According to LangRef, an access scope must have zero operands and
be distinct. The access group may either be a single access scope
or a list of access scopes.
LoopInfo may assert if this is not the case.
As long as *all* the invokes in the set are indirect,
we can merge them, but don't merge direct invokes into the set,
even though it would be legal to do.
If the original invokes had uses, the uses must have been in PHI's,
but that immediately results in the incoming values being incompatible.
But we'll replace uses of the original invokes with the use of the
merged invoke, so as long as the incoming values become compatible
after that, we can merge.
Even if the invokes have normal destination, iff it's the same block,
we can merge them. For now, require that there are no PHI nodes,
and the returned values of invokes aren't used.
As per LangRef's definition of `noreturn` attribute:
```
noreturn
This function attribute indicates that the function never returns
normally, hence through a return instruction.
This produces undefined behavior at runtime if the function
ever does dynamically return. nnotated functions may still
raise an exception, i.a., nounwind is not implied.
```
So if we `invoke` a `noreturn` function, and the normal destination
of an invoke is not an `unreachable`, point it at the new `unreachable`
block.
The change/fix from the original commit is that we now actually create
the new block, and don't just repurpose the original block,
because said normal destination block could have other users.
This reverts commit db1176ce66,
relanding commit 598833c987.
As per LangRef's definition of `noreturn` attribute:
```
noreturn
This function attribute indicates that the function never returns
normally, hence through a return instruction.
This produces undefined behavior at runtime if the function
ever does dynamically return. nnotated functions may still
raise an exception, i.a., nounwind is not implied.
```
While nowadays SimplifyCFG knows how to hoist code from then-else blocks,
sink code from unconditional predecessors, and even promote the latter
by tail-merging `ret`/`resume` function terminators, that isn't everything.
While i (& others) have been trying to deal with merging/sinking `unreachable`,
apparently perhaps the more impactful remaining problem is merging the `throw`
calls.
If we start at the `landingpad`, all the predecessors are unwind edges of `invoke`s,
and in some cases some of the `invoke`s are mergeable.
```
/// This is a weird mix of hoisting and sinking. Visually, it goes from:
/// [...] [...]
/// | |
/// [invoke0] [invoke1]
/// / \ / \
/// [cont0] [landingpad] [cont1]
/// to:
/// [...] [...]
/// \ /
/// [invoke]
/// / \
/// [cont] [landingpad]
```
This simplifies the IR/CFG, at the cost of debug info and extra PHI nodes.
Note that we don't require for *all* the `invokes` of the `landingpad`
to be mergeable, they can form more than a single set, we gracefully handle that.
For now, i completely disallowed normal destination, PHI nodes and indirect invokes
but that can be supported.
Out of all the CTMark projects, only 7zip is C++, so there isn't much impact:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=ba8eb31bd9542828f6424e15a3014f80f14522c8&to=722fc871c84f14157d45c2159bc9c8c7e2825785&stat=size-total
... but there it currently causes size-total decrease.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117805
Unfortunately, it seems we really do need to take the long route;
start from the "merge" block, find (all the) "dispatch" blocks,
and deal with each "dispatch" block separately, instead of simply
starting from each "dispatch" block like it would logically make sense,
otherwise we run into a number of other missing folds around
`switch` formation, missing sinking/hoisting and phase ordering.
This reverts commit 85628ce75b.
This reverts commit c5fff90953.
This reverts commit 34a98e1046.
This reverts commit 1e353f0922.
The current `FoldTwoEntryPHINode()` is not quite designed correctly.
It starts from the merge point, and then tries to detect
the 'divergence' point.
Because of that, it is limited to the simple two-predecessor case,
where the PHI completely goes away. but that is rather pessimistic,
and it doesn't make much sense from the costmodel side of things.
For example if there is some other unrelated predecessor of
the merge point, we could split the merge point so that
the then/else blocks first branch to an empty block
and then to the merge point, and then we'd be able to speculate
the then/else code.
But if we'd instead simply start at the divergence point,
and look for the merge point, then we'll just natively support this case.
There's also the fact that `SpeculativelyExecuteBB()` already does
just that, but only if there is a single block to speculate,
and with a much more restrictive cost model.
But that also means we have code duplication.
Now, sadly, while this is as much NFCI as possible,
there is just no way to cleanly migrate to
the proper implementation. The results *are* going to be different
somewhat because of various phase ordering effects and SimplifyCFG
block iteration strategy.
