If we happen to have the same div in two basic blocks,
and in one of those we also happen to have the rem part,
we'd match the div-rem pair, but the wrong ones.
So let's drop overly-ambiguous assert.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43500
llvm-svn: 373167
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 373166
profile symbol list.
Currently many existing users using profile-sample-accurate want to reduce
code size as much as possible. Their use cases are different from the scenario
profile symbol list tries to handle -- the major motivation of adding profile
symbol list is to get the major memory/code size saving without introduce
performance regression. So to keep the behavior of profile-sample-accurate
unchanged, we think decoupling these two things and using a new flag to
control the handling of profile symbol list may be better.
When profile-sample-accurate and the new flag profile-accurate-for-symsinlist
are both present, since profile-sample-accurate is a user assertion we let it
have a higher precedence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68047
llvm-svn: 373133
Summary:
This is valid for any `sext` bitwidth pair:
```
Processing /tmp/opt.ll..
----------------------------------------
%signed = sext %y
%r = shl %x, %signed
ret %r
=>
%unsigned = zext %y
%r = shl %x, %unsigned
ret %r
%signed = sext %y
Done: 2016
Optimization is correct!
```
(This isn't so for funnel shifts, there it's illegal for e.g. i6->i7.)
Main motivation is the C++ semantics:
```
int shl(int a, char b) {
return a << b;
}
```
ends as
```
%3 = sext i8 %1 to i32
%4 = shl i32 %0, %3
```
https://godbolt.org/z/0jgqUq
which is, as this shows, too pessimistic.
There is another problem here - we can only do the fold
if sext is one-use. But we can trivially have cases
where several shifts have the same sext shift amount.
This should be resolved, later.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, nlopes, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68103
llvm-svn: 373106
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373099
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<FunctionSummary> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373097
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<StructType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373095
We can't use short granules with stack instrumentation when targeting older
API levels because the rest of the system won't understand the short granule
tags stored in shadow memory.
Moreover, we need to be able to let old binaries (which won't understand
short granule tags) run on a new system that supports short granule
tags. Such binaries will call the __hwasan_tag_mismatch function when their
outlined checks fail. We can compensate for the binary's lack of support
for short granules by implementing the short granule part of the check in
the __hwasan_tag_mismatch function. Unfortunately we can't do anything about
inline checks, but I don't believe that we can generate these by default on
aarch64, nor did we do so when the ABI was fixed.
A new function, __hwasan_tag_mismatch_v2, is introduced that lets code
targeting the new runtime avoid redoing the short granule check. Because tag
mismatches are rare this isn't important from a performance perspective; the
main benefit is that it introduces a symbol dependency that prevents binaries
targeting the new runtime from running on older (i.e. incompatible) runtimes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68059
llvm-svn: 373035
Summary:
This patch extends the current capabilities in loop fusion to fuse guarded loops
(as defined in https://reviews.llvm.org/D63885). The patch adds the necessary
safety checks to ensure that it safe to fuse the guarded loops (control flow
equivalent, no intervening code, and same guard conditions). It also provides an
alternative method to perform the actual fusion of guarded loops. The mechanics
to fuse guarded loops are slightly different then fusing non-guarded loops, so I
opted to keep them separate methods. I will be cleaning this up in later
patches, and hope to converge on a single method to fuse both guarded and
non-guarded loops, but for now I think the review will be easier to keep them
separate.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, Meinersbur, dmgreen, etiotto, Whitney
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65464
llvm-svn: 373018
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
The test case here previously infinite looped. Only one element from the GEP is used so SimplifyDemandedVectorElts would replace the other lanes in each index with undef leading to the first index being <0, undef, undef, undef>. But there's a GEP transform that tries to replace an index into a 0 sized type with a zero index. But the zero index check only works on ConstantInt 0 or ConstantAggregateZero so it would turn the index back to zeroinitializer. Resulting in a loop.
The fix is to use m_Zero() to allow a vector of zeroes and undefs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67977
llvm-svn: 373000
Summary:
FlattenCFG merges two 'if' basicblocks by inserting one basicblock
to another basicblock. The inserted basicblock can have a successor
that contains a PHI node whoes incoming basicblock is the inserted
basicblock. Since the existing code does not handle it, it becomes
a badref.
if (cond1)
statement
if (cond2)
statement
successor - contains PHI node whose predecessor is cond2
-->
if (cond1 || cond2)
statement
(BB for cond2 was deleted)
successor - contains PHI node whose predecessor is cond2 --> bad ref!
Author: Jaebaek Seo
Reviewers: asbirlea, kuhar, tstellar, chandlerc, davide, dexonsmith
Reviewed By: kuhar
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68032
llvm-svn: 372989
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereferences, but we should be able to use cast<BranchInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372977
Summary:
Removing an assumption (assert) that the CmpInst already has been
simplified in getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant. Solution is
to simply bail out instead of hitting the assertion. Instead we
assume that any profitable rewrite will happen in the next iteration
of InstCombine.
The reason why we can't assume that the CmpInst already has been
simplified is that the worklist does not guarantee such an ordering.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43376
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68022
llvm-svn: 372972
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereferences, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372960
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<MemIntrinsic> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372959
For large functions, verifying the whole function after each loop takes
non-linear time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67571
llvm-svn: 372924
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
As @reames pointed out post-commit, rL371518 adds additional rounding
in some cases, when doing constant folding of the multiplication.
