Workaround bug where the InstCombine pass was asserting on the IR added in lit
test, where we have a bitcast instruction after a GEP from an addrspace cast.
The second bitcast in the test was getting combined into
`bitcast <16 x i32>* %0 to <16 x i32> addrspace(3)*`, which looks like it should
be an addrspace cast instruction instead. Otherwise if control flow is allowed
to continue as it is now we create a GEP instruction
`<badref> = getelementptr inbounds <16 x i32>, <16 x i32>* %0, i32 0`. However
because the type of this instruction doesn't match the address space we hit an
assert when replacing the bitcast with that GEP.
```
void llvm::Value::doRAUW(llvm::Value*, bool): Assertion `New->getType() == getType() && "replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!"' failed.
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50058
llvm-svn: 338395
Summary:
When inserting lcssa Phi Nodes in the exit block
mak sure to preserve the original instructions DL.
Reviewers: vsk
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50009
llvm-svn: 338391
Summary:
This patch improves Inliner to provide causes/reasons for negative inline decisions.
1. It adds one new message field to InlineCost to report causes for Always and Never instances. All Never and Always instantiations must provide a simple message.
2. Several functions that used to return the inlining results as boolean are changed to return InlineResult which carries the cause for negative decision.
3. Changed remark priniting and debug output messages to provide the additional messages and related inline cost.
4. Adjusted tests for changed printing.
Patch by: yrouban (Yevgeny Rouban)
Reviewers: craig.topper, sammccall, sgraenitz, NutshellySima, shchenz, chandlerc, apilipenko, javed.absar, tejohnson, dblaikie, sanjoy, eraman, xbolva00
Reviewed By: tejohnson, xbolva00
Subscribers: xbolva00, llvm-commits, arsenm, mehdi_amini, eraman, haicheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49412
llvm-svn: 338387
This is being done in order to make GVN able to better optimize certain inputs.
MemDep doesn't use PhiValues directly, but does need to notifiy it when things
get invalidated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48489
llvm-svn: 338384
Summary:
If the ExtractElement instructions can be optimized out during the
vectorization and we need to reshuffle the parent vector, this
ShuffleInstruction may be inserted in the wrong place causing compiler
to produce incorrect code.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel, javed.absar
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49928
llvm-svn: 338380
This fold was written in an odd way and tried to avoid
an endless loop by bailing out on all constants instead
of the supposedly problematic case of -1. But (X & -1)
should always be simplified before we reach here, so I'm
not sure how that is a problem.
There were no tests for the commuted patterns, so I added
those at rL338364.
llvm-svn: 338367
Summary:
Normally, inling does not happen if caller does not have
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" attibute but callee has it.
However, alwaysinline may force callee to be inlined.
In this case, if the caller has the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute, copy the attribute to caller.
Reviewers: efriedma, a.elovikov, lebedev.ri, jyknight
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50000
llvm-svn: 338292
By using PhiValuesAnalysis we can get all the values reachable from a phi, so
we can be more precise instead of giving up when a phi has phi operands. We
can't make BaseicAA directly use PhiValuesAnalysis though, as the user of
BasicAA may modify the function in ways that PhiValuesAnalysis can't cope with.
For this optional usage to work correctly BasicAAWrapperPass now needs to be not
marked as CFG-only (i.e. it is now invalidated even when CFG is preserved) due
to how the legacy pass manager handles dependent passes being invalidated,
namely the depending pass still has a pointer to the now-dead dependent pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44564
llvm-svn: 338242
These are reassociated versions of the same pattern and
similar transforms as in rL338200 and rL338118.
The motivation is identical to those commits:
Patterns with add/sub combos can be improved using
'not' ops. This is better for analysis and may lead
to follow-on transforms because 'xor' and 'add' are
commutative/associative. It can also help codegen.
llvm-svn: 338221
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jDd
Patterns with add/sub combos can be improved using
'not' ops. This is better for analysis and may lead
to follow-on transforms because 'xor' and 'add' are
commutative/associative. It can also help codegen.
llvm-svn: 338200
We now, from clang, can turn arrays of
static short g_data[] = {16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
into structs of the form
@g_data = internal global <{ [8 x i16], [8 x i16] }> ...
GlobalOpt will incorrectly SROA it, not realising that the access to the first
element may overflow into the second. This fixes it by checking geps more
thoroughly.
I believe this makes the globalsra-partial.ll test case invalid as the %i value
could be out of bounds. I've re-purposed it as a negative test for this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49816
llvm-svn: 338192
The tests with constants show a missing optimization.
