When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
Unlike its legacy counterpart new pass manager's LoopUnrollPass does
not provide any means to select which flavors of unroll to run
(runtime, peeling, partial), relying on global defaults.
In some cases having ability to run a restricted LoopUnroll that
does more than LoopFullUnroll is needed.
Introduced LoopUnrollOptions to select optional unroll behaviors.
Added 'unroll<peeling>' to PassRegistry mainly for the sake of testing.
Reviewers: chandlerc, tejohnson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53440
llvm-svn: 345723
This reverts commit 8d6af840396f2da2e4ed6aab669214ae25443204 and commit
b78d19c287b6e4a9abc9fb0545de9a3106d38d3d which causes slower build times
by initializing the AddressSanitizer on every function run.
The corresponding revisions are https://reviews.llvm.org/D52814 and
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52739.
llvm-svn: 345433
This patch ports the legacy pass manager to the new one to take advantage of
the benefits of the new PM. This involved moving a lot of the declarations for
`AddressSantizer` to a header so that it can be publicly used via
PassRegistry.def which I believe contains all the passes managed by the new PM.
This patch essentially decouples the instrumentation from the legacy PM such
hat it can be used by both legacy and new PM infrastructure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52739
llvm-svn: 344274
Modified the testcases to use both pass managers
Use single commandline flag for both pass managers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52708
Reviewers: sebpop, tejohnson, brzycki, SirishP
Reviewed By: tejohnson, brzycki
llvm-svn: 343662
Pass Execution Instrumentation interface enables customizable instrumentation
of pass execution, as per "RFC: Pass Execution Instrumentation interface"
posted 06/07/2018 on llvm-dev@
The intent is to provide a common machinery to implement all
the pass-execution-debugging features like print-before/after,
opt-bisect, time-passes etc.
Here we get a basic implementation consisting of:
* PassInstrumentationCallbacks class that handles registration of callbacks
and access to them.
* PassInstrumentation class that handles instrumentation-point interfaces
that call into PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* Callbacks accept StringRef which is just a name of the Pass right now.
There were some ideas to pass an opaque wrapper for the pointer to pass instance,
however it appears that pointer does not actually identify the instance
(adaptors and managers might have the same address with the pass they govern).
Hence it was decided to go simple for now and then later decide on what the proper
mental model of identifying a "pass in a phase of pipeline" is.
* Callbacks accept llvm::Any serving as a wrapper for const IRUnit*, to remove direct dependencies
on different IRUnits (e.g. Analyses).
* PassInstrumentationAnalysis analysis is explicitly requested from PassManager through
usual AnalysisManager::getResult. All pass managers were updated to run that
to get PassInstrumentation object for instrumentation calls.
* Using tuples/index_sequence getAnalysisResult helper to extract generic AnalysisManager's extra
args out of a generic PassManager's extra args. This is the only way I was able to explicitly
run getResult for PassInstrumentationAnalysis out of a generic code like PassManager::run or
RepeatedPass::run.
TODO: Upon lengthy discussions we agreed to accept this as an initial implementation
and then get rid of getAnalysisResult by improving RepeatedPass implementation.
* PassBuilder takes PassInstrumentationCallbacks object to pass it further into
PassInstrumentationAnalysis. Callbacks registration should be performed directly
through PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* new-pm tests updated to account for PassInstrumentationAnalysis being run
* Added PassInstrumentation tests to PassBuilderCallbacks unit tests.
Other unit tests updated with registration of the now-required PassInstrumentationAnalysis.
Made getName helper to return std::string (instead of StringRef initially) to fix
asan builtbot failures on CGSCC tests.
Reviewers: chandlerc, philip.pfaffe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47858
llvm-svn: 342664
Pass Execution Instrumentation interface enables customizable instrumentation
of pass execution, as per "RFC: Pass Execution Instrumentation interface"
posted 06/07/2018 on llvm-dev@
The intent is to provide a common machinery to implement all
the pass-execution-debugging features like print-before/after,
opt-bisect, time-passes etc.
Here we get a basic implementation consisting of:
* PassInstrumentationCallbacks class that handles registration of callbacks
and access to them.
* PassInstrumentation class that handles instrumentation-point interfaces
that call into PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* Callbacks accept StringRef which is just a name of the Pass right now.
