In the 'detectCTLZIdiom' function support for loops that use LSHR instruction instead of ASHR has been added.
This supports creating ctlz from the following code.
int lzcnt(int x) {
int count = 0;
while (x > 0) {
count++;
x = x >> 1;
}
return count;
}
Patch by Olga Moldovanova
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48354
llvm-svn: 336509
after trivial unswitching.
This PR illustrates that a fundamental analysis update was not performed
with the new loop unswitch. This update is also somewhat fundamental to
the core idea of the new loop unswitch -- we actually *update* the CFG
based on the unswitching. In order to do that, we need to update the
loop nest in addition to the domtree.
For some reason, when writing trivial unswitching, I thought that the
loop nest structure cannot be changed by the transformation. But the PR
helps illustrate that it clearly can. I've expanded this to a number of
different test cases that try to cover the different cases of this. When
we unswitch, we move an exit edge of a loop out of the loop. If this
exit edge changes which loop reached by an exit is the innermost loop,
it changes the parent of the loop. Essentially, this transformation may
hoist the inner loop up the nest. I've added the simple logic to handle
this reliably in the trivial unswitching case. This just requires
updating LoopInfo and rebuilding LCSSA on the impacted loops. In the
trivial case, we don't even need to handle dedicated exits because we're
only hoisting the one loop and we just split its preheader.
I've also ported all of these tests to non-trivial unswitching and
verified that the logic already there correctly handles the loop nest
updates necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48851
llvm-svn: 336477
LoopBlockNumber is a DenseMap<BasicBlock*, int>, comparing the result of
find() will compare a pair<BasicBlock*, int>. That's of course depending
on pointer ordering which varies from run to run. Reverse iteration
doesn't find this because we're copying to a vector first.
This bug has been there since 2016 but only recently showed up on clang
selfhost with FDO and ThinLTO, which is also why I didn't manage to get
a reasonable test case for this. Add an assert that would've caught
this.
llvm-svn: 336439
unswitching loops.
Original patch trying to address this was sent in D47624, but that
didn't quite handle things correctly. There are two key principles used
to select whether and how to invalidate SCEV-cached information about
loops:
1) We must invalidate any info SCEV has cached before unswitching as we
may change (or destroy) the loop structure by the act of unswitching,
and make it hard to recover everything we want to invalidate within
SCEV.
2) We need to invalidate all of the loops whose CFGs are mutated by the
unswitching. Notably, this isn't the *entire* loop nest, this is
every loop contained by the outermost loop reached by an exit block
relevant to the unswitch.
And we need to do this even when doing trivial unswitching.
I've added more focused tests that directly check that SCEV starts off
with imprecise information and after unswitching (and simplifying
instructions) re-querying SCEV will produce precise information. These
tests also specifically work to check that an *outer* loop's information
becomes precise.
However, the testing here is still a bit imperfect. Crafting test cases
that reliably fail to be analyzed by SCEV before unswitching and succeed
afterward proved ... very, very hard. It took me several hours and
careful work to build these, and I'm not optimistic about necessarily
coming up with more to cover more elaborate possibilities. Fortunately,
the code pattern we are testing here in the pass is really
straightforward and reliable.
Thanks to Max Kazantsev for the initial work on this as well as the
review, and to Hal Finkel for helping me talk through approaches to test
this stuff even if it didn't come to much.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47624
llvm-svn: 336183
This version contains a fix to add values for which the state in ParamState change
to the worklist if the state in ValueState did not change. To avoid adding the
same value multiple times, mergeInValue returns true, if it added the value to
the worklist. The value is added to the worklist depending on its state in
ValueState.
Original message:
For comparisons with parameters, we can use the ParamState lattice
elements which also provide constant range information. This improves
the code for PR33253 further and gets us closer to use
ValueLatticeElement for all values.
Also, as we are using the range information in the solver directly, we
do not need tryToReplaceWithConstantRange afterwards anymore.
