The test (currently crashing) is reduced from the example provided
in the post-commit discussion in D87149.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87965
See discussion in D87149. Dropping volatile stores here is legal
per LLVM semantics, but causes issues for real code and may result
in a change to LLVM volatile semantics. Temporarily treat volatile
stores as "not guaranteed to transfer execution" in just this place,
until this issue has been resolved.
Normal dead code elimination ignores assume intrinsics, so we fail to
delete assumes that are not meaningful (and potentially worse if they
cause conflicts with other assumptions).
The motivating example in https://llvm.org/PR47416 suggests that we
might have problems upstream from here (difference between C and C++),
but this should be a cheap way to make sure we remove more dead code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87149
As we've established, if it takes more than two iterations
(one to perform folding and one to ensure that no folding opportunities
remain) per function, then there are worklist management issues.
So it may be interesting to keep track of it.
And as being reported by Florian Hahn, there's a hit
in MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft from the test-suite on X86 with -O3 -flto,
so reverting until addressed.
This reverts commit 71e0b82c9f.
This pattern happens in clang C++ exception lowering code, on unwind branch.
We end up having a `landingpad` block after each `invoke`, where RAII
cleanup is performed, and the elements of an aggregate `{i8*, i32}`
holding exception info are `extractvalue`'d, and we then branch to common block
that takes extracted `i8*` and `i32` elements (via `phi` nodes),
form a new aggregate, and finally `resume`'s the exception.
The problem is that, if the cleanup block is effectively empty,
it shouldn't be there, there shouldn't be that `landingpad` and `resume`,
said `invoke` should be a `call`.
Indeed, we do that simplification in e.g. SimplifyCFG `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()`.
But the thing is, all this extra `extractvalue` + `phi` + `insertvalue` cruft,
while it is pointless, does not look like "empty cleanup block".
So the `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()` fails, and the exception is has
higher cost than it could have on unwind branch :S
This doesn't happen *that* often, but it will basically happen once per C++
function with complex CFG that called more than one other function
that isn't known to be `nounwind`.
I think, this is a missing fold in InstCombine, so i've implemented it.
I think, the algorithm/implementation is rather self-explanatory:
1. Find a chain of `insertvalue`'s that fully tell us the initializer of the aggregate.
2. For each element, try to find from which aggregate it was extracted.
If it was extracted from the aggregate with identical type,
from identical element index, great.
3. If all elements were found to have been extracted from the same aggregate,
then we can just use said original source aggregate directly,
instead of re-creating it.
4. If we fail to find said aggregate when looking only in the current block,
we need be PHI-aware - we might have different source aggregate when coming
from each predecessor.
I'm not sure if this already handles everything, and there are some FIXME's,
i'll deal with all that later in followups.
I'd be fine with going with post-commit review here code-wise,
but just in case there are thoughts, i'm posting this.
On RawSpeed, for example, this has the following effect:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 1253 | 1253 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 948 | 1355 | 407 | 42.93% | 42.93% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4382 | 3210 | -1172 | -26.75% | 26.75% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 574 | 458 | -116 | -20.21% | 20.21% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 1154 | 921 | -233 | -20.19% | 20.19% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 29017 | 26397 | -2620 | -9.03% | 9.03% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 166618 | 174705 | 8087 | 4.85% | 4.85% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 51526 | 50678 | -848 | -1.65% | 1.65% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 20865 | 20609 | -256 | -1.23% | 1.23% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 34023 | 33675 | -348 | -1.02% | 1.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 113634 | 114708 | 1074 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 15030 | 14930 | -100 | -0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 219544 | 219024 | -520 | -0.24% | 0.24% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 644562 | 645805 | 1243 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 2139506 | 2135377 | -4129 | -0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 156988 | 156821 | -167 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1206144 | 1207076 | 932 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 5193 | 5190 | -3 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 948580 | 948299 | -281 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 11509 | 11507 | -2 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 97595 | 97597 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 210514 | 210522 | 8 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
So we manage to increase the amount of `invoke` -> `call` conversions in SimplifyCFG by almost a half,
and there is a very apparent decrease in instruction and basic block count.