After D116332, some icmps no longer fold with the target-independent
constant folder. The SimplifyCFG code assumed that the comparison
would always fold, which is not guaranteed. Explicitly check that the
result is either true or false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117184
I strongly believe we need some variant of this.
The main problem is e.g. that the glibc's assert has 4 parameters,
but the profitability check is only okay with one extra phi node,
so D116692 doesn't even trigger on most of the expected cases.
While that restriction probably makes sense in normal code, if we
are about to run off of a cliff (into an `unreachable`), this
successor block is unlikely so the cost to setup these PHI nodes
should not be on the hotpath, and shouldn't matter performance-wise.
Likewise, we don't sink if there are unconditional predecessors
UNLESS we'd sink at least one non-speculatable instruction,
which is a performance workaround, but if we are about to run into
`unreachable`, it shouldn't matter.
Note that we only allow the case where there are at
most unconditiona branches on the way to the unreachable block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117045
In D115311, we're looking to modify clang to emit i constraints rather
than X constraints for callbr's indirect destinations. Prior to doing
so, update all of the existing tests in llvm/ to match.
Reviewed By: void, jyknight
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115410
As discussed in D112016, our current requirement of speculatability
for ephemeral is overly strict: What we really care about is that
the instruction will be DCEd once the assume is dropped. For that
it is sufficient that the instruction is side-effect free and not
a terminator.
In particular, this allows non-dereferenceable loads to be ephemeral
values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112179
When determining whether to fold branches to a common destination by
merging two blocks, SimplifyCFG will count the number of instructions to
be moved into the first basic block. However, there's no reason to count
free instructions like bitcasts and other similar instructions.
This resolves missed branch foldings with -fstrict-vtable-pointers in
llvm-test-suite's lambda benchmark.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108837
When following a case of a switch instruction is guaranteed to lead to
UB, we can safely break these edges and redirect those cases into a newly
created unreachable block. As result, CFG will become simpler and we can
remove some of Phi inputs to make further analyzes easier.
Patch by Dmitry Bakunevich!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109428
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
In particular, it couldn't handle cases where lookup table constant
expressions involved bitcasts. This does not seem to come up
frequently in C++, but comes up reasonably often in Rust via
`#[derive(Debug)]`.
Originally reported by pcwalton.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109565
Currently, opaque pointers are supported in two forms: The
-force-opaque-pointers mode, where all pointers are opaque and
typed pointers do not exist. And as a simple ptr type that can
coexist with typed pointers.
This patch removes support for the mixed mode. You either get
typed pointers, or you get opaque pointers, but not both. In the
(current) default mode, using ptr is forbidden. In -opaque-pointers
mode, all pointers are opaque.
The motivation here is that the mixed mode introduces additional
issues that don't exist in fully opaque mode. D105155 is an example
of a design problem. Looking at D109259, it would probably need
additional work to support mixed mode (e.g. to generate GEPs for
typed base but opaque result). Mixed mode will also end up
inserting many casts between i8* and ptr, which would require
significant additional work to consistently avoid.
I don't think the mixed mode is particularly valuable, as it
doesn't align with our end goal. The only thing I've found it to
be moderately useful for is adding some opaque pointer tests in
between typed pointer tests, but I think we can live without that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109290
I can't seem to wrap my head around the proper fix here,
we should be fine without this requirement, iff we can form this form,
but the naive attempt (https://reviews.llvm.org/D106317) has failed.
So just to unblock the release, put up a restriction.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51125
This improvement adds "assume" after removal of branch basing on UB in successor block.
Consider the following example:
```
pred:
x = ...
cond = x > 10
br cond, bb, other.succ
bb:
phi [nullptr, pred], ... // other possible preds
load(phi) // UB if we came from pred
other.succ:
// here we know that x <= 10, but this knowledge is lost
// after the branch is turned to unconditional unless we
// preserve it with assume.
```
If we remove the branch basing on knowledge about UB in a successor block,
then the fact that x <= 10 is other.succ might be lost if this condition is
not inferrable from any dominating condition. To preserve this knowledge, we
can add assume intrinsic with (possibly inverted) branch condition.
Patch by Dmitry Bakunevich!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109054
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
The only thing that function should do as per it's semantic,
is to ensure that the switch's default is a block consisting only of
an `unreachable` terminator.
So let's just create such a block and update switch's default
to point to it. There should be no need for all this weird dance
around predecessors/successors.
Nikita Popov