Have BasicTTI call the base implementation so that both agree on the
default behaviour, which the default being a cost of '1'. This has
required an X86 specific implementation as it seems to be very
reliant on those instructions being free. Changes are also made to
AMDGPU so that their implementations distinguish between cost kinds,
so that the unrolling isn't affected. PowerPC also has its own
implementation to prevent changes to the reg-usage vectorizer test.
The cost model test changes now reflect that ret instructions are not
generally free.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79164
Summary:
When an SCC got split due to inlining, we have two mechanisms for reprocessing the updated SCC, first is UR.UpdatedC
that repeatedly rerun the new, current SCC; second is a worklist for all newly split SCCs. We can avoid rerun of
the same SCC when the SCC is set to be processed by both mechanisms *back to back*. In pathological cases, such redundant
rerun could cause exponential size growth due to inlining along cycles, even when there's no SCC mutation and hence
convergence is not a problem.
Note that it's ok to have SCC updated and rerun immediately, and also in the work list if we have actually moved an SCC
to be topologically "below" the current one due to merging. In that case, we will need to revisit the current SCC after
those moved SCCs. For that reason, the redundant avoidance here only targets back to back rerun of the same SCC - the
case described by the now removed FIXME comment.
Reviewers: chandlerc, wmi
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hoy
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80589
Alternative approach to D80570.
canCheckPtrAtRT already contains checks the figure out for which alias
sets runtime checks are needed. But it currently sets CanDoRT to false
for alias sets for which we cannot do RT checks but also do not need
any.
If we know that we do not need RT checks based on the number of
reads/writes in the alias set, we can skip processing the AS.
This patch also adds an assertion to ensure that DepCands does not
contain more than one write from the alias set.
Reviewers: Ayal, anemet, hfinkel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80622
is not necessary one of them.
Summary: Currently LoopUnrollPass already allow loops with multiple
exiting blocks, but it is only allowed when the loop latch is one of the
exiting blocks.
When the loop latch is not an exiting block, then only single exiting
block is supported.
When possible, the single loop latch or the single exiting block
terminator is optimized to an unconditional branch in the unrolled loop.
This patch allows loops with multiple exiting blocks even if the loop
latch is not one of them. However, the optimization of exiting block
terminator to unconditional branch is not done when there exists more
than one exiting block.
Reviewer: dmgreen, Meinersbur, etiotto, fhahn, efriedma, bmahjour
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81053
(a[0] + a[1] + a[2] + a[3]) - (b[0] + b[1] + b[2] +b[3]) -->
(a[0] - b[0]) + (a[1] - b[1]) + (a[2] - b[2]) + (a[3] - b[3])
This should be the last step in solving PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
We started emitting reduction intrinsics with:
D80867/ rGe50059f6b6b3
So it's a relatively easy pattern match now to re-order those ops.
Also, I have not seen any complaints for the switch to intrinsics
yet, so I'll propose to remove the "experimental" tag from the
intrinsics soon.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81491
This is a hacky, but low-risk fix to avoid the infinite loop in PR46271:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
As discussed there, the problem is that FoldOpIntoSelect() can get into a conflict
with a transform that wants to pull a 'not' op through min/max via
SimplifyDemandedVectorElts(). We need to relax our matching of min/max to include
undefined elements in vector constants to avoid that. Alternatively, we could
improve or cripple the demanded elements analysis, but that could create even
more problems.
The likely better, safer alternative will be to create min/max intrinsics, so
we can remove all of the hacks related to min/max matching in instcombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81698
isOverwrite expects the later location as first argument and the earlier
result later. The adjusted call is intended to check whether CC
overwrites DefLoc.
Similar to a recent change to the X86 backend, this changes things so
that we always produce a reduction intrinsics for all reduction types,
not just the legal ones. This gives a better chance in the backend to
custom lower them to something more suitable for MVE. Especially for
something like fadd the in-order reduction produced during DAG lowering
is already better than the shuffles produced in the midend, and we can
do even better with a bit of custom lowering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81398
This patch adds a new option to CriticalEdgeSplittingOptions to control
whether loop-simplify form must be preserved. It is them used by GVN to
indicate that loop-simplify form does not have to be preserved.
This fixes a crash exposed by 189efe295b.
