Adding another CU-wide list, in this case of imported_modules (since they
should be relatively rare, it seemed better to add a list where each element
had a "context" value, rather than add a (usually empty) list to every scope).
This takes care of DW_TAG_imported_module, but to fully address PR14606 we'll
need to expand this to cover DW_TAG_imported_declaration too.
llvm-svn: 179836
A min/max operation is represented by a select(cmp(lt/le/gt/ge, X, Y), X, Y)
sequence in LLVM. If we see such a sequence we can treat it just as any other
commutative binary instruction and reduce it.
This appears to help bzip2 by about 1.5% on an imac12,2.
radar://12960601
llvm-svn: 179773
This occurs due to an alloca representing a separate ownership from the
original pointer. Thus consider the following pseudo-IR:
objc_retain(%a)
for (...) {
objc_retain(%a)
%block <- %a
F(%block)
objc_release(%block)
}
objc_release(%a)
From the perspective of the optimizer, the %block is a separate
provenance from the original %a. Thus the optimizer pairs up the inner
retain for %a and the outer release from %a, resulting in segfaults.
This is fixed by noting that the signature of a mismatch of
retain/releases inside the for loop is a Use/CanRelease top down with an
None bottom up (since bottom up the Retain-CanRelease-Use-Release
sequence is completed by the inner objc_retain, but top down due to the
differing provenance from the objc_release said sequence is not
completed). In said case in CheckForCFGHazards, we now clear the state
of %a implying that no pairing will occur.
Additionally a test case is included.
rdar://12969722
llvm-svn: 179747
If a switch instruction has a case for every possible value of its type,
with the same successor, SimplifyCFG would replace it with an icmp ult,
but the computation of the bound overflows in that case, which inverts
the test.
Patch by Jed Davis!
llvm-svn: 179587
Two return types are not equivalent if one is a pointer and the other is an
integral. This is because we cannot bitcast a pointer to an integral value.
PR15185
llvm-svn: 179569
One performs: (X == 13 | X == 14) -> X-13 <u 2
The other: (A == C1 || A == C2) -> (A & ~(C1 ^ C2)) == C1
The problem is that there are certain values of C1 and C2 that
trigger both transforms but the first one blocks out the second,
this generates suboptimal code.
Reordering the transforms should be better in every case and
allows us to do interesting stuff like turn:
%shr = lshr i32 %X, 4
%and = and i32 %shr, 15
%add = add i32 %and, -14
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %add, 0
into:
%and = and i32 %X, 240
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 224
llvm-svn: 179493
This is basically the same fix in three different places. We use a set to avoid
walking the whole tree of a big ConstantExprs multiple times.
For example: (select cmp, (add big_expr 1), (add big_expr 2))
We don't want to visit big_expr twice here, it may consist of thousands of
nodes.
The testcase exercises this by creating an insanely large ConstantExprs out of
a loop. It's questionable if the optimizer should ever create those, but this
can be triggered with real C code. Fixes PR15714.
llvm-svn: 179458
When trying to collapse sequences of insertelement/extractelement
instructions into single shuffle instructions, there is one specific
case where the Instruction Combiner wrongly updates the resulting
Mask of shuffle indexes.
The problem is in function CollectShuffleElments.
If we have a sequence of insert/extract element instructions
like the one below:
%tmp1 = extractelement <4 x float> %LHS, i32 0
%tmp2 = insertelement <4 x float> %RHS, float %tmp1, i32 1
%tmp3 = extractelement <4 x float> %RHS, i32 2
%tmp4 = insertelement <4 x float> %tmp2, float %tmp3, i32 3
Where:
. %RHS will have a mask of [4,5,6,7]
. %LHS will have a mask of [0,1,2,3]
The Mask of shuffle indexes is wrongly computed to [4,1,6,7]
instead of [4,0,6,7].
When analyzing %tmp2 in order to compute the Mask for the
resulting shuffle instruction, the algorithm forgets to update
the mask index at position 1 with the index associated to the
element extracted from %LHS by instruction %tmp1.
Patch by Andrea DiBiagio!
llvm-svn: 179291
This commit adds the infrastructure for performing bottom-up SLP vectorization (and other optimizations) on parallel computations.