This breaks a guarantee llvm.fma makes and must be avoided.
This patch reapplies rL371518, but splits off the simplifications not
requiring rounding from SimplifFMulInst as SimplifyFMAFMul.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, reames, scanon
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67434
llvm-svn: 372899
Currently m_Br only takes references to BasicBlock*, which limits its
flexibility. For example, you have to declare a variable, even if you
ignore the result or you have to have additional checks to make sure the
matched BB matches an expected one.
This patch adds m_BasicBlock and m_SpecificBB matchers, which can be
used like the existing matchers for constants or values.
I also had a look at the existing uses and updated a few. IMO it makes
the code a bit more explicit.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, majnemer, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68013
llvm-svn: 372885
If we generate the gc.relocate, and then later prove two arguments to the statepoint are equivalent, we should canonicalize the gc.relocate to the form we would have produced if this had been known before rewriting.
llvm-svn: 372771
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
For
```
#include <cassert>
char* test(char& base, signed long offset) {
__builtin_assume(offset < 0);
return &base + offset;
}
```
We produce
https://godbolt.org/z/r40U47
and again those two icmp's can be merged:
```
Name: 0
Pre: C != 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, C
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ult i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, C
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ALaphttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/slnN
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
i believe they all will go into InstSimplify.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67849
llvm-svn: 372768
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
This pattern isn't exactly what we get there
(strict vs. non-strict predicate), but this pattern does not
require known-bits analysis, so it is best to handle it first.
```
Name: 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, %offset
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, %offset
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/knp
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
they all will go into InstSimplify:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bIDZhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, majnemer, vsk, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67846
llvm-svn: 372767
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<CmpInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372732
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<LandingPadInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372727
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<Instruction> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372726
When vectorisation is forced with a pragma, we optimise for min size, and we
need to emit runtime memory checks, then allow this code growth and don't run
in an assert like we currently do.
This is the result of D65197 and D66803, and was a use-case not really
considered before. If this now happens, we emit an optimisation remark warning
about the code-size expansion, which can be avoided by not forcing
vectorisation or possibly source-code modifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67764
llvm-svn: 372694
Summary:
Fold
or(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X)
into
X s> Y ? -1 : X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/d8Ab
clamp255 is a common operator in image processing, can be implemented
in a shifty way "(255 - X) >> 31 | X & 255". Fold shift into select
enables more optimization, e.g., vmin generation for ARM target.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, efriedma, spatel, kparzysz, bcahoon
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67800
llvm-svn: 372678
When a cold path is outlined, the value tracking in the assumption cache may be
invalidated due to the code motion. We would previously trip an assertion in
subsequent passes (but required the passes to happen in a single run as the
assumption cache is shared across the passes). Invalidating the cache ensures
that we get the correct information when needed with the legacy pass manager as
well.
llvm-svn: 372667
is available
In rL372232, we treated names showing up in profile as not cold when
profile-sample-accurate is enabled. This caused 70k size regression in
Chrome/Android. The patch put a guard and only enable the change when
profile symbol list is available, i.e., keep the old behavior when profile
symbol list is not available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67931
llvm-svn: 372665
"Implementations are free to malloc() a buffer containing either (size + 1) bytes or (strnlen(s, size) + 1) bytes. Applications should not assume that strndup() will allocate (size + 1) bytes when strlen(s) is smaller than size."
llvm-svn: 372647
Summary:
Motivation:
- If we can fold it to strdup, we should (strndup does more things than strdup).
- Annotation mechanism. (Works for strdup well).
strdup and strndup are part of C 20 (currently posix fns), so we should optimize them.
Reviewers: efriedma, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67679
llvm-svn: 372636
Summary:
If we have a pattern `(x & (-1 >> maskNbits)) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (-1 >> maskNbits)`
mask iff `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s>= 0` (i.e. `shiftNbits u>= maskNbits`).
So even if `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s< 0`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: c, normal+mask
%t0 = lshr i32 -1, C1
%t1 = and i32 %t0, %x
%r = shl i32 %t1, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = i32 ((-(C2-C1))+32)
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = lshr i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = trunc i64 %n3 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n4
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gslRa
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
This is not valid for pattern f - where "masking" is done via `ashr`.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67725
llvm-svn: 372630
Summary:
And this is **finally** the interesting part of that fold!
If we have a pattern `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (~(-1 << maskNbits))`
mask iff `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u>= bitwidth(x)`.
But that is actually ignorant, there's more general fold here:
In this pattern, `(maskNbits+shiftNbits)` actually correlates
with the number of low bits that will remain in the final value.
So even if `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u< bitwidth(x)`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: a, normal+mask
%onebit = shl i32 -1, C1
%mask = xor i32 %onebit, -1
%masked = and i32 %mask, %x
%r = shl i32 %masked, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = add i32 C1, C2
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = shl i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = xor i64 %n3, -1
%n5 = trunc i64 %n4 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n5
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/F5R
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
Similar fold exists for patterns c,d,e, will post patch later.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67677
llvm-svn: 372629
Summary:
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 372626
Enable flag introduced in rL294998. Security concerns are no longer valid, since function signatures for mentioned libc functions has no nonnull attribute (Clang does not generate them? I see no nonnull attr in LLVM IR for these functions) and since rL372091 we carefully annotate the callsites where we know that size is static, non zero. So let's enable this flag again..
llvm-svn: 372573
Aditya Kumar