If the critical edge we are splitting goes from a block inside a loop to
a block outside the loop, splitting the edge will create a new exit
block. As a result, the new block will branch to the original exit
block, which will add a non-loop predecessor, breaking loop-simplify
form. To preserve loop-simplify form, the predecessor blocks of the
original exit are split, but that does not work for blocks with
indirectbr terminators. If preserving loop-simplify form is requested,
bail out , before making any changes.
Reviewers: reames, hfinkel, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81582
getOrCreateTripCount is used to generate code for the outer loop, but it
requires a computable backedge taken counts. Check that in the VPlan
native path.
Reviewers: Ayal, gilr, rengolin, sguggill
Reviewed By: sguggill
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81088
Summary:
"X % C == 0" is optimized to "X & C-1 == 0" (where C is a power-of-two)
However, "X % Y" can also be represented as "X - (X / Y) * Y" so if I rewrite the initial expression:
"X - (X / C) * C == 0" it's not currently optimized to "X & C-1 == 0", see godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/KzuXUj
This is my first contribution to LLVM so I hope I didn't mess things up
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79369
- Renaming the printer class, flag
- Refactoring
- Changing some tests
This patch is a preparational stage for introducing a new printing pass and new
functionality to the existing Annotation Writer. I plan to extend
this functionality for this tool to be more useful when looking at the inline
process.
Change BasicBlock::removePredecessor to optionally return a vector of
instructions which might be dead. Use this in ConstantFoldTerminator to
delete them if they are dead.
Reapply with a bug fix: don't drop the "!KeepOneInputPHIs" argument when
removePredecessor calls PHINode::removeIncomingValue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80206
Change BasicBlock::removePredecessor to optionally return a vector of
instructions which might be dead. Use this in ConstantFoldTerminator to
delete them if they are dead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80206
This patch relaxes the post-dominance requirement for accesses to
objects visible after the function returns.
Instead of requiring the killing def to post-dominate the access to
eliminate, the set of 'killing blocks' (= blocks that completely
overwrite the original access) is collected.
If all paths from the access to eliminate and an exit block go through a
killing block, the access can be removed.
To check this property, we first get the common post-dominator block for
the killing blocks. If this block does not post-dominate the access
block, there may be a path from DomAccess to an exit block not involving
any killing block.
Otherwise we have to check if there is a path from the DomAccess to the
common post-dominator, that does not contain a killing block. If there
is no such path, we can remove DomAccess. For this check, we start at
the common post-dominator and then traverse the CFG backwards. Paths are
terminated when we hit a killing block or a block that is not executed
between DomAccess and a killing block according to the post-order
numbering (if the post order number of a block is greater than the one
of DomAccess, the block cannot be in in a path starting at DomAccess).
This gives the following improvements on the total number of stores
after DSE for MultiSource, SPEC2K, SPEC2006:
Tests: 237
Same hash: 206 (filtered out)
Remaining: 31
Metric: dse.NumRemainingStores
Program base new100 diff
test-suite...CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp.test 3624.00 3544.00 -2.2%
test-suite...ch/g721/g721encode/encode.test 128.00 126.00 -1.6%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Olden/mst/mst.test 73.00 72.00 -1.4%
test-suite...CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc.test 3202.00 3163.00 -1.2%
test-suite...000/186.crafty/186.crafty.test 5062.00 5010.00 -1.0%
test-suite...-typeset/consumer-typeset.test 40460.00 40248.00 -0.5%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 642.00 639.00 -0.5%
test-suite...nchmarks/McCat/09-vor/vor.test 642.00 644.00 0.3%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 35664.00 35563.00 -0.3%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 7202.00 7184.00 -0.2%
test-suite...lications/ClamAV/clamscan.test 19475.00 19444.00 -0.2%
test-suite...INT2000/164.gzip/164.gzip.test 2199.00 2196.00 -0.1%
test-suite...peg2/mpeg2dec/mpeg2decode.test 2380.00 2378.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 39335.00 39309.00 -0.1%
test-suite...:: External/Povray/povray.test 36951.00 36927.00 -0.1%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 67396.00 67356.00 -0.1%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 31497.00 31481.00 -0.1%
test-suite...006/453.povray/453.povray.test 51441.00 51416.00 -0.0%
test-suite...T2006/401.bzip2/401.bzip2.test 4450.00 4448.00 -0.0%
test-suite...Applications/kimwitu++/kc.test 23481.00 23471.00 -0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 6286.00 6284.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../CINT2000/254.gap/254.gap.test 13719.00 13715.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 30345.00 30338.00 -0.0%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 15018.00 15016.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 27780.00 27777.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc.test 105285.00 105276.00 -0.0%
There might be potential to pre-compute some of the information of which
blocks are on the path to an exit for each block, but the overall
benefit might be comparatively small.