There were some ideas to pass an opaque wrapper for the pointer to pass instance,
however it appears that pointer does not actually identify the instance
(adaptors and managers might have the same address with the pass they govern).
Hence it was decided to go simple for now and then later decide on what the proper
mental model of identifying a "pass in a phase of pipeline" is.
* Callbacks accept llvm::Any serving as a wrapper for const IRUnit*, to remove direct dependencies
on different IRUnits (e.g. Analyses).
* PassInstrumentationAnalysis analysis is explicitly requested from PassManager through
usual AnalysisManager::getResult. All pass managers were updated to run that
to get PassInstrumentation object for instrumentation calls.
* Using tuples/index_sequence getAnalysisResult helper to extract generic AnalysisManager's extra
args out of a generic PassManager's extra args. This is the only way I was able to explicitly
run getResult for PassInstrumentationAnalysis out of a generic code like PassManager::run or
RepeatedPass::run.
TODO: Upon lengthy discussions we agreed to accept this as an initial implementation
and then get rid of getAnalysisResult by improving RepeatedPass implementation.
* PassBuilder takes PassInstrumentationCallbacks object to pass it further into
PassInstrumentationAnalysis. Callbacks registration should be performed directly
through PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* new-pm tests updated to account for PassInstrumentationAnalysis being run
* Added PassInstrumentation tests to PassBuilderCallbacks unit tests.
Other unit tests updated with registration of the now-required PassInstrumentationAnalysis.
Reviewers: chandlerc, philip.pfaffe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47858
llvm-svn: 342597
Summary:
Pass Execution Instrumentation interface enables customizable instrumentation
of pass execution, as per "RFC: Pass Execution Instrumentation interface"
posted 06/07/2018 on llvm-dev@
The intent is to provide a common machinery to implement all
the pass-execution-debugging features like print-before/after,
opt-bisect, time-passes etc.
Here we get a basic implementation consisting of:
* PassInstrumentationCallbacks class that handles registration of callbacks
and access to them.
* PassInstrumentation class that handles instrumentation-point interfaces
that call into PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* Callbacks accept StringRef which is just a name of the Pass right now.
There were some ideas to pass an opaque wrapper for the pointer to pass instance,
however it appears that pointer does not actually identify the instance
(adaptors and managers might have the same address with the pass they govern).
Hence it was decided to go simple for now and then later decide on what the proper
mental model of identifying a "pass in a phase of pipeline" is.
* Callbacks accept llvm::Any serving as a wrapper for const IRUnit*, to remove direct dependencies
on different IRUnits (e.g. Analyses).
* PassInstrumentationAnalysis analysis is explicitly requested from PassManager through
usual AnalysisManager::getResult. All pass managers were updated to run that
to get PassInstrumentation object for instrumentation calls.
* Using tuples/index_sequence getAnalysisResult helper to extract generic AnalysisManager's extra
args out of a generic PassManager's extra args. This is the only way I was able to explicitly
run getResult for PassInstrumentationAnalysis out of a generic code like PassManager::run or
RepeatedPass::run.
TODO: Upon lengthy discussions we agreed to accept this as an initial implementation
and then get rid of getAnalysisResult by improving RepeatedPass implementation.
* PassBuilder takes PassInstrumentationCallbacks object to pass it further into
PassInstrumentationAnalysis. Callbacks registration should be performed directly
through PassInstrumentationCallbacks.
* new-pm tests updated to account for PassInstrumentationAnalysis being run
* Added PassInstrumentation tests to PassBuilderCallbacks unit tests.
Other unit tests updated with registration of the now-required PassInstrumentationAnalysis.
Reviewers: chandlerc, philip.pfaffe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47858
llvm-svn: 342544
Summary:
Control height reduction merges conditional blocks of code and reduces the
number of conditional branches in the hot path based on profiles.
if (hot_cond1) { // Likely true.
do_stg_hot1();
}
if (hot_cond2) { // Likely true.
do_stg_hot2();
}
->
if (hot_cond1 && hot_cond2) { // Hot path.
do_stg_hot1();
do_stg_hot2();
} else { // Cold path.
if (hot_cond1) {
do_stg_hot1();
}
if (hot_cond2) {
do_stg_hot2();
}
}
This speeds up some internal benchmarks up to ~30%.