The infrastructure has three potential users:
1. The loop vectorizer needs to be able to vectorize AOS data structures such as (sum += A[i] + A[i+1]).
2. The BB-vectorizer needs this infrastructure for bottom-up SLP vectorization, because bottom-up vectorization is faster to compute.
3. A loop-roller needs to be able to analyze consecutive chains and roll them into a loop, in order to reduce code size. A loop roller does not need to create vector instructions, and this infrastructure separates the chain analysis from the vectorization.
This patch also includes a simple (100 LOC) bottom up SLP vectorizer that uses the infrastructure, and can vectorize this code:
void SAXPY(int *x, int *y, int a, int i) {
x[i] = a * x[i] + y[i];
x[i+1] = a * x[i+1] + y[i+1];
x[i+2] = a * x[i+2] + y[i+2];
x[i+3] = a * x[i+3] + y[i+3];
}
llvm-svn: 179117
The fix for PR14972 in r177055 introduced a real think-o in the *store*
side, likely because I was much more focused on the load side. While we
can arbitrarily widen (or narrow) a loaded value, we can't arbitrarily
widen a value to be stored, as that changes the width of memory access!
Lock down the code path in the store rewriting which would do this to
only handle the intended circumstance.
All of the existing tests continue to pass, and I've added a test from
the PR.
llvm-svn: 178974
The normal dataflow sequence in the ARC optimizer consists of the following
states:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Use -> Release
The optimizer before this patch stored the uses that determine the lifetime of
the retainable object pointer when it bottom up hits a retain or when top down
it hits a release. This is correct for an imprecise lifetime scenario since what
we are trying to do is remove retains/releases while making sure that no
``CanRelease'' (which is usually a call) deallocates the given pointer before we
get to the ``Use'' (since that would cause a segfault).
If we are considering the precise lifetime scenario though, this is not
correct. In such a situation, we *DO* care about the previous sequence, but
additionally, we wish to track the uses resulting from the following incomplete
sequences:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Release (TopDown)
Retain <- Use <- Release (BottomUp)
*NOTE* This patch looks large but the most of it consists of updating
test cases. Additionally this fix exposed an additional bug. I removed
the test case that expressed said bug and will recommit it with the fix
in a little bit.
llvm-svn: 178921
This optimization is unstable at this moment; it
1) block us on a very important application
2) PR15200
3) test6 and test7 in test/Transforms/ScalarRepl/dynamic-vector-gep.ll
(the CHECK command compare the output against wrong result)
I personally believe this optimization should not have any impact on the
autovectorized code, as auto-vectorizer is supposed to put gather/scatter
in a "right" way. Although in theory downstream optimizaters might reveal
some gather/scatter optimization opportunities, the chance is quite slim.
For the hand-crafted vectorizing code, in term of redundancy elimination,
load-CSE, copy-propagation and DSE can collectively achieve the same result,
but in much simpler way. On the other hand, these optimizers are able to
improve the code in a incremental way; in contrast, SROA is sort of all-or-none
approach. However, SROA might slighly win in stack size, as it tries to figure
out a stretch of memory tightenly cover the area accessed by the dynamic index.
rdar://13174884
PR15200
llvm-svn: 178912
Pass down the fact that an operand is going to be a vector of constants.
This should bring the performance of MultiSource/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p on x86
back. It had degraded to scalar performance due to my pervious shift cost change
that made all shifts expensive on x86.
radar://13576547
llvm-svn: 178809
The semantics of ARC implies that a pointer passed into an objc_autorelease
must live until some point (potentially down the stack) where an
autorelease pool is popped. On the other hand, an
objc_autoreleaseReturnValue just signifies that the object must live
until the end of the given function at least.
Thus objc_autorelease is stronger than objc_autoreleaseReturnValue in
terms of the semantics of ARC* implying that performing the given
strength reduction without any knowledge of how this relates to
the autorelease pool pop that is further up the stack violates the
semantics of ARC.
*Even though objc_autoreleaseReturnValue if you know that no RV
optimization will occur is more computationally expensive.
llvm-svn: 178612
Benjamin Kramer