 targets.
llvm-svn: 302378
Summary:
The existing implementation creates a symbolic SCEV expression every
time we analyze a phi node and then has to remove it, when the analysis
is finished. This is very expensive, and in most of the cases it's also
unnecessary. According to the data I collected, ~60-70% of analyzed phi
nodes (measured on SPEC) have the following form:
PN = phi(Start, OP(Self, Constant))
Handling such cases separately significantly speeds this up.
Reviewers: sanjoy, pete
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32663
llvm-svn: 302096
Fixes PR31789 - When loop-vectorize tries to use these intrinsics for a
non-default address space pointer we fail with a "Calling a function with a
bad singature!" assertion. This patch solves this by adding the 'vector of
pointers' argument as an overloaded type which will determine the address
space.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31490
llvm-svn: 302018
In cases where an instruction (a call site, say) is RAUW'ed with some
other value (this is possible via the `returned` attribute, for
instance), we want the slot in UnknownInsts to point to the original
Instruction we wanted to track, not the value it got replaced by.
Fixes PR32587.
This relands r301426.
llvm-svn: 301814
Summary:
programUndefinedIfPoison makes more sense, given what the function
does; and I'm about to add a function with a name similar to
isKnownNotFullPoison (so do the rename to avoid confusion).
Reviewers: broune, majnemer, bjarke.roune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30444
llvm-svn: 301776
Commits were:
"Use WeakVH instead of WeakTrackingVH in AliasSetTracker's UnkownInsts"
"Add a new WeakVH value handle; NFC"
"Rename WeakVH to WeakTrackingVH; NFC"
The changes assumed pointers are 8 byte aligned on all architectures.
llvm-svn: 301429
Summary:
In cases where an instruction (a call site, say) is RAUW'ed with some
other value (this is possible via the `returned` attribute, amongst
other things), we want the slot in UnknownInsts to point to the
original Instruction we wanted to track, not the value it got replaced
by.
Fixes PR32587.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32268
llvm-svn: 301426
Summary:
In a previous change I changed SCEV's normalization / denormalization
to work with non-affine add recs. So the bailout in IVUsers can be
removed.
Reviewers: atrick, efriedma
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: davide, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32105
llvm-svn: 301298
There have been multiple reports of this causing problems: a
compile-time explosion on the LLVM testsuite, and a stack
overflow for an opencl kernel.
llvm-svn: 300928
Use haveNoCommonBitsSet to figure out whether an "or" instruction
is equivalent to addition. This handles more cases than just
checking for a constant on the RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32239
llvm-svn: 300746
Metadata potentially is more precise than any heuristics we use, so
it makes sense to use first metadata info if it is available. However it makes
sense to examine it against other strong heuristics like unreachable one.
If edge coming to unreachable block has higher probability then it is expected
by unreachable heuristic then we use heuristic and remaining probability is
distributed among other reachable blocks equally.
An example where metadata might be more strong then unreachable heuristic is
as follows: it is possible that there are two branches and for the branch A
metadata says that its probability is (0, 2^25). For the branch B
the probability is (1, 2^25).
So the expectation is that first edge of B is hotter than first edge of A
because first edge of A did not executed at least once.
If first edge of A points to the unreachable block then using the unreachable
heuristics we'll set the probability for A to (1, 2^20) and now edge of A
becomes hotter than edge of B.
This is unexpected behavior.
This fixed the biggest part of https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32214
Reviewers: sanjoy, junbuml, vsk, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, reames, davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30631
llvm-svn: 300440
Summary:
* Add a bitreverse case in the demanded bits analysis pass.
* Add tests for the bitreverse (and bswap) intrinsic in the
demanded bits pass.
* Add a test case to the BDCE tests: that manipulations to
high-order bits are eliminated once the bits are reversed
and then right-shifted.
Reviewers: mkuper, jmolloy, hfinkel, trentxintong
Reviewed By: jmolloy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31857
llvm-svn: 300215
Summary:
Readnone attribute would cause CSE of two barriers with
the same argument, which is invalid by example:
struct Base {
virtual int foo() { return 42; }
};
struct Derived1 : Base {
int foo() override { return 50; }
};
struct Derived2 : Base {
int foo() override { return 100; }
};
void foo() {
Base *x = new Base{};
new (x) Derived1{};
int a = std::launder(x)->foo();
new (x) Derived2{};
int b = std::launder(x)->foo();
}
Here 2 calls of std::launder will produce @llvm.invariant.group.barrier,
which would be merged into one call, causing devirtualization
to devirtualize second call into Derived1::foo() instead of
Derived2::foo()
Reviewers: chandlerc, dberlin, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, rsmith, amharc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31531
llvm-svn: 300101
Max Kazantsev