Reviewers: davidxl
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: xbolva00, dmgreen, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50591
llvm-svn: 341386
Summary:
Enable these passes for CFI and WPD in ThinLTO and LTO with the new pass
manager. Add a couple of tests for both PMs based on the clang tests
tools/clang/test/CodeGen/thinlto-distributed-cfi*.ll, but just test
through llvm-lto2 and not with distributed ThinLTO.
Reviewers: pcc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, inglorion, eraman, steven_wu, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49429
llvm-svn: 337461
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
This pass is being added in order to make the information available to BasicAA,
which can't do caching of this information itself, but possibly this information
may be useful for other passes.
Incorporates code based on Daniel Berlin's implementation of Tarjan's algorithm.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47893
llvm-svn: 335857
=== Generating the CG Profile ===
The CGProfile module pass simply gets the block profile count for each BB and scans for call instructions. For each call instruction it adds an edge from the current function to the called function with the current BB block profile count as the weight.
After scanning all the functions, it generates an appending module flag containing the data. The format looks like:
```
!llvm.module.flags = !{!0}
!0 = !{i32 5, !"CG Profile", !1}
!1 = !{!2, !3, !4} ; List of edges
!2 = !{void ()* @a, void ()* @b, i64 32} ; Edge from a to b with a weight of 32
!3 = !{void (i1)* @freq, void ()* @a, i64 11}
!4 = !{void (i1)* @freq, void ()* @b, i64 20}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48105
llvm-svn: 335794
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
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
LoopInstSimplify is unused and untested. Reading through the commit
history the pass also seems to have a high maintenance burden.
It would be best to retire the pass for now. It should be easy to
recover if we need something similar in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053
llvm-svn: 327329
Combine expression patterns to form expressions with fewer, simple instructions.
This pass does not modify the CFG.
For example, this pass reduce width of expressions post-dominated by TruncInst
into smaller width when applicable.
It differs from instcombine pass in that it contains pattern optimization that
requires higher complexity than the O(1), thus, it should run fewer times than
instcombine pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38313
llvm-svn: 323321
Summary:
This pass synthesizes function entry counts by traversing the callgraph
and using the relative block frequencies of the callsites. The intended
use of these counts is in inlining to determine hot/cold callsites in
the absence of profile information.
The pass is split into two files with the code that propagates the
counts in a callgraph in a Utils file. I plan to add support for
propagation in the thinlto link phase and the propagation code will be
shared and hence this split. I did not add support to the old PM since
hot callsite determination in inlining is not possible in old PM
(although we could use hot callee heuristic with synthetic counts in the
old PM it is not worth the effort tuning it)
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: mgorny, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41604
llvm-svn: 322110
Summary:
The port is nearly straightforward.
The only complication is related to the analyses handling,
since one of the analyses used in this module pass is domtree,
which is a function analysis. That requires asking for the results
of each function and disallows a single interface for run-on-module
pass action.
Decided to copy-paste the main body of this pass.
Most of its code is requesting analyses anyway, so not that much
of a copy-paste.
The rest of the code movement is to transform all the implementation
helper functions like stripNonValidData into non-member statics.
Extended all the related LLVM tests with new-pass-manager use.
No failures.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: skatkov, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41162
llvm-svn: 320796
The core idea is to (re-)introduce some redundancies where their cost is
hidden by the cost of materializing immediates for constant operands of
PHI nodes. When the cost of the redundancies is covered by this,
avoiding materializing the immediate has numerous benefits:
1) Less register pressure
2) Potential for further folding / combining
3) Potential for more efficient instructions due to immediate operand
As a motivating example, consider the remarkably different cost on x86
of a SHL instruction with an immediate operand versus a register
operand.
This pattern turns up surprisingly frequently, but is somewhat rarely
obvious as a significant performance problem.
The pass is entirely target independent, but it does rely on the target
cost model in TTI to decide when to speculate things around the PHI
node. I've included x86-focused tests, but any target that sets up its
immediate cost model should benefit from this pass.