On the set of benchmarks, 15738 times out of 20322 we reach the
CFG check, the CFG check is successful. The total number of iterations
in the CFG check is 187810, so on average we need less than 10 steps in
the check loop. Bumping the threshold in the loop from 50 to 150 gives a
few small improvements, but I don't think they warrant such a big bump
at the moment. This is all pending further tuning in the future.
Reviewers: dmgreen, bryant, asbirlea, Tyker, efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: george.burgess.iv
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78932
blocks.
Summary: The current LoopFusion forget to update the incoming block of
the phis in second loop guard non loop successor from second loop guard
block to first loop guard block. A test case is provided to better
understand the problem.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81421
Having the input dumped on failure seems like a better
default: I debugged FileCheck tests for a while without knowing
about this option, which really helps to understand failures.
Remove `-dump-input-on-failure` and the environment variable
FILECHECK_DUMP_INPUT_ON_FAILURE which are now obsolete.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81422
scalarizeBinop currently folds
vec_bo((inselt VecC0, V0, Index), (inselt VecC1, V1, Index))
->
inselt(vec_bo(VecC0, VecC1), scl_bo(V0,V1), Index)
This patch extends this to account for cases where one of the vec_bo operands is already all-constant and performs similar cost checks to determine if the scalar binop with a constant still makes sense:
vec_bo((inselt VecC0, V0, Index), VecC1)
->
inselt(vec_bo(VecC0, VecC1), scl_bo(V0,extractelt(V1,Index)), Index)
Fixes PR42174
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80885
The !associated metadata may be attached to a global object declaration
with a single argument that references another global object. This
metadata prevents discarding of the global object in linker GC unless
the referenced object is also discarded.
Furthermore, when a function symbol is discarded by the linker, setting
up !associated metadata allows linker to discard counters, data and
values associated with that function symbol. This is not possible today
because there's metadata to guide the linker. This approach is also used
by other instrumentations like sanitizers.
Note that !associated metadata is only supported by ELF, it does not have
any effect on non-ELF targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76802
Slice::operator<() has a non-deterministic behavior. If we have
identical slices comparison will depend on the order or operands.
Normally that does not result in unstable compilation results
because the order in which slices are inserted into the vector
is deterministic and llvm::sort() normally behaves as a stable
sort, although that is not guaranteed.
However, there is test option -sroa-random-shuffle-slices which
is used to check exactly this aspect. The vector is first randomly
shuffled and then sorted. The same shuffling happens without this
option under expensive llvm checks.
I have managed to write a test which has hit this problem.
There are no fields in the Slice class to resolve the instability.
We only have offsets, IsSplittable and Use, but neither Use nor
User have anything suitable for predictable comparison.
I have switched to stable_sort which has to be sufficient and
removed that randon shuffle option.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81310
The !associated metadata may be attached to a global object declaration
with a single argument that references another global object. This
metadata prevents discarding of the global object in linker GC unless
the referenced object is also discarded.
Furthermore, when a function symbol is discarded by the linker, setting
up !associated metadata allows linker to discard counters, data and
values associated with that function symbol. This is not possible today
because there's metadata to guide the linker. This approach is also used
by other instrumentations like sanitizers.
Note that !associated metadata is only supported by ELF, it does not have
any effect on non-ELF targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76802
This is intended to preserve the logic of the existing transform,
but remove unnecessary restrictions on uses and types.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pYfR
Pre: C1 <= width(C1) - 8
%B = sext i8 %A
%C = lshr %B, C1
%r = trunc %C to i8
=>
%r = ashr i8 %A, trunc(umin(C1, 7))
global-ctor.ll no longer checks what it intended to check
(@_GLOBAL__sub_I_global-ctor.ll needs a !dbg to work).
Rewrite it.
gcov 3.4 and gcov 4.2 use the same format, thus we can lower the version
requirement to 3.4
Max Kazantsev