Summary: We do not need nonull attribute if we know an argument is going to be constant.
Reviewers: junbuml, davide, fhahn
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45608
llvm-svn: 330641
Summary:
If the callsite is inside landing pad, do not perform callsite splitting.
Callsite splitting uses utility function llvm::DuplicateInstructionsInSplitBetween, which eventually calls llvm::SplitEdge. llvm::SplitEdge calls llvm::SplitCriticalEdge with an assumption that the function returns nullptr only when the target edge is not a critical edge (and further assumes that if the return value was not nullptr, the predecessor of the original target edge always has a single successor because critical edge splitting was successful). However, this assumtion is not true because SplitCriticalEdge returns nullptr if the destination block is a landing pad. This invalid assumption results assertion failure.
Fundamental solution might be fixing llvm::SplitEdge to not to rely on the invalid assumption. However, it'll involve a lot of work because current API assumes that llvm::SplitEdge never fails. Instead, this patch makes callsite splitting to not to attempt splitting if the callsite is in a landing pad.
Attached test case will crash with assertion failure without the fix.
Reviewers: fhahn, junbuml, dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45130
llvm-svn: 329250
Change doCallSiteSplitting to iterate until we reach the terminator instruction.
tryToSplitCallSite can replace BB's terminator in case BB is a successor of
itself. Then IE will be invalidated and we also have to check the current
terminator.
Reviewers: junbuml, davidxl, davide, fhahn
Reviewed By: fhahn, junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43824
llvm-svn: 326793
Summary:
`musttail` calls can't be naively splitted. The split blocks must
include not only the call instruction itself, but also (optional)
`bitcast` and `return` instructions that follow it.
Clone `bitcast` and `ret`, place them into the split blocks, and
remove the tail block when done.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide, fhahn
Reviewed By: fhahn
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43729
llvm-svn: 326666
For basic blocks with instructions between the beginning of the block
and a call we have to duplicate the instructions before the call in all
split blocks and add PHI nodes for uses of the duplicated instructions
after the call.
Currently, the threshold for the number of instructions before a call
is quite low, to keep the impact on binary size low.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41860
llvm-svn: 325126
For basic blocks with instructions between the beginning of the block
and a call we have to duplicate the instructions before the call in all
split blocks and add PHI nodes for uses of the duplicated instructions
after the call.
Currently, the threshold for the number of instructions before a call
is quite low, to keep the impact on binary size low.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41860
llvm-svn: 325001
This removes some duplication from splitCallSite and makes it easier to
add additional code dealing with each predecessor. It also allows us to
split for more than 2 predecessors, although that is not enabled for
now.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41858
llvm-svn: 322599
By following the single predecessors of the predecessors of the call
site, we do not need to restrict the control flow.
Reviewed By: junbuml, davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40729
llvm-svn: 321413
Summary:
This change makes the call site creation more general if any of the
arguments is predicated on a condition in the call site's predecessors.
If we find a callsite, that potentially can be split, we collect the set
of conditions for the call site's predecessors (currently only 2
predecessors are allowed). To do that, we traverse each predecessor's
predecessors as long as it only has single predecessors and record the
condition, if it is relevant to the call site. For each condition, we
also check if the condition is taken or not. In case it is not taken,
we record the inverse predicate.
We use the recorded conditions to create the new call sites and split
the basic block.
This has 2 benefits: (1) it is slightly easier to see what is going on
(IMO) and (2) we can easily extend it to handle more complex control
flow.
Reviewers: davidxl, junbuml
Reviewed By: junbuml
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40728
llvm-svn: 320547
Summary:
This solves PR35616.
We don't want the compiler to generate different code when we compile
with/without -g, so we now ignore debug intrinsics when determining if
the optimization can trigger or not.
Reviewers: junbuml
Subscribers: davide, JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41068
llvm-svn: 320460
Summary:
With this patch I tried to reduce the complexity of the code sightly, by
removing some indirection. Please let me know what you think.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl
Reviewed By: junbuml
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40037
llvm-svn: 318593
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
Xin Tong