Reviewers: dberlin, mssimpso, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: mssimpso
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43762
llvm-svn: 336098
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
and diretory.
Also cleans up all the associated naming to be consistent and removes
the public access to the pass ID which was unused in LLVM.
Also runs clang-format over parts that changed, which generally cleans
up a bunch of formatting.
This is in preparation for doing some internal cleanups to the pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47352
llvm-svn: 336028
Extends the CFGPrinter and CallPrinter with heat colors based on heuristics or
profiling information. The colors are enabled by default and can be toggled
on/off for CFGPrinter by using the option -cfg-heat-colors for both
-dot-cfg[-only] and -view-cfg[-only]. Similarly, the colors can be toggled
on/off for CallPrinter by using the option -callgraph-heat-colors for both
-dot-callgraph and -view-callgraph.
Patch by Rodrigo Caetano Rocha!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40425
llvm-svn: 335996
When rewriting an alloca partition copy the DL from the
old alloca over the the new one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48640
llvm-svn: 335904
SCCP does not change the CFG, so we can mark it as preserved.
Reviewers: dberlin, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47149
llvm-svn: 335820
Summary:
When recording uses we need to rewrite after cloning a loop we need to
check if the use is not dominated by the original def. The initial
assumption was that the cloned basic block will introduce a new path and
thus the original def will only dominate the use if they are in the same
BB, but as the reproducer from PR37745 shows it's not always the case.
This fixes PR37745.
Reviewers: haicheng, Ka-Ka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48111
llvm-svn: 335675
I'm not sure why the code here is skipping calls since
TTI does try to do something for general calls, but it
at least should allow intrinsics.
Skip intrinsics that should not be omitted as calls, which
is by far the most common case on AMDGPU.
llvm-svn: 335645
changeToUnreachable may remove PHI nodes from executable blocks we found values
for and we would fail to replace them. By changing dead blocks to unreachable after
we replaced constants in all executable blocks, we ensure such PHI nodes are replaced
by their known value before.
Fixes PR37780.
Reviewers: efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48421
llvm-svn: 335588
unswitching of switches.
This works much like trivial unswitching of switches in that it reliably
moves the switch out of the loop. Here we potentially clone the entire
loop into each successor of the switch and re-point the cases at these
clones.
Due to the complexity of actually doing nontrivial unswitching, this
patch doesn't create a dedicated routine for handling switches -- it
would duplicate far too much code. Instead, it generalizes the existing
routine to handle both branches and switches as it largely reduces to
looping in a few places instead of doing something once. This actually
improves the results in some cases with branches due to being much more
careful about how dead regions of code are managed. With branches,
because exactly one clone is created and there are exactly two edges
considered, somewhat sloppy handling of the dead regions of code was
sufficient in most cases. But with switches, there are much more
complicated patterns of dead code and so I've had to move to a more
robust model generally. We still do as much pruning of the dead code
early as possible because that allows us to avoid even cloning the code.
This also surfaced another problem with nontrivial unswitching before
which is that we weren't as precise in reconstructing loops as we could
have been. This seems to have been mostly harmless, but resulted in
pointless LCSSA PHI nodes and other unnecessary cruft. With switches, we
have to get this *right*, and everything benefits from it.
While the testing may seem a bit light here because we only have two
real cases with actual switches, they do a surprisingly good job of
exercising numerous edge cases. Also, because we share the logic with
branches, most of the changes in this patch are reasonably well covered
by existing tests.
The new unswitch now has all of the same fundamental power as the old
one with the exception of the single unsound case of *partial* switch
unswitching -- that really is just loop specialization and not
unswitching at all. It doesn't fit into the canonicalization model in
any way. We can add a loop specialization pass that runs late based on
profile data if important test cases ever come up here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47683
llvm-svn: 335553
FDiv is replaced with multiplication by reciprocal and invariant
reciprocal is hoisted out of the loop, while multiplication remains
even if invariant.
