Patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D43256 introduced more aggressive loop layout optimization which depends on profile information. If profile information is not available, the statically estimated profile information(generated by BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp) is used. If user program doesn't behave as BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp expected, the layout may be worse.
To be conservative this patch restores the original layout algorithm in plain mode. But user can still try the aggressive layout optimization with -force-precise-rotation-cost=true.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65673
llvm-svn: 369664
It caused assertions to fire when building Chromium:
lib/CodeGen/LiveDebugValues.cpp:331: bool
{anonymous}::LiveDebugValues::OpenRangesSet::empty() const: Assertion
`Vars.empty() == VarLocs.empty() && "open ranges are inconsistent"' failed.
See https://crbug.com/992871#c3 for how to reproduce.
> Patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D43256 introduced more aggressive loop layout optimization which depends on profile information. If profile information is not available, the statically estimated profile information(generated by BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp) is used. If user program doesn't behave as BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp expected, the layout may be worse.
>
> To be conservative this patch restores the original layout algorithm in plain mode. But user can still try the aggressive layout optimization with -force-precise-rotation-cost=true.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65673
llvm-svn: 368579
Patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D43256 introduced more aggressive loop layout optimization which depends on profile information. If profile information is not available, the statically estimated profile information(generated by BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp) is used. If user program doesn't behave as BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp expected, the layout may be worse.
To be conservative this patch restores the original layout algorithm in plain mode. But user can still try the aggressive layout optimization with -force-precise-rotation-cost=true.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65673
llvm-svn: 368339
Current findBestLoopTop can find and move one kind of block to top, a latch block has one successor. Another common case is:
* a latch block
* it has two successors, one is loop header, another is exit
* it has more than one predecessors
If it is below one of its predecessors P, only P can fall through to it, all other predecessors need a jump to it, and another conditional jump to loop header. If it is moved before loop header, all its predecessors jump to it, then fall through to loop header. So all its predecessors except P can reduce one taken branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43256
llvm-svn: 363471
Part of the effort to refactoring frame pointer code generation. We used
to use two function attributes "no-frame-pointer-elim" and
"no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf" to represent three kinds of frame
pointer usage: (all) frames use frame pointer, (non-leaf) frames use
frame pointer, (none) frame use frame pointer. This CL makes the idea
explicit by using only one enum function attribute "frame-pointer"
Option "-frame-pointer=" replaces "-disable-fp-elim" for tools such as
llc.
"no-frame-pointer-elim" and "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf" are still
supported for easy migration to "frame-pointer".
tests are mostly updated with
// replace command line args ‘-disable-fp-elim=false’ with ‘-frame-pointer=none’
grep -iIrnl '\-disable-fp-elim=false' * | xargs sed -i '' -e "s/-disable-fp-elim=false/-frame-pointer=none/g"
// replace command line args ‘-disable-fp-elim’ with ‘-frame-pointer=all’
grep -iIrnl '\-disable-fp-elim' * | xargs sed -i '' -e "s/-disable-fp-elim/-frame-pointer=all/g"
Patch by Yuanfang Chen (tabloid.adroit)!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56351
llvm-svn: 351049
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
If a loop is not rotated (for example when optimizing for size), the latch is not the backedge. If we promote an expression to post-inc form, we not only increase register pressure and add a COPY for that IV expression but for all IVs!
Motivating testcase:
void f(float *a, float *b, float *c, int n) {
while (n-- > 0)
*c++ = *a++ + *b++;
}
It's imperative that the pointer increments be located in the latch block and not the header block; if not, we cannot use post-increment loads and stores and we have to keep both the post-inc and pre-inc values around until the end of the latch which bloats register usage.
llvm-svn: 278658
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/CodeGen -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc.*debug" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_-]*\):\( *\)$FUNC: *\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3$FUNC:/g" $TEMP
done
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-LABEL-LABEL:/;\1-LABEL:/" $TEMP
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-NEXT-LABEL:/;\1-NEXT:/" $TEMP
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-NOT-LABEL:/;\1-NOT:/" $TEMP
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-DAG-LABEL:/;\1-DAG:/" $TEMP
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186280
This is mostly to test the waters. I'd like to get results from FNT
build bots and other bots running on non-x86 platforms.
This feature has been pretty heavily tested over the last few months by
me, and it fixes several of the execution time regressions caused by the
inlining work by preventing inlining decisions from radically impacting
block layout.
I've seen very large improvements in yacr2 and ackermann benchmarks,
along with the expected noise across all of the benchmark suite whenever
code layout changes. I've analyzed all of the regressions and fixed
them, or found them to be impossible to fix. See my email to llvmdev for
more details.
I'd like for this to be in 3.1 as it complements the inliner changes,
but if any failures are showing up or anyone has concerns, it is just
a flag flip and so can be easily turned off.
I'm switching it on tonight to try and get at least one run through
various folks' performance suites in case SPEC or something else has
serious issues with it. I'll watch bots and revert if anything shows up.
llvm-svn: 154816
int tries = INT_MAX;
while (tries > 0) {
tries--;
}
The check should be:
subs r4, #1
cmp r4, #0
bgt LBB0_1
The subs can set the overflow V bit when r4 is INT_MAX+1 (which loop
canonicalization apparently does in this case). cmp #0 would have cleared
it while not changing the N and Z bits. Since BGT is dependent on the V
bit, i.e. (N == V) && !Z, it is not safe to eliminate the cmp #0.
rdar://9172742
llvm-svn: 128179
Jordan Rupprecht