There is probably more that can be done in this space, but the pass
as-is is enough to get some important performance on our internal
benchmarks, and should be generally performance neutral, but help with
more extensive benchmarking is always welcome.
One awkward part is that this pass has to be scheduled after
*everything* that can eliminate these kinds of redundancies. This
includes SimplifyCFG, GVN, etc. I'm open to suggestions about better
places to put this. We could in theory make it part of the codegen pass
pipeline, but there doesn't really seem to be a good reason for that --
it isn't "lowering" in any sense and only relies on pretty standard cost
model based TTI queries, so it seems to fit well with the "optimization"
pipeline model. Still, further thoughts on the pipeline position are
welcome.
I've also only implemented this in the new pass manager. If folks are
very interested, I can try to add it to the old PM as well, but I didn't
really see much point (my use case is already switched over to the new
PM).
I've tested this pretty heavily without issue. A wide range of
benchmarks internally show no change outside the noise, and I don't see
any significant changes in SPEC either. However, the size class
computation in tcmalloc is substantially improved by this, which turns
into a 2% to 4% win on the hottest path through tcmalloc for us, so
there are definitely important cases where this is going to make
a substantial difference.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467
llvm-svn: 319164
Clang implements the -finstrument-functions flag inherited from GCC, which
inserts calls to __cyg_profile_func_{enter,exit} on function entry and exit.
This is useful for getting a trace of how the functions in a program are
executed. Normally, the calls remain even if a function is inlined into another
function, but it is useful to be able to turn this off for users who are
interested in a lower-level trace, i.e. one that reflects what functions are
called post-inlining. (We use this to generate link order files for Chromium.)
LLVM already has a pass for inserting similar instrumentation calls to
mcount(), which it does after inlining. This patch renames and extends that
pass to handle calls both to mcount and the cygprofile functions, before and/or
after inlining as controlled by function attributes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39287
llvm-svn: 318195
Registers it and everything, updates all the references, etc.
Next patch will add support to Clang's `-fexperimental-new-pass-manager`
path to actually enable BoundsChecking correctly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39084
llvm-svn: 318128
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
This patch adds a new pass for attaching !callees metadata to indirect call
sites. The pass propagates values to call sites by performing an IPSCCP-like
analysis using the generic sparse propagation solver. For indirect call sites
having a small set of possible callees, the attached metadata indicates what
those callees are. The metadata can be used to facilitate optimizations like
intersecting the function attributes of the possible callees, refining the call
graph, performing indirect call promotion, etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37355
llvm-svn: 316576
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
Currently, this pass only focuses on *trivial* loop unswitching. At that
reduced problem it remains significantly better than the current loop
unswitch:
- Old pass is worse than cubic complexity. New pass is (I think) linear.
- New pass is much simpler in its design by focusing on full unswitching. (See
below for details on this).
- New pass doesn't carry state for thresholds between pass iterations.
- New pass doesn't carry state for correctness (both miscompile and
infloop) between pass iterations.
- New pass produces substantially better code after unswitching.
- New pass can handle more trivial unswitch cases.
- New pass doesn't recompute the dominator tree for the entire function
and instead incrementally updates it.
I've ported all of the trivial unswitching test cases from the old pass
to the new one to make sure that major functionality isn't lost in the
process. For several of the test cases I've worked to improve the
precision and rigor of the CHECKs, but for many I've just updated them
to handle the new IR produced.
My initial motivation was the fact that the old pass carried state in
very unreliable ways between pass iterations, and these mechansims were
incompatible with the new pass manager. However, I discovered many more
improvements to make along the way.
This pass makes two very significant assumptions that enable most of these
improvements:
1) Focus on *full* unswitching -- that is, completely removing whatever
control flow construct is being unswitched from the loop. In the case
of trivial unswitching, this means removing the trivial (exiting)
edge. In non-trivial unswitching, this means removing the branch or
switch itself. This is in opposition to *partial* unswitching where
some part of the unswitched control flow remains in the loop. Partial
unswitching only really applies to switches and to folded branches.
These are very similar to full unrolling and partial unrolling. The
full form is an effective canonicalization, the partial form needs
a complex cost model, cannot be iterated, isn't canonicalizing, and
should be a separate pass that runs very late (much like unrolling).
