Change checkRippleForAdd from a heuristic to a full check -
if it is provable that the add does not overflow return true, otherwise false.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32686
llvm-svn: 302093
Fixes PR31789 - When loop-vectorize tries to use these intrinsics for a
non-default address space pointer we fail with a "Calling a function with a
bad singature!" assertion. This patch solves this by adding the 'vector of
pointers' argument as an overloaded type which will determine the address
space.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31490
llvm-svn: 302018
Summary:
Currently, loop deletion deletes loop where the only values
that are used outside the loop are loop-invariant.
This patch adds logic to delete loops where the loop is proven to be
never executed (i.e. the only predecessor of the loop preheader has a
constant conditional branch as terminator, and the preheader is not the
taken target). This will remove loops that become dead after
loop-unswitching generates constant conditional branches.
The next steps are:
1. moving the loop deletion implementation to LoopUtils.
2. Add logic in loop-simplifyCFG which will support changing conditional
constant branches to unconditional branches. If loops become unreachable in this
process, they can be removed using `deleteDeadLoop` function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, efriedma, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed by: sanjoy
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32494
llvm-svn: 302015
We should always expect values to be named before running the module summary
analysis (see NameAnonGlobals pass), so it's fine if we crash in that case.
llvm-svn: 301991
This was originally checked in here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301923
And reverted here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301924
Because there's a clang test that would fail after this. I fixed/removed the
offending CHECK lines in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301928
So let's try this again. Original commit message:
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing, but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern that has an extra 'not' in it: ~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold that pattern too: (~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301929
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is
harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while
random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing,
but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have
excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't
match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern
that has an extra 'not' in it:
~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold
that pattern too:
(~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301923
This change caused buildbot failures, apparently because we're not
passing around types that InstSimplify is used to seeing. I'm not overly
familiar with InstSimplify, so I'm reverting this until I can figure out
what exactly is wrong.
llvm-svn: 301885
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 301880
In the testcase attached, we believe %tmp1 implies %tmp4.
where:
br i1 %tmp1, label %bb2, label %bb7
br i1 %tmp4, label %bb5, label %bb7
because Wwhile looking at PredicateInfo stuffs we end up calling
isImpliedTrueByMatchingCmp() with the arguments backwards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32718
llvm-svn: 301849
If we have ~(~X & Y), it only makes sense to transform it to (X | ~Y) when we do not need
the intermediate (~X & Y) value. In that case, we would need an extra instruction to
generate ~Y + 'or' (as shown in the test changes).
It's ok if we have multiple uses of ~X or Y, however. In those cases, we may not reduce the
instruction count or critical path, but we might improve throughput because we can generate
~X and ~Y in parallel. Whether that actually makes perf sense or not for a target is something
we can't answer in IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32703
llvm-svn: 301848
We may not be able to rewrite indirect branch target, but we also want to take it into
account when folding, i.e. if it and all its successor's predecessors go to the same
destination, we can fold, i.e. no need to thread.
llvm-svn: 301816
Summary: [JumpThread] Do RAUW in case Cond folds to a constant in the CFG
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32407
llvm-svn: 301804
retainAutoreleasedReturnValue that retains the returned value.
This commit fixes a bug in ARC optimizer where it moves a release
between a call and a retainAutoreleasedReturnValue, causing the returned
object to be released before the retainAutoreleasedReturnValue can
retain it.
This commit accomplishes that by doing a lookahead and checking whether
the call prevents the release from moving upwards. In the long term, we
should treat the region between the retainAutoreleasedReturnValue and
the call as a critical section and disallow moving anything there
(possibly using operand bundles).
rdar://problem/20449878
llvm-svn: 301724
Eliminates some more cases where some subset of the addressing
computation remains flat. Some cases with addrspacecasts
in nested constant expressions are still left behind however.