On vanilla llvm-test-suite:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 744 | 744 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 2705 | 2053 | -652 | -24.10% | 24.10% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 1212 | 1424 | 212 | 17.49% | 17.49% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 21681 | 20139 | -1542 | -7.11% | 7.11% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 14575 | 14361 | -214 | -1.47% | 1.47% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 6815 | 6743 | -72 | -1.06% | 1.06% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 14851 | 14712 | -139 | -0.94% | 0.94% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 27510 | 27332 | -178 | -0.65% | 0.65% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1438173 | 1443371 | 5198 | 0.36% | 0.36% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 2880 | 2872 | -8 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 55187 | 55076 | -111 | -0.20% | 0.20% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 321366 | 320916 | -450 | -0.14% | 0.14% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 886816 | 886493 | -323 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 7663845 | 7661108 | -2737 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 886791 | 887171 | 380 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 553552 | 553733 | 181 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3200512 | 3201202 | 690 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 741794 | 741656 | -138 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 14443 | 14445 | 2 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7978085 | 7977916 | -169 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 73188 | 73189 | 1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 291959 | 291968 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
Roughly similar effect, less instructions and blocks total.
See also: rGe492f0e03b01a5e4ec4b6333abb02d303c3e479e.
Compile-time wise, this appears to be roughly geomean-neutral:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=instructions
And this is a win size-wize in general:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=size-text
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47060
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85787
When removing instructions from unreachable blocks, and only debug info
intrinsics were removed, InstCombine could incorrectly return a false
Modified status.
This is fixed by making removeAllNonTerminatorAndEHPadInstructions()
also return how many debug info intrinsics that were removed, and take
that into account.
This was caught using the check introduced by D80916.
Reviewed By: majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85839
Without this patch, we attempt to distribute And over Xor even in
unsafe circumstances like so:
undef & (true ^ true) ==> (undef & true) ^ (undef & true)
and evaluate it to undef instead of false. Note that "true ^ true"
may show up implicitly with one true being part of a PHI node.
This patch fixes the problem by teaching SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws
to not use undef as part of simplifications.
Reviewers: spatel, aqjune, nikic, lebedev.ri, fhahn, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85687
This is a simple patch that folds freeze(undef) into a proper constant after inspecting its uses.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84948
This patch adds folding freeze into phi if it has only one operand to target.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84601
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
This reverts commit 4500db8c59,
which was reverted because lower thresholds exposed a new issue (PR46680).
Now that it was resolved by d12ec0f752,
we can reinstate lower limits and wait for a new bugreport before
reverting this again...
Summary:
As @nikic is pointing out in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46680#c5,
InstCombine should not have forward instruction scans,
so let's move this transform into the proper place.
This is pretty much NFCI.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, nikic
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83670
This reverts commit 9649c2095f. See
discussion on the llvm-commits thread: if it's OK to preserve the
location when sinking a call, it's probably OK to always preserve the
location.
This relands commit cd7f8051ac that was
reverted since lower threshold have successfully found an issue.
Now that the issue is fixed, let's wait until the next one is reported.
This reverts commit caa423eef0.
Summary:
1000 iteratons is still kinda a lot.
Would it make sense to iteratively lower it, until it becomes `2`,
with some delay inbetween in order to let users actually potentially encounter it?
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, kuhar
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83160
Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
The use of 'tmp' can trigger warnings from the update_test_checks.py
script. That's evidence of a flaw in the script's logic, but we
can always do better than naming variables 'tmp' in LLVM too.
The phi test file should be updated with auto-generated regex CHECK
lines, so it isn't affected by cosmetic diffs, but I don't have
time to do that right now.
Summary:
The advice in HowToUpdateDebugInfo.rst is to "... preserve the debug
location of an instruction if the instruction either remains in its
basic block, or if its basic block is folded into a predecessor that
branches unconditionally".
TryToSinkInstruction doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria as it's
sinking an instruction to some successor block. Preserving the debug loc
can make single-stepping appear to go backwards, or make a breakpoint
hit on that location happen "too late" (since single-stepping from that
breakpoint can cause the function to return unexpectedly).
So, drop the debug location.
This was reverted in ee3620643d because it removed source locations
from inlinable calls, breaking a verifier rule. I've added an exception
for calls because the alternative (setting a line 0 location) is not
better. I tested the updated patch by completing a stage2 RelWithDebInfo
build.
