There was no logic in foldICmpDivConstant, so no need for a separate function.
The code is directly copy/pasted, so further cleanups to follow.
llvm-svn: 279685
This patch unifies the data structures we use for mapping instructions from the
original loop to their corresponding instructions in the new loop. Previously,
we maintained two distinct maps for this purpose: WidenMap and ScalarIVMap.
WidenMap maintained the vector values each instruction from the old loop was
represented with, and ScalarIVMap maintained the scalar values each scalarized
induction variable was represented with. With this patch, all values created
for the new loop are maintained in VectorLoopValueMap.
The change allows for several simplifications. Previously, when an instruction
was scalarized, we had to insert the scalar values into vectors in order to
maintain the mapping in WidenMap. Then, if a user of the scalarized value was
also scalar, we had to extract the scalar values from the temporary vector we
created. We now aovid these unnecessary scalar-to-vector-to-scalar conversions.
If a scalarized value is used by a scalar instruction, the scalar value is used
directly. However, if the scalarized value is needed by a vector instruction,
we generate the needed insertelement instructions on-demand.
A common idiom in several locations in the code (including the scalarization
code), is to first get the vector values an instruction from the original loop
maps to, and then extract a particular scalar value. This patch adds
getScalarValue for this purpose along side getVectorValue as an interface into
VectorLoopValueMap. These functions work together to return the requested
values if they're available or to produce them if they're not.
The mapping has also be made less permissive. Entries can be added to
VectorLoopValue map with the new initVector and initScalar functions.
getVectorValue has been modified to return a constant reference to the mapped
entries.
There's no real functional change with this patch; however, in some cases we
will generate slightly different code. For example, instead of an insertelement
sequence following the definition of an instruction, it will now precede the
first use of that instruction. This can be seen in the test case changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23169
llvm-svn: 279649
I'm not sure if the `!isa<CallInst>(Inst) &&
!isa<TerminatorInst>(Inst))` bit is correct either, but this fixes the
case we know is broken.
llvm-svn: 279647
I deleted a fold from InstCombine at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279568
because it (like any InstCombine to a constant?) should always happen in InstSimplify,
however, it's not obvious what the assumptions are in the remaining code.
Add a comment and assert to make it clearer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23819
llvm-svn: 279626
div/rem instructions in basic blocks that require predication currently prevent
vectorization. This patch extends the existing mechanism for predicating stores
to handle other instructions and leverages it to predicate divs and rems.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22918
llvm-svn: 279620
manager, including both plumbing and logic to handle function pass
updates.
There are three fundamentally tied changes here:
1) Plumbing *some* mechanism for updating the CGSCC pass manager as the
CG changes while passes are running.
2) Changing the CGSCC pass manager infrastructure to have support for
the underlying graph to mutate mid-pass run.
3) Actually updating the CG after function passes run.
I can separate them if necessary, but I think its really useful to have
them together as the needs of #3 drove #2, and that in turn drove #1.
The plumbing technique is to extend the "run" method signature with
extra arguments. We provide the call graph that intrinsically is
available as it is the basis of the pass manager's IR units, and an
output parameter that records the results of updating the call graph
during an SCC passes's run. Note that "...UpdateResult" isn't a *great*
name here... suggestions very welcome.
I tried a pretty frustrating number of different data structures and such
for the innards of the update result. Every other one failed for one
reason or another. Sometimes I just couldn't keep the layers of
complexity right in my head. The thing that really worked was to just
directly provide access to the underlying structures used to walk the
call graph so that their updates could be informed by the *particular*
nature of the change to the graph.
The technique for how to make the pass management infrastructure cope
with mutating graphs was also something that took a really, really large
number of iterations to get to a place where I was happy. Here are some
of the considerations that drove the design:
- We operate at three levels within the infrastructure: RefSCC, SCC, and
Node. In each case, we are working bottom up and so we want to
continue to iterate on the "lowest" node as the graph changes. Look at
how we iterate over nodes in an SCC running function passes as those
function passes mutate the CG. We continue to iterate on the "lowest"
SCC, which is the one that continues to contain the function just
processed.
- The call graph structure re-uses SCCs (and RefSCCs) during mutation
events for the *highest* entry in the resulting new subgraph, not the
lowest. This means that it is necessary to continually update the
current SCC or RefSCC as it shifts. This is really surprising and
subtle, and took a long time for me to work out. I actually tried
changing the call graph to provide the opposite behavior, and it
breaks *EVERYTHING*. The graph update algorithms are really deeply
tied to this particualr pattern.
- When SCCs or RefSCCs are split apart and refined and we continually
re-pin our processing to the bottom one in the subgraph, we need to
enqueue the newly formed SCCs and RefSCCs for subsequent processing.