llvm-svn: 301704
Summary:
The motivation example is like below which has 13 cases but only 2 distinct targets
```
lor.lhs.false2: ; preds = %if.then
switch i32 %Status, label %if.then27 [
i32 -7012, label %if.end35
i32 -10008, label %if.end35
i32 -10016, label %if.end35
i32 15000, label %if.end35
i32 14013, label %if.end35
i32 10114, label %if.end35
i32 10107, label %if.end35
i32 10105, label %if.end35
i32 10013, label %if.end35
i32 10011, label %if.end35
i32 7008, label %if.end35
i32 7007, label %if.end35
i32 5002, label %if.end35
]
```
which is compiled into a balanced binary tree like this on AArch64 (similar on X86)
```
.LBB853_9: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #10012
cmp w19, w8
b.gt .LBB853_14
// BB#10: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #5001
cmp w19, w8
b.gt .LBB853_18
// BB#11: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #-10016
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
// BB#12: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #-10008
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
// BB#13: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #-7012
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
b .LBB853_3
.LBB853_14: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #14012
cmp w19, w8
b.gt .LBB853_21
// BB#15: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #-10105
add w8, w19, w8
cmp w8, #9 // =9
b.hi .LBB853_17
// BB#16: // %lor.lhs.false2
orr w9, wzr, #0x1
lsl w8, w9, w8
mov w9, #517
and w8, w8, w9
cbnz w8, .LBB853_23
.LBB853_17: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #10013
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
b .LBB853_3
.LBB853_18: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #-7007
add w8, w19, w8
cmp w8, #2 // =2
b.lo .LBB853_23
// BB#19: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #5002
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
// BB#20: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #10011
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
b .LBB853_3
.LBB853_21: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #14013
cmp w19, w8
b.eq .LBB853_23
// BB#22: // %lor.lhs.false2
mov w8, #15000
cmp w19, w8
b.ne .LBB853_3
```
However, the inline cost model estimates the cost to be linear with the number
of distinct targets and the cost of the above switch is just 2 InstrCosts.
The function containing this switch is then inlined about 900 times.
This change use the general way of switch lowering for the inline heuristic. It
etimate the number of case clusters with the suitability check for a jump table
or bit test. Considering the binary search tree built for the clusters, this
change modifies the model to be linear with the size of the balanced binary
tree. The model is off by default for now :
-inline-generic-switch-cost=false
This change was originally proposed by Haicheng in D29870.
Reviewers: hans, bmakam, chandlerc, eraman, haicheng, mcrosier
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: joerg, aemerson, llvm-commits, rengolin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31085
llvm-svn: 301649
Summary:
Skip memops if the total value profiled count is 0, we can't correctly
scale up the counts and there is no point anyway.
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32624
llvm-svn: 301645
EarlyCSE should not just ignore assumes. It should use the fact that its condition is true for all dominated instructions.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32482
llvm-svn: 301625
If a condition is calculated only once, and there are multiple guards on this condition, we should be able
to remove all guards dominated by the first of them. This patch allows EarlyCSE to try to find the condition
of a guard among the known values, and if it is true, remove the guard. Otherwise we keep the guard and
mark its condition as 'true' for future consideration.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, apilipenko, skatkov, anna, dberlin
Reviewed By: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32476
llvm-svn: 301623
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
Just calling dropAllReferences leaves pointers to the ConstantExpr
behind, so we would eventually crash with a null pointer dereference.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32551
llvm-svn: 301575
also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling
it.
The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this
is in the review thread for r300200.
llvm-svn: 301505
This patch is part of D28975's breakdown.
induction.ll encodes the specific (and rather arbitrary) numbers given to
predicated basic blocks by the unique naming mechanism, which makes it
sensitive to changes in LV's instruction generation order. This patch replaces
those specific numbers with a numeric pattern.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32404
llvm-svn: 301345
The code Sanjay Patel moved over from InstCombine doesn't work properly if the 'and' has both inputs as nots because we used a commuted op matcher on the 'and' first. But this will bind to the first 'not' on 'and' when there could be two 'not's. InstCombine could rely on DeMorgan to ensure the 'and' wouldn't have two 'not's eventually, but InstSimplify can't rely on that.
This patch matches the xor first then checks for the ands and allows a not of either operand of the xor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32458
llvm-svn: 301329
The matching here wasn't able to handle all the possible commutes. It always assumed the not would be on the left of the xor, but that's not guaranteed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32474
llvm-svn: 301316
One of the fast-math optimizations is to replace calls to standard double
functions with their float equivalents, e.g. exp -> expf. However, this can
cause infinite loops for the following:
float expf(float val) { return (float) exp((double) val); }
A similar inline declaration exists in the MinGW-w64 math.h header file which
when compiled with -O2/3 and fast-math generates infinite loops.
So this fix checks that the calling function to the standard double function
that is being replaced does not match the float equivalent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31806
llvm-svn: 301304
Matthias Braun