Reviewers: aprantl, davide
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82487
Summary:
The advice in HowToUpdateDebugInfo.rst is to "... preserve the debug
location of an instruction if the instruction either remains in its
basic block, or if its basic block is folded into a predecessor that
branches unconditionally".
TryToSinkInstruction doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria as it's
sinking an instruction to some successor block. Preserving the debug loc
can make single-stepping appear to go backwards, or make a breakpoint
hit on that location happen "too late" (since single-stepping from that
breakpoint can cause the function to return unexpectedly).
So, drop the debug location.
Reviewers: aprantl, davide
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82487
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
- Now all SalvageDebugInfo() calls will mark undef if the salvage
attempt fails.
Reviewed by: vsk, Orlando
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78369
Summary:
This transformation is correct for a builtin call to 'free(p)', but not
for 'operator delete(p)'. There is no guarantee that a user replacement
'operator delete' has no effect when called on a null pointer.
However, the principle behind the transformation *is* correct, and can
be applied more broadly: a 'delete p' expression is permitted to
unconditionally call 'operator delete(p)'. So do that in Clang under
-Oz where possible. We do this whether or not 'p' has trivial
destruction, since the destruction might turn out to be trivial after
inlining, and even for a class-specific (but non-virtual,
non-destroying, non-array) 'operator delete'.
Reviewers: davide, dnsampaio, rjmccall
Reviewed By: dnsampaio
Subscribers: hiraditya, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79378
If the only user of `Instr` is in a return or unreachable block, we can
sink `Instr` to the`User` safely (unless it reads/writes memory).
Return or unreachable blocks are guaranteed to execute zero
or one time, and `Instr` always dominates `User`, so they either will
be executed together (execution of `User` always implies execution
of `Instr`) or not executed at all.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80120
Reviewed By: asbirlea, jdoerfert
Summary:
Analyses that are statefull should not be retrieved through a proxy from
an outer IR unit, as these analyses are only invalidated at the end of
the inner IR unit manager.
This patch disallows getting the outer manager and provides an API to
get a cached analysis through the proxy. If the analysis is not
stateless, the call to getCachedResult will assert.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, eraman, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72893
Summary:
Make foldVectorBinop return null if the instruction type is a scalable
vector. It is unclear what, if any, of this function works with scalable
vectors.
Identified by test LLVM.Transforms/InstCombine::nsw.ll
Reviewers: efriedma, david-arm, fpetrogalli, spatel
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: tschuett, hiraditya, rkruppe, psnobl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79196
Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.
Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`
This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
Summary:
This patch fix the following issues in InstCombiner::visitGetElementPtrInst
1. Skip for scalable type if transformation requires fixed size number of
vector element.
2. Skip for scalable type if transformation relies on compile-time known type
alloc size.
3. Use VectorType::getElementCount when scalable property is used to construct
new VectorType.
4. Use TypeSize::getKnownMinSize when minimal size of a scalable type is valid to determine GEP 'inbounds'.
5. Explicitly call TypeSize::getFixedSize to avoid implicit type conversion to uint64_t.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, efriedma, spatel, ctetreau
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: tschuett, hiraditya, rkruppe, psnobl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78081
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, rriddle, efriedma
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77263
Negation is equivalent to bitwise-not + 1, so try to convert more
subtracts into adds using this relationship:
0 - (A ^ C) => ((A ^ C) ^ -1) + 1 => A ^ ~C + 1
I doubt this will recover the regression noted in rGf2fbdf76d8d0,
but seems like we're going to need to improve here and/or revive D68408?
Alive2 proofs:
http://volta.cs.utah.edu:8080/z/Re5tMUhttp://volta.cs.utah.edu:8080/z/An-uns
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77230
Instead, represent the mask as out-of-line data in the instruction. This
should be more efficient in the places that currently use
getShuffleVector(), and paves the way for further changes to add new
shuffles for scalable vectors.
This doesn't change the syntax in textual IR. And I don't currently plan
to change the bitcode encoding in this patch, although we'll probably
need to do something once we extend shufflevector for scalable types.
I expect that once this is finished, we can then replace the raw "mask"
with something more appropriate for scalable vectors. Not sure exactly
what this looks like at the moment, but there are a few different ways
we could handle it. Maybe we could try to describe specific shuffles.
Or maybe we could define it in terms of a function to convert a fixed-length
array into an appropriate scalable vector, using a "step", or something
like that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72467
Sanjay Patel