Queuing them presents a few challenges:
1) SCCs and RefSCCs use wildly different iteration strategies at
a high level. We end up needing to converge them on worklist
approaches that can be extended in order to be able to handle the
mutations.
2) The order of the enqueuing need to remain bottom-up post-order so
that we don't get surprising order of visitation for things like
the inliner.
3) We need the worklists to have set semantics so we don't duplicate
things endlessly. We don't need a *persistent* set though because
we always keep processing the bottom node!!!! This is super, super
surprising to me and took a long time to convince myself this is
correct, but I'm pretty sure it is... Once we sink down to the
bottom node, we can't re-split out the same node in any way, and
the postorder of the current queue is fixed and unchanging.
4) We need to make sure that the "current" SCC or RefSCC actually gets
enqueued here such that we re-visit it because we continue
processing a *new*, *bottom* SCC/RefSCC.
- We also need the ability to *skip* SCCs and RefSCCs that get merged
into a larger component. We even need the ability to skip *nodes* from
an SCC that are no longer part of that SCC.
This led to the design you see in the patch which uses SetVector-based
worklists. The RefSCC worklist is always empty until an update occurs
and is just used to handle those RefSCCs created by updates as the
others don't even exist yet and are formed on-demand during the
bottom-up walk. The SCC worklist is pre-populated from the RefSCC, and
we push new SCCs onto it and blacklist existing SCCs on it to get the
desired processing.
We then *directly* update these when updating the call graph as I was
never able to find a satisfactory abstraction around the update
strategy.
Finally, we need to compute the updates for function passes. This is
mostly used as an initial customer of all the update mechanisms to drive
their design to at least cover some real set of use cases. There are
a bunch of interesting things that came out of doing this:
- It is really nice to do this a function at a time because that
function is likely hot in the cache. This means we want even the
function pass adaptor to support online updates to the call graph!
- To update the call graph after arbitrary function pass mutations is
quite hard. We have to build a fairly comprehensive set of
data structures and then process them. Fortunately, some of this code
is related to the code for building the cal graph in the first place.
Unfortunately, very little of it makes any sense to share because the
nature of what we're doing is so very different. I've factored out the
one part that made sense at least.
- We need to transfer these updates into the various structures for the
CGSCC pass manager. Once those were more sanely worked out, this
became relatively easier. But some of those needs necessitated changes
to the LazyCallGraph interface to make it significantly easier to
extract the changed SCCs from an update operation.
- We also need to update the CGSCC analysis manager as the shape of the
graph changes. When an SCC is merged away we need to clear analyses
associated with it from the analysis manager which we didn't have
support for in the analysis manager infrsatructure. New SCCs are easy!
But then we have the case that the original SCC has its shape changed
but remains in the call graph. There we need to *invalidate* the
analyses associated with it.
- We also need to invalidate analyses after we *finish* processing an
SCC. But the analyses we need to invalidate here are *only those for
the newly updated SCC*!!! Because we only continue processing the
bottom SCC, if we split SCCs apart the original one gets invalidated
once when its shape changes and is not processed farther so its
analyses will be correct. It is the bottom SCC which continues being
processed and needs to have the "normal" invalidation done based on
the preserved analyses set.
All of this is mostly background and context for the changes here.
Many thanks to all the reviewers who helped here. Especially Sanjoy who
caught several interesting bugs in the graph algorithms, David, Sean,
and others who all helped with feedback.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21464
llvm-svn: 279618
Summary:
This patch adds coroutine frame building algorithm. Now, simple coroutines such as ex0.ll and ex1.ll (first examples from docs\Coroutines.rst can be compiled).
Documentation and overview is here: http://llvm.org/docs/Coroutines.html.
Upstreaming sequence (rough plan)
1.Add documentation. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22603)
2.Add coroutine intrinsics. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22659)
...
7. Split coroutine into subfunctions. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D23461)
8. Coroutine Frame Building algorithm <= we are here
9. Add f.cleanup subfunction.
10+. The rest of the logic
Reviewers: majnemer
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23586
llvm-svn: 279609
Summary:
This is part of a serious of patches to evolve ADCE.cpp to support
removing of unnecessary control flow.
This patch adds the ability to compute control dependences using
the iterated dominance frontier. We extend the liveness propagation
to alternate between data and control dependences until convergences.
Modify the pass manager intergation to compute the post-dominator tree
needed for iterator dominance frontier.
We still force all terminators live for now until we add code to
handlinge removing control flow in a later patch.