Switch checks for all invariant operands and only invariant
denominator to fix the issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48447
llvm-svn: 335411
This gets rid of a bunch of weird special cases; instead, just use SCEV
rewriting for everything. In addition to being simpler, this fixes a
bug where we would use the wrong stride in certain edge cases.
The one bit I'm not quite sure about is the trip count handling,
specifically the FIXME about overflow. In general, I think we need to
widen the exit condition, but that's probably not profitable if the new
type isn't legal, so we probably need a check somewhere. That said, I
don't think I'm making the existing problem any worse.
As a followup to this, a bunch of IV-related code in root-finding could
be cleaned up; with SCEV-based rewriting, there isn't any reason to
assume a loop will have exactly one or two PHI nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45191
llvm-svn: 335400
Summary:
In LoopUnswitch when replacing a branch Parent -> Succ with a conditional
branch Parent -> True & Parent->False, the DomTree updates should insert an edge for
each of True/False if True/False are different than Succ, and delete Parent->Succ edge
if both are different. The comparison with Succ appears to be incorect,
it's comparing with Parent instead.
There is no test failing either before or after this change, but it seems to me this is
the right way to do the update.
Reviewers: chandlerc, kuhar
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48457
llvm-svn: 335369
This reverts commit r335206.
As discussed here: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL333740, a fix will come
tomorrow. In the meanwhile, revert this to fix some bots.
llvm-svn: 335272
r335150 should resolve the issues with the clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu
and clang-with-lto-ubuntu builders.
Original message:
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
llvm-svn: 335206
conditions feeding a chain of `and`s or `or`s for a branch.
Much like with full non-trivial unswitching, we rely on the pass manager
to handle iterating until all of the profitable unswitches have been
done. This is to allow other more profitable unswitches to fire on any
of the cloned, simpler versions of the loop if viable.
Threading the partial unswiching through the non-trivial unswitching
logic motivated some minor refactorings. If those are too disruptive to
make it reasonable to review this patch, I can separate them out, but
it'll be somewhat timeconsuming so I wanted to send it for initial
review as-is. Feel free to tell me whether it warrants pulling apart.
I've tried to re-use (and factor out) logic form the partial trivial
unswitching, but not as much could be shared as I had haped. Still, this
wasn't as bad as I naively expected.
Some basic testing is added, but I probably need more. Suggestions for
things you'd like to see tested more than welcome. One thing I'd like to
do is add some testing that when we schedule this with loop-instsimplify
it effectively cleans up the cruft created.
Last but not least, this uncovered a bug that has been in loop cloning
the entire time for non-trivial unswitching. Specifically, we didn't
correctly add the outer-most cloned loop to the list of cloned loops.
This meant that LCSSA wouldn't be updated for it hypothetically, and
more significantly that we would never visit it in the loop pass
manager. I noticed this while checking loop-instsimplify by hand. I'll
try to separate this bugfix out into its own patch with a more focused
test. But it is just one line, so shouldn't significantly confuse the
review here.
After this patch, the only missing "feature" in this unswitch I'm aware
of us non-trivial unswitching of switches. I'll try implementing *full*
non-trivial unswitching of switches (which is at least a sound thing to
implement), but *partial* non-trivial unswitching of switches is
something I don't see any sound and principled way to implement. I also
have no interesting test cases for the latter, so I'm not really
worried. The rest of the things that need to be ported are bug-fixes and
more narrow / targeted support for specific issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47522
llvm-svn: 335203
Summary:
Two utils methods have essentially the same functionality. This is an attempt to merge them into one.
1. lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp : MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
2. lib/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.cpp : MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Prior to the patch:
1. MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
Updates either DomTree or DeferredDominance
Moves all instructions from Pred to BB, deletes Pred
Asserts BB has single predecessor
If address was taken, replace the block address with constant 1 (?)
