If an analysis is actually invalidated, there's already a log statement
for that: 'Invalidating analysis: FooAnalysis'.
Otherwise the statement is not very useful.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84981
Problem:
Right now, our "Running pass" is not accurate when passes are wrapped in adaptor because adaptor is never skipped and a pass could be skipped. The other problem is that "Running pass" for a adaptor is before any "Running pass" of passes/analyses it depends on. (for example, FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor). So the order of printing is not the actual order.
Solution:
Doing things like PassManager::Debuglogging is very intrusive because we need to specify Debuglogging whenever adaptor is created. (Actually, right now we're not specifying Debuglogging for some sub-PassManagers. Check PassBuilder)
This patch move debug logging for pass as a PassInstrument callback. We could be sure that all running passes are logged and in the correct order.
This could also be used to implement hierarchy pass logging in legacy PM. We could also move logging of pass manager to this if we want.
The test fixes looks messy. It includes changes:
- Remove PassInstrumentationAnalysis
- Remove PassAdaptor
- If a PassAdaptor is for a real pass, the pass is added
- Pass reorder (to the correct order), related to PassAdaptor
- Add missing passes (due to Debuglogging not passed down)
Reviewed By: asbirlea, aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84774
Unrolling a loop with compile-time unknown trip count results in a remainder loop. The remainder loop executes the remaining iterations of the original loop when the original trip count is not a multiple of the unroll factor. For better profile counts maintenance throughout the optimization pipeline, I'm assigning an artificial weight to the latch branch of the remainder loop.
A remainder loop runs up to as many times as the unroll factor subtracted by 1. Therefore I'm assigning the maximum possible trip count as the back edge weight. This should be more accurate than the default non-profile weight, which assumes the back edge runs much more frequently than the exit edge.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83187
There's no reason to introduce a new option for the NPM.
The various PGO options are shared in this manner.
Reviewed By: echristo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83368
Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
The legacy pass is called "loop-unroll", but in the new PM it's called "unroll".
Also applied to unroll-and-jam and unroll-full.
Fixes various check-llvm tests when NPM is turned on.
Reviewed By: Whitney, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82590
This reverts commit 29b2c1ca72.
The patch causes the DT verifier failure like:
DominatorTree is different than a freshly computed one!
Not sure the patch itself it wrong but revert to investigate the failure.
Currently we allow peeling of the loops if there is a exiting latch block
and all other exits are blocks ending with deopt.
Actually we want that exit would end up with deopt unconditionally but
it is not required that exit itself ends with deopt.
Reviewers: reames, ashlykov, fhahn, apilipenko, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dantrushin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81140
is not necessary one of them.
Summary: Currently LoopUnrollPass already allow loops with multiple
exiting blocks, but it is only allowed when the loop latch is one of the
exiting blocks.
When the loop latch is not an exiting block, then only single exiting
block is supported.
When possible, the single loop latch or the single exiting block
terminator is optimized to an unconditional branch in the unrolled loop.
This patch allows loops with multiple exiting blocks even if the loop
latch is not one of them. However, the optimization of exiting block
terminator to unconditional branch is not done when there exists more
than one exiting block.
Reviewer: dmgreen, Meinersbur, etiotto, fhahn, efriedma, bmahjour
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81053
rG7873376bb36b fixes a build failure for allyesconfig.
The problem happened when the single exiting block doesn't dominate the
loop latch, then the immediate dominator of the exit block should not be
the exiting block after unrolling. As the exiting block of
different unrolled iteration can branch to the exit block, and the ith
exiting block doesn't dominate (i+1)th exiting block, the immediate
dominator of the exit block should not the nearest common dominator of
the exiting block and the loop latch of the same iteration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80477
Last we looked at this and couldn't come up with a reason to change
it, but with a pragma for full loop unrolling we bypass every other
loop unroll and then fail to fully unroll a loop when the pragma is set.
Move the OnlyWhenForced out of the check and into the initialization
of the full unroll pass in the new pass manager. This doesn't show up
with the old pass manager.
Add a new option to opt so that we can turn off loop unrolling
manually since this is a difference between clang and opt.
Tested with check-clang and check-llvm.
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Summary:
This patch replaces incorrectt assert with a check. Previously it asserts that
if SCEV cannot prove `isKnownPredicate(A != B)`, then it should be able to prove
`isKnownPredicate(A == B)`.
Both these fact may be not provable. It is shown in the provided test:
Could not prove: `{-294,+,-2}<%bb1> != 0`
Asserting: `{-294,+,-2}<%bb1> == 0`
Obviously, this SCEV is not equal to zero, but 0 is in its range so we cannot
also prove that it is not zero.
Instead of assert, we should be checking the required conditions explicitly.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, fhahn, sanjoy, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76050
Summary:
Current peeling implementation bails out in case of loop nests.
The patch introduces a field in TargetTransformInfo structure that
certain targets can use to relax the constraints if it's
profitable (disabled by default).
Also additional option is added to enable peeling manually for
experimenting and testing purposes.