Analysis for adds is better than subs, so this can also
help with other transforms. And codegen is better with
adds for targets like x86 (destructive ops, no sub-from).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/llK
llvm-svn: 338118
This is a follow-up for the patch rL335020. When we replace compares against
trunc with compares against wide IV, we can also replace signed predicates with
unsigned where it is legal.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48763
llvm-svn: 338115
This commit includes unit tests for D48828, which enhances InstSimplify to enable jump threading with a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
I am going to commit the actual transformation later.
llvm-svn: 338107
Summary:
r262157 added ELF-specific logic to put a comdat on the __profc_*
globals created for available_externally functions. We should be able to
generalize that logic to all object file formats that support comdats,
i.e. everything other than MachO. This fixes duplicate symbol errors,
since on COFF, linkonce_odr doesn't make the symbol weak.
Fixes PR38251.
Reviewers: davidxl, xur
Subscribers: hiraditya, dmajor, llvm-commits, aheejin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49882
llvm-svn: 338082
LowerDbgDeclare inserts a dbg.value before each use of an address
described by a dbg.declare. When inserting a dbg.value before a CallInst
use, however, it fails to append DW_OP_deref to the DIExpression.
The DW_OP_deref is needed to reflect the fact that a dbg.value describes
a source variable directly (as opposed to a dbg.declare, which relies on
pointer indirection).
This patch adds in the DW_OP_deref where needed. This results in the
correct values being shown during a debug session for a program compiled
with ASan and optimizations (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D49520). Note
that ConvertDebugDeclareToDebugValue is already correct -- no changes
there were needed.
One complication is that SelectionDAG is unable to distinguish between
direct and indirect frame-index (FRAMEIX) SDDbgValues. This patch also
fixes this long-standing issue in order to not regress integration tests
relying on the incorrect assumption that all frame-index SDDbgValues are
indirect. This is a necessary fix: the newly-added DW_OP_derefs cannot
be lowered properly otherwise. Basically the fix prevents a direct
SDDbgValue with DIExpression(DW_OP_deref) from being dereferenced twice
by a debugger. There were a handful of tests relying on this incorrect
"FRAMEIX => indirect" assumption which actually had incorrect
DW_AT_locations: these are all fixed up in this patch.
Testing:
- check-llvm, and an end-to-end test using lldb to debug an optimized
program.
- Existing unit tests for DIExpression::appendToStack fully cover the
new DIExpression::append utility.
- check-debuginfo (the debug info integration tests)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49454
llvm-svn: 338069
This fold is mentioned in PR38239:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
The general case probably belongs in -reassociate, but given that we do
basic reassociation optimizations similar to this in instcombine already,
we might as well be consistent within instcombine and handle this pattern?
llvm-svn: 338038
Reuse the handling for llvm.used, and don't transform such globals.
Fixes a failure on the asan buildbot caused by my previous commit.
llvm-svn: 337973
In some cases LSV sees (load/store _ (select _ <pointer expression>
<pointer expression>)) patterns in input IR, often due to sinking and
other forms of CFG simplification, sometimes interspersed with
bitcasts and all-constant-indices GEPs. With this
patch`areConsecutivePointers` method would attempt to handle select
instructions. This leads to an increased number of successful
vectorizations.
Technically, select instructions could appear in index arithmetic as
well, however, we don't see those in our test suites / benchmarks.
Also, there is a lot more freedom in IR shapes computing integral
indices in general than in what's common in pointer computations, and
it appears that it's quite unreliable to do anything short of making
select instructions first class citizens of Scalar Evolution, which
for the purposes of this patch is most definitely an overkill.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49428
llvm-svn: 337965
Instead of depending on implicit padding from the structure layout code,
use a packed struct and emit the padding explicitly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49710
llvm-svn: 337961
as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's
(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)
This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:
1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
(respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.
Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:
double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
double x = 0.0;
double y = 0.0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
x += a[i];
y += a[i + 1];
}
return x * y;
}
If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})
it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).
How it all works:
Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:
i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
...
ZZZZ...0000
then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.
Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:
j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).
So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:
0000...00CC = D
CCCC...CC00 = (C - D)
and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:
CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
----------- // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00
The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:
YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
----------- <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC
Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.
Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:
0001 0101 // 21
XXXX XX00 // 12x
YYYY Y000 // 8y
0001 0101 // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
0001 0100 // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
WWWW WW00 // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y
therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>
This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:
i
10 1110...0011 // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.
We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:
i
00 0010...0011 = D
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:
XX1 1 = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
XX X1XX...XX00 = X
--- -----------
XX X0XX...XX00
Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:
0 X
00 0010...0011 = D
sX X0XX...XX00 = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
sX XXXX XX11
As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.
The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337943
r337828 resolves a PredicateInfo issue with unnamed types.
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: 337904
Evandro Menezes