a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
llvm-svn: 225131
This is to be consistent with StringSet and ultimately with the standard
library's associative container insert function.
This lead to updating SmallSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update SmallPtrSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update all the existing users of those functions...
llvm-svn: 222334
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
It seems that when I fixed this, almost exactly a year ago, I did not quite do
it correctly. When we have duplicate block predecessors, we can indeed not have
different incoming values for the same block, but we *must* have duplicate
entries. So, instead of skipping the duplicates, we explicitly add the
duplicate incoming values.
Fixes PR20442.
llvm-svn: 214423
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
During LSR of one loop we can run into a situation where we have to expand the
start of a recurrence of a loop induction variable in this loop. This start
value is a value derived of the induction variable of a preceeding loop. SCEV
has cannonicalized this value to a different recurrence than the recurrence of
the preceeding loop's induction variable (the type and/or step direction) has
changed). When we come to instantiate this SCEV we created a second induction
variable in this preceeding loop. This patch tries to base such derived
induction variables of the preceeding loop's induction variable.
This helps twolf on arm and seems to help scimark2 on x86.
Reapply with a fix for the case of a value derived from a pointer.
radar://15970709
llvm-svn: 201496
During LSR of one loop we can run into a situation where we have to expand the
start of a recurrence of a loop induction variable in this loop. This start
value is a value derived of the induction variable of a preceeding loop. SCEV
has cannonicalized this value to a different recurrence than the recurrence of
the preceeding loop's induction variable (the type and/or step direction) has
changed). When we come to instantiate this SCEV we created a second induction
variable in this preceeding loop. This patch tries to base such derived
induction variables of the preceeding loop's induction variable.
This helps twolf on arm and seems to help scimark2 on x86.
radar://15970709
llvm-svn: 201465
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
Partial fix for PR17459: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
(affecting trunk and 3.3)
When SCEV expands a recurrence outside of a loop it attempts to scale
by the stride of the recurrence. Chained recurrences don't work that
way. We could compute binomial coefficients, but would hve to
guarantee that the chained AddRec's are in a perfectly reduced form.
llvm-svn: 193438
This fixes SCEVExpander so that it does not create multiple distinct induction
variables for duplicate PHI entries. Specifically, given some code like this:
do.body6: ; preds = %do.body6, %do.body6, %if.then5
%end.0 = phi i8* [ undef, %if.then5 ], [ %incdec.ptr, %do.body6 ], [ %incdec.ptr, %do.body6 ]
...
Note that it is legal to have multiple entries for a basic block so long as the
associated value is the same. So the above input is okay, but expanding an
AddRec in this loop could produce code like this:
do.body6: ; preds = %do.body6, %do.body6, %if.then5
%indvar = phi i64 [ %indvar.next, %do.body6 ], [ %indvar.next1, %do.body6 ], [ 0, %if.then5 ]
%end.0 = phi i8* [ undef, %if.then5 ], [ %incdec.ptr, %do.body6 ], [ %incdec.ptr, %do.body6 