Reviewers: fhahn, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: RKSimon, xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Calling `operator*` on a WeakVH with a null value yields a null
reference, which is UB. Avoid this by implicitly converting the WeakVH
to a `Value *` rather than dereferencing and then taking the address
for the type conversion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73280
Summary: Current implementation of getLoopEstimatedTripCount returns 1 iteration less than it should. The reason is that in bottom tested loop first iteration is executed before first back branch is taken. For example for loop with !{!"branch_weights", i32 1 // taken, i32 1 // exit} metadata getLoopEstimatedTripCount gives 1 while actual number of iterations is 2.
Reviewers: Ayal, fhahn
Reviewed By: Ayal
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71990
This reverts commit 3f3017e because there's a failure on peel-loop-nests.ll
with LLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Summary:
The old pass manager separated speed optimization and size optimization
levels into two unsigned values. Coallescing both in an enum in the new
pass manager may lead to unintentional casts and comparisons.
In particular, taking a look at how the loop unroll passes were constructed
previously, the Os/Oz are now (==new pass manager) treated just like O3,
likely unintentionally.
This change disallows raw comparisons between optimization levels, to
avoid such unintended effects. As an effect, the O{s|z} behavior changes
for loop unrolling and loop unroll and jam, matching O2 rather than O3.
The change also parameterizes the threshold values used for loop
unrolling, primarily to aid testing.
Reviewers: tejohnson, davidxl
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Subscribers: zzheng, ychen, mehdi_amini, hiraditya, steven_wu, dexonsmith, dang, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72547
Summary:
Current peeling implementation bails out in case of loop nests.
The patch introduces a field in TargetTransformInfo structure that
certain targets can use to relax the constraints if it's
profitable (disabled by default).
Also additional option is added to enable peeling manually for
experimenting and testing purposes.
Reviewers: fhahn, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Teach SCEV about the @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, which has exactly the same
semantics as a sub expression. This allows us to query hardware-loops, which
contain this @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, so that we can calculate iteration
counts, exit values, etc. of hardwareloops.
This "int_loop_decrement_reg" intrinsic is defined as "IntrNoDuplicate". Thus,
while hardware-loops and tripcounts now become analysable by SCEV, this
prevents the usual loop transformations from applying transformations on
hardware-loops, which is what we want at this point, for which I have added
test cases for loopunrolling and IndVarSimplify and LFTR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71563
We don't unroll vector loops for MVE targets, but we miss the case
when loops only contain intrinsic calls. So just move the logic a
bit to catch this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72440
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
Summary:
Most of IR instructions got better code size estimations after commit 47a5c36b.
So default parameters values should be updated to improve inlining and
unrolling for the target.
Reviewers: rampitec, arsenm
Reviewed By: rampitec
Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70391
The basic idea of the transform is to convert variant loop exit conditions into invariant exit conditions by changing the iteration on which the exit is taken when we know that the trip count is unobservable. See the original patch which introduced the code for a more complete explanation.
The individual parts of this have been reviewed, the result has been fuzzed, and then further analyzed by hand, but despite all of that, I will not be suprised to see breakage here. If you see problems, please don't hesitate to revert - though please do provide a test case. The most likely class of issues are latent SCEV bugs and without a reduced test case, I'll be essentially stuck on reducing them.
(Note: A bunch of tests were opted out of the new transform to preserve coverage. That landed in a previous commit to simplify revert cycles if they turn out to be needed.)
Summary:
I believe this bisects to https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983
(`[LoopUnroll] Only peel if a predicate becomes known in the loop body.`)
While that revision did contain tests that showed arguably-subpar peeling
for [in]equality predicates that [not] happen in the middle of the loop,
it also disabled peeling for the *first* loop iteration,
because latch would be canonicalized to [in]equality comparison..
That was intentional as per https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983#1059583.
I'm not 100% sure that i'm using correct checks here,
but this fix appears to be going in the right direction..
Let me know if i'm missing some checks here..
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43840 | PR43840 ]].
Reviewers: fhahn, mkazantsev, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, fhahn
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69617
Summary:
Currently we only forget the loop we added LCSSA phis for. But SCEV
expressions in other loops could also depend on the instruction we added
a PHI for and currently we do not invalidate those expressions. This can
happen when we use ScalarEvolution before converting a function to LCSSA
form. The SCEV expressions will refer to the non-LCSSA value. If this
SCEV expression is then used with the expander, we do not preserve LCSSA
form.
This patch properly forgets the values we created PHIs for. Those need
to be recomputed again. This patch fixes PR43458.
Currently SCEV::verify does not catch this mismatch and any test would
need to run multiple passes to trigger the error (e.g. -loop-reduce
-loop-unroll). I will also look into catching this kind of mismatch in
the verifier. Also, we currently forget the whole loop in LCSSA and I'll
check if we can be more surgical.
Reviewers: efriedma, sanjoy.google, reames
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68194
For a runtime loop if we can compute its trip count upperbound:
Don't unroll if:
1. loop is not guaranteed to run either zero or upperbound iterations; and
2. trip count upperbound is less than UnrollMaxUpperBound
Unless user or TTI asked to do so.
If unrolling, limit unroll factor to loop's trip count upperbound.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62989
Change-Id: I6083c46a9d98b2e22cd855e60523fdc5a4929c73
llvm-svn: 373017
Add an ability to specify the max full unroll count for LoopUnrollPass pass
in pass options.
Reviewers: fhahn, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67701
llvm-svn: 372305
Arthur Eubanks