Summary:
It is fairly common to call SE->getConstant(Ty, 0) or
SE->getConstant(Ty, 1); this change makes such uses a little bit
briefer.
I've refactored the call sites I could find easily to use getZero /
getOne.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, reames
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12947
llvm-svn: 248362
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
r243250 appeared to break clang/test/Analysis/dead-store.c on one of the build
slaves, but I couldn't reproduce this failure locally. Probably a false
positive as I saw this test was broken by r243246 or r243247 too but passed
later without people fixing anything.
llvm-svn: 243253
Summary:
This patch updates TargetTransformInfoImplCRTPBase::getGEPCost to consider
addressing modes. It now returns TCC_Free when the GEP can be completely folded
to an addresing mode.
I started this patch as I refactored SLSR. Function isGEPFoldable looks common
and is indeed used by some WIP of mine. So I extracted that logic to getGEPCost.
Furthermore, I noticed getGEPCost wasn't directly tested anywhere. The best
testing bed seems CostModel, but its getInstructionCost method invokes
getAddressComputationCost for GEPs which provides very coarse estimation. So
this patch also makes getInstructionCost call the updated getGEPCost for GEPs.
This change inevitably breaks some tests because the cost model changes, but
nothing looks seriously wrong -- if we believe the new cost model is the right
way to go, these tests should be updated.
This patch is not perfect yet -- the comments in some tests need to be updated.
I want to know whether this is a right approach before fixing those details.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: aschwaighofer, llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9819
llvm-svn: 243250
This only updates one of the uses. The other is used in cases
that may never touch memory, so I'm not sure why this is even
calling it. Perhaps there should be a new, similar hook for such
cases or pass -1 for unknown address space.
llvm-svn: 239540
Summary:
This allows other passes (such as SLSR) to compute the SCEV expression for an
imaginary GEP.
Test Plan: no regression
Reviewers: atrick, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9786
llvm-svn: 237589
Summary:
Consider (B | i) * S as (B + i) * S if B and i have no bits set in
common.
Test Plan: @or in slsr-mul.ll
Reviewers: broune, meheff
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9788
llvm-svn: 237456
Summary:
After we rewrite a candidate, the instructions used by the old form may
become unused. This patch cleans up these unused instructions so that we
needn't run DCE after SLSR.
Test Plan: removed -dce in all the SLSR tests
Reviewers: broune, meheff
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9101
llvm-svn: 235410
Summary:
With this patch, SLSR may rewrite
S1: X = B + i * S
S2: Y = B + i' * S
to
S2: Y = X + (i' - i) * S
A secondary improvement: if (i' - i) is a power of 2, emit Y as X + (S << log(i' - i)). (S << log(i' -i)) is in a canonical form and thus more likely GVN'ed than (i' - i) * S.
Test Plan: slsr-add.ll
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, meheff, broune, eliben
Reviewed By: eliben
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8983
llvm-svn: 235019
The plan here is to push the API changes out from the common components
(like Constant::getGetElementPtr and IRBuilder::CreateGEP related
functions) and just update callers to either pass the type if it's
obvious, or pass null.
Do this with LoadInst as well and anything else that comes up, then to
start porting specific uses to not pass null anymore - this may require
some refactoring in each case.
llvm-svn: 234042
Summary:
The old requirement on GEP candidates being in bounds is unnecessary.
For off-bound GEPs, we still have
&B[i * S] = B + (i * S) * e = B + (i * e) * S
Test Plan: slsr_offbound_gep in slsr-gep.ll
Reviewers: meheff
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8809
llvm-svn: 233949
Summary:
This patch enhances SLSR to handle another candidate form &B[i * S]. If
we found two candidates
S1: X = &B[i * S]
S2: Y = &B[i' * S]
and S1 dominates S2, we can replace S2 with
Y = &X[(i' - i) * S]
Test Plan:
slsr-gep.ll
X86/no-slsr.ll: verify that we do not run SLSR on GEPs that already fit into
an addressing mode
Reviewers: eliben, atrick, meheff, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7459
llvm-svn: 233286
Summary:
Straight-line strength reduction (SLSR) is implemented in GCC but not yet in
LLVM. It has proven to effectively simplify statements derived from an unrolled
loop, and can potentially benefit many other cases too. For example,
LLVM unrolls
#pragma unroll
foo (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
sum += foo((b + i) * s);
}
into
sum += foo(b * s);
sum += foo((b + 1) * s);
sum += foo((b + 2) * s);
However, no optimizations yet reduce the internal redundancy of the three
expressions:
b * s
(b + 1) * s
(b + 2) * s
With SLSR, LLVM can optimize these three expressions into:
t1 = b * s
t2 = t1 + s
t3 = t2 + s
This commit is only an initial step towards implementing a series of such
optimizations. I will implement more (see TODO in the file commentary) in the
near future. This optimization is enabled for the NVPTX backend for now.
However, I am more than happy to push it to the standard optimization pipeline
after more thorough performance tests.
Test Plan: test/StraightLineStrengthReduce/slsr.ll
Reviewers: eliben, HaoLiu, meheff, hfinkel, jholewinski, atrick
Reviewed By: jholewinski, atrick
Subscribers: karthikthecool, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7310
llvm-svn: 228016
Sanjoy Das