2) Leverage LLVM's Loop machinery to the fullest. The original unswitch
dates from a time when a great deal of LLVM's loop infrastructure was
missing, ineffective, and/or unreliable. As a consequence, a lot of
complexity was added which we no longer need.
With these two overarching principles, I think we can build a fast and
effective unswitcher that fits in well in the new PM and in the
canonicalization pipeline. Some of the remaining functionality around
partial unswitching may not be relevant today (not many test cases or
benchmarks I can find) but if they are I'd like to add support for them
as a separate layer that runs very late in the pipeline.
Purely to make reviewing and introducing this code more manageable, I've
split this into first a trivial-unswitch-only pass and in the next patch
I'll add support for full non-trivial unswitching against a *fixed*
threshold, exactly like full unrolling. I even plan to re-use the
unrolling thresholds, as these are incredibly similar cost tradeoffs:
we're cloning a loop body in order to end up with simplified control
flow. We should only do that when the total growth is reasonably small.
One of the biggest changes with this pass compared to the previous one
is that previously, each individual trivial exiting edge from a switch
was unswitched separately as a branch. Now, we unswitch the entire
switch at once, with cases going to the various destinations. This lets
us unswitch multiple exiting edges in a single operation and also avoids
numerous extremely bad behaviors, where we would introduce 1000s of
branches to test for thousands of possible values, all of which would
take the exact same exit path bypassing the loop. Now we will use
a switch with 1000s of cases that can be efficiently lowered into
a jumptable. This avoids relying on somehow forming a switch out of the
branches or getting horrible code if that fails for any reason.
Another significant change is that this pass actively updates the CFG
based on unswitching. For trivial unswitching, this is actually very
easy because of the definition of loop simplified form. Doing this makes
the code coming out of loop unswitch dramatically more friendly. We
still should run loop-simplifycfg (at the least) after this to clean up,
but it will have to do a lot less work.
Finally, this pass makes much fewer attempts to simplify instructions
based on the unswitch. Something like loop-instsimplify, instcombine, or
GVN can be used to do increasingly powerful simplifications based on the
now dominating predicate. The old simplifications are things that
something like loop-instsimplify should get today or a very, very basic
loop-instcombine could get. Keeping that logic separate is a big
simplifying technique.
Most of the code in this pass that isn't in the old one has to do with
achieving specific goals:
- Updating the dominator tree as we go
- Unswitching all cases in a switch in a single step.
I think it is still shorter than just the trivial unswitching code in
the old pass despite having this functionality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32409
llvm-svn: 301576
This patch optimizes two memory intrinsic operations: memset and memcpy based
on the profiled size of the operation. The high level transformation is like:
mem_op(..., size)
==>
switch (size) {
case s1:
mem_op(..., s1);
goto merge_bb;
case s2:
mem_op(..., s2);
goto merge_bb;
...
default:
mem_op(..., size);
goto merge_bb;
}
merge_bb:
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28966
llvm-svn: 299446
Now that the call graph supports efficient replacement of a function and
spurious reference edges, we can port ArgumentPromotion to the new pass
manager very easily.
The old PM-specific bits are sunk into callbacks that the new PM simply
doesn't use. Unlike the old PM, the new PM simply does argument
promotion and afterward does the update to LCG reflecting the promoted
function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29580
llvm-svn: 294667
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
llvm-svn: 293249
factory functions for the two modes the loop unroller is actually used
in in-tree: simplified full-unrolling and the entire thing including
partial unrolling.
I've also wired these up to nice names so you can express both of these
being in a pipeline easily. This is a precursor to actually enabling
these parts of the O2 pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28897
llvm-svn: 293136
This patch introduces guard based loop predication optimization. The new LoopPredication pass tries to convert loop variant range checks to loop invariant by widening checks across loop iterations. For example, it will convert
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(i < len);
...
}
to
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(n - 1 < len);
...
}
After this transformation the condition of the guard is loop invariant, so loop-unswitch can later unswitch the loop by this condition which basically predicates the loop by the widened condition:
if (n - 1 < len)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
...
}
else
deoptimize
This patch relies on an NFC change to make ScalarEvolution::isMonotonicPredicate public (revision 293062).
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29034
llvm-svn: 293064
Michael Kruse