No changes to effective behavior with this patch
Previous patches:
D23225 [ADCE] Modify data structures to support removing control flow
D23065 [ADCE] Refactor anticipating new functionality (NFC)
D23102 [ADCE] Refactoring for new functionality (NFC)
Reviewers: nadav, majnemer, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: twoh, freik, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23559
llvm-svn: 279594
Summary:
In clang commit r268509 we started to invoke loop-unroll pass from the
driver even under -Os. However, we happen to not initialize optsize
thresholds properly, which si fixed with this change.
r268509 led to some big compile time regressions, because we started to
unroll some loops that we didn't unroll before. With this change I hope
to recover most of the regressions. We still are slightly slower than
before, because we do some checks here and there in loop-unrolling
before we bail out, but at least the slowdown is not that huge now.
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23388
llvm-svn: 279585
There will only be 3 lines of code in foldICmpShrConst() when the cleanup is done,
so it doesn't make much sense to have a separate function for a single fold.
llvm-svn: 279575
AFAICT, these already worked in all cases for scalar types, and I enhanced
the code to work for vector types in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279543
llvm-svn: 279568
The test case included with r279125 exposed an existing signed integer
overflow. Since getTreeCost can return INT_MAX, we can't sum this cost together
with other costs, such as getReductionCost.
This patch removes the possibility of assigning a cost of INT_MAX. Since we
were previously using INT_MAX as an indicator for "should not vectorize", we
now explicitly check this condition with "isTreeTinyAndNotFullyVectorizable"
before computing a cost.
This patch adds a run-line to the test case used for r279125 that ensures we
don't vectorize. Previously, this line would vectorize the test case by chance
due to undefined behavior in the cost calculation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23723
llvm-svn: 279562
Summary: GVNHoist: Use the pass version of MemorySSA and preserve it.
Reviewers: sebpop, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23782
llvm-svn: 279504
Given that we're not currently using blocker info, and whether or not we
will end up using it it is unclear, don't waste 8 (or 4) bytes of memory
per path node.
llvm-svn: 279493
[Recommitting now an unrelated assertion in SROA is sorted out]
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
Round 4. This time we should handle all instructions correctly, and not replace any operands that need to be constant with variables.
This was really hard to determine safely, so the helper function should be put into the Instruction API. I'll do that as a followup.
llvm-svn: 279460
Summary: We can allow sinking if the single user block has only one unique predecessor, regardless of the number of edges. Note that a switch statement with multiple cases can have the same destination.
Reviewers: mcrosier, majnemer, spatel, reames
Subscribers: reames, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23722
llvm-svn: 279448
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
Round 4. This time we should handle all instructions correctly, and not replace any operands that need to be constant with variables.
This was really hard to determine safely, so the helper function should be put into the Instruction API. I'll do that as a followup.
llvm-svn: 279443
This change needs to be reverted in order to revert -r278267 which cause performance regression on MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt from LNT and some other bechmarks.
See comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D18777 for details.
llvm-svn: 279432
Summary: r279379 introduced crash on arm 32bit bot. I suspect this is alignment issue.
Reviewers: eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23762
llvm-svn: 279413
The callers still have ConstantInt guards, so there is no functional change
intended from this change. But relaxing the callers will allow more folds
for vector types.
llvm-svn: 279396
Summary:
We can insert function call instead of multiple store operation.
Current default is blocks larger than 64 bytes.
Changes are hidden behind -asan-experimental-poisoning flag.
PR27453
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23711
llvm-svn: 279383
Summary:
Callbacks are not being used yet.
PR27453
Reviewers: kcc, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23634
llvm-svn: 279380
Summary: Reduce store size to avoid leading and trailing zeros.
Reviewers: kcc, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23648
llvm-svn: 279379
Summary:
We are going to combine poisoning of red zones and scope poisoning.
PR27453
Reviewers: kcc, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23623
llvm-svn: 279373
The test case included in r279125 exposed existing undefined behavior in the
SLP vectorizer that it did not introduce. This patch reapplies the original
patch, but modifies the test case to avoid hitting the undefined behavior. This
allows us to close PR28330 while keeping the UBSan bot happy. The undefined
behavior the original test uncovered will be addressed in a follow-on patch.
Reference: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28330
llvm-svn: 279370
This is a partial enablement (move the ConstantInt guard down) because there are many
different folds here and one of the later ones will require reworking 'isSignBitCheck'.
llvm-svn: 279339
Currently nodes_iterator may dereference to a NodeType* or a NodeType&. Make them all dereference to NodeType*, which is NodeRef later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23704
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23705
llvm-svn: 279326
Specifically, this is done near the end of "SimplifyICmpInst" using
computeKnownBits() as the broader solution. There are even vector
tests (yay!) for this in test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll.
I considered putting an assert here instead of just deleting, but
then we could assert every possible fold in InstSimplify in
InstCombine, so...less is more?
llvm-svn: 279300
Sanjay Patel