Add a pass to lower is.constant and objectsize intrinsics
This pass lowers is.constant and objectsize intrinsics not simplified by
earlier constant folding, i.e. if the object given is not constant or if
not using the optimized pass chain. The result is recursively simplified
and constant conditionals are pruned, so that dead blocks are removed
even for -O0. This allows inline asm blocks with operand constraints to
work all the time.
The new pass replaces the existing lowering in the codegen-prepare pass
and fallbacks in SDAG/GlobalISEL and FastISel. The latter now assert
on the intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65280
llvm-svn: 374784
This pass lowers is.constant and objectsize intrinsics not simplified by
earlier constant folding, i.e. if the object given is not constant or if
not using the optimized pass chain. The result is recursively simplified
and constant conditionals are pruned, so that dead blocks are removed
even for -O0. This allows inline asm blocks with operand constraints to
work all the time.
The new pass replaces the existing lowering in the codegen-prepare pass
and fallbacks in SDAG/GlobalISEL and FastISel. The latter now assert
on the intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65280
llvm-svn: 374743
This allows later passes (in particular InstCombine) to optimize more
cases.
One that's important to us is `memcmp(p, q, constant) < 0` and memcmp(p, q, constant) > 0.
llvm-svn: 364412
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358607
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358543
Introduces a pass that provides default lowering strategy for the
`experimental.widenable.condition` intrinsic, replacing all its uses with
`i1 true`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56096
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 352739
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
Summary:
Adds LLVMAddUnifyFunctionExitNodesPass to expose
createUnifyFunctionExitNodesPass to the C and OCaml APIs.
Reviewers: whitequark, deadalnix
Reviewed By: whitequark
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52212
llvm-svn: 342476
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
and diretory.
Also cleans up all the associated naming to be consistent and removes
the public access to the pass ID which was unused in LLVM.
Also runs clang-format over parts that changed, which generally cleans
up a bunch of formatting.
This is in preparation for doing some internal cleanups to the pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47352
llvm-svn: 336028
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
The idea is to have a pass which performs the same transformation as GuardWidening, but can be run within a loop pass manager without disrupting the pass manager structure. As demonstrated by the test case, this doesn't quite get there because of issues with post dom, but it gives a good step in the right direction. the motivation is purely to reduce compile time since we can now preserve locality during the loop walk.
This patch only includes a legacy pass. A follow up will add a new style pass as well.
llvm-svn: 331060
(notionally Scalar.h is part of libLLVMScalarOpts, so it shouldn't be
included by InstCombine which doesn't/shouldn't need to depend on
ScalarOpts)
llvm-svn: 330669
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
LoopInstSimplify is unused and untested. Reading through the commit
history the pass also seems to have a high maintenance burden.
It would be best to retire the pass for now. It should be easy to
recover if we need something similar in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053
llvm-svn: 327329
Summary:
The port is nearly straightforward.
The only complication is related to the analyses handling,
since one of the analyses used in this module pass is domtree,
which is a function analysis. That requires asking for the results
of each function and disallows a single interface for run-on-module
pass action.
Decided to copy-paste the main body of this pass.
Most of its code is requesting analyses anyway, so not that much
of a copy-paste.
The rest of the code movement is to transform all the implementation
helper functions like stripNonValidData into non-member statics.
Extended all the related LLVM tests with new-pass-manager use.
No failures.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: skatkov, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41162
llvm-svn: 320796
Clang implements the -finstrument-functions flag inherited from GCC, which
inserts calls to __cyg_profile_func_{enter,exit} on function entry and exit.
This is useful for getting a trace of how the functions in a program are
executed. Normally, the calls remain even if a function is inlined into another
function, but it is useful to be able to turn this off for users who are
interested in a lower-level trace, i.e. one that reflects what functions are
called post-inlining. (We use this to generate link order files for Chromium.)
LLVM already has a pass for inserting similar instrumentation calls to
mcount(), which it does after inlining. This patch renames and extends that
pass to handle calls both to mcount and the cygprofile functions, before and/or
after inlining as controlled by function attributes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39287
llvm-svn: 318195
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
undefined reference to `llvm::TargetPassConfig::ID' on
clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
This reverts commit eea333c33fa73ad225ef28607795984829f65688.
llvm-svn: 317213
Summary:
This is mostly a noop (most of the test diffs are renamed blocks).
There are a few temporary register renames (eax<->ecx) and a few blocks are
shuffled around.
See the discussion in PR33325 for more details.
Reviewers: spatel
Subscribers: mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39456
llvm-svn: 317211
This is no-functional-change-intended.
This is repackaging the functionality of D30333 (defer switch-to-lookup-tables) and
D35411 (defer folding unconditional branches) with pass parameters rather than a named
"latesimplifycfg" pass. Now that we have individual options to control the functionality,
we could decouple when these fire (but that's an independent patch if desired).
The next planned step would be to add another option bit to disable the sinking transform
mentioned in D38566. This should also make it clear that the new pass manager needs to
be updated to limit simplifycfg in the same way as the old pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38631
llvm-svn: 316835
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
comparisons into memcmp.
Thanks to recent improvements in the LLVM codegen, the memcmp is typically
inlined as a chain of efficient hardware comparisons.
This typically benefits C++ member or nonmember operator==().
For now this is disabled by default until:
- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33329 is complete
- Benchmarks show that this is always useful.
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33987
llvm-svn: 312315
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
Joerg Sonnenberger