2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Updates DomTree, LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
After the patch:
Method 2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor is attempting to become the new default:
Updates DomTree or DeferredDominance, and LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
Uses of MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred that need to be replaced:
1. lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSimplifyCFG.cpp
Updated in this patch. No challenges.
2. lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPrepare.cpp
Updated in this patch.
i. eliminateFallThrough is straightforward, but I added using a temporary array to avoid the iterator invalidation.
ii. eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(s) methods also now use a temporary array for blocks
Some interesting aspects:
- Since Pred is not deleted (BB is), the entry block does not need updating.
- The entry block was being updated with the deleted block in eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock. Added assert to make obvious that BB=SinglePred.
- isMergingEmptyBlockProfitable assumes BB is the one to be deleted.
- eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(BB) does not delete BB on one path, it deletes its unique predecessor instead.
- adding some test owner as subscribers for the interesting tests modified:
test/CodeGen/X86/avx-cmp.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/nested-loop-conditions.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/si-annotate-cf.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/hoist-spill.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/2006-11-17-IllegalMove.ll
3. lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp
Not covered in this patch. It is the only use case using the DeferredDominance.
I would defer to Brian Rzycki to make this replacement.
Reviewers: chandlerc, spatel, davide, brzycki, bkramer, javed.absar
Subscribers: qcolombet, sanjoy, nemanjai, nhaehnle, jlebar, tpr, kbarton, RKSimon, wmi, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48202
llvm-svn: 335183
The idea of partial unswitching is to take a *part* of a branch's
condition that is loop invariant and just unswitching that part. This
primarily makes sense with i1 conditions of branches as opposed to
switches. When dealing with i1 conditions, we can easily extract loop
invariant inputs to a a branch and unswitch them to test them entirely
outside the loop.
As part of this, we now create much more significant cruft in the loop
body, so this relies on adding cleanup passes to the loop pipeline and
revisiting unswitched loops to do that cleanup before continuing to
process them.
This already appears to be more powerful at unswitching than the old
loop unswitch pass, and so I'd appreciate pretty careful review in case
I'm just missing some correctness checks. The `LIV-loop-condition` test
case is not unswitched by the old unswitch pass, but is with this pass.
Thanks to Sanjoy and Fedor for the review!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46706
llvm-svn: 335156
LoopSimplifyCFG, being a loop pass, needs to preserve scalar
evolution. This invalidates SE for the loops altered during
block merging.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48258
llvm-svn: 335036
This patch moves the logic to handle reduction PHI nodes to the end of
adjustLoopBranches. Reduction PHI nodes in the outer loop header can be
moved to the inner loop header and reduction PHI nodes from the inner loop
header can be moved to the outer loop header. In the latter situation,
we have to deal with 1 kind of PHI nodes:
PHI nodes that are part of inner loop-only reductions.
We can replace the PHI node with the value coming from outside
the inner loop.
Reviewers: mcrosier, efriedma, karthikthecool
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46198
llvm-svn: 335027
Summary:
We only modify CFG in a couple of places, and we can preserve DT there
with a little effort.
Reviewers: davide, vsk
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48059
llvm-svn: 334895
This patches teaches EarlyCSE to figure out that if `and i1 %x, %y` is true then both
`%x` and `%y` are true in the taken branch, and if `or i1 %x, %y` is false then both
`%x` and `%y` are false in non-taken branch. Fix for PR37635.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47574
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 334707
Currently SmallSet<PointerTy> inherits from SmallPtrSet<PointerTy>. This
patch replaces such types with SmallPtrSet, because IMO it is slightly
clearer and allows us to get rid of unnecessarily including SmallSet.h
Reviewers: dblaikie, craig.topper
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47836
llvm-svn: 334492
SmallSet forwards to SmallPtrSet for pointer types. SmallPtrSet supports iteration, but a normal SmallSet doesn't. So if it wasn't for the forwarding, this wouldn't work.
These places were found by hiding the begin/end methods in the SmallSet forwarding
llvm-svn: 334343
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
Summary:
I noticed this issue because we didn't put the primary cloned loop into
the `NonChildClonedLoops` vector and so never iterated on it. Once
I fixed that, it made it clear why I had to do a really complicated and
unnecesasry dance when updating the loops to remain in canonical form --
I was unwittingly working around the fact that the primary cloned loop
wasn't in the expected list of cloned loops. Doh!
Now that we include it in this vector, we don't need to return it and we
can consolidate the update logic as we correctly have a single place
where it can be handled.
I've just added a test for the iteration order aspect as every time
I changed the update logic partially or incorrectly here, an existing
test failed and caught it so that seems well covered (which is also
evidenced by the extensive working around of this missing update).
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy
Subscribers: mcrosier, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47647
llvm-svn: 333811
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45330
llvm-svn: 333740
Summary:
Loop idiom recognize tries to convert loops like
```
int foo(int x) {
int cnt = 0;
while (x) {
x >>= 1;
++cnt;
}
return cnt;
}
```
into calls to ctlz, but if x is initially negative this loop should be infinite.
It happens that the cases that motivated this change have an absolute value of x before the loop. So this patch restricts the transform to cases where we know x is positive. Note: We are relying on the absolute value of INT_MIN to be undefined so we can assume that the result is always positive.
Fixes PR37479
Reviewers: spatel, hfinkel, efriedma, javed.absar
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47348
llvm-svn: 333702
Looks like we intended to compare this->Members with Other->Members
here, but ended up comparing this->Members with this->Members. Oops. :)
Since CongruenceClass::Members is a SmallPtrSet anyway, we can probably
skip building std::sets if we're willing to write a bit more code.
This appears to be no functional change (for sufficiently lax values of
"no"): this equality check was only being called inside of an assert.
So, worst case, we'll catch more bugs in the form of assertion failures.
Thanks to d0k for noting this!
llvm-svn: 333601
loop-cleanup passes at the beginning of the loop pass pipeline, and
re-enqueue loops after even trivial unswitching.
This will allow us to much more consistently avoid simplifying code
while doing trivial unswitching. I've also added a test case that
specifically shows effective iteration using this technique.
I've unconditionally updated the new PM as that is always using the
SimpleLoopUnswitch pass, and I've made the pipeline changes for the old
PM conditional on using this new unswitch pass. I added a bunch of
comments to the loop pass pipeline in the old PM to make it more clear
what is going on when reviewing.
Hopefully this will unblock doing *partial* unswitching instead of just
full unswitching.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47408
llvm-svn: 333493
be both simpler and substantially more efficient.
Rather than use a hand-rolled iteration technique that isn't quite the
same as RPO, use the pre-built RPO loop body traversal utility.
Once visiting the loop body in RPO, we can assert that we visit defs
before uses reliably. When this is the case, the only need to iterate is
when simplifying a def that is used by a PHI node along a back-edge.
With this patch, the first pass over the loop body is just a complete
simplification of every instruction across the loop body. When we
encounter a use of a simplified instruction that stems from a PHI node
in the loop body that has already been visited (due to some cyclic CFG,
potentially the loop itself, or a nested loop, or unstructured control
flow), we recall that specific PHI node for the second iteration.
Nothing else needs to be preserved from iteration to iteration.
On the second and later iterations, only instructions known to have
simplified inputs are considered, each time starting from a set of PHIs
that had simplified inputs along the backedges.
Dead instructions are collected along the way, but deleted in a batch at
the end of each iteration making the iterations themselves substantially
simpler. This uses a new batch API for recursively deleting dead
instructions.
This alsa changes the routine to visit subloops. Because simplification
is fundamentally transitive, we may need to visit the entire loop body,
including subloops, to handle knock-on simplification.
I've added a basic test file that helps demonstrate that all of these
changes work. It includes both straight-forward loops with
simplifications as well as interesting PHI-structures, CFG-structures,
and a nested loop case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47407
llvm-svn: 333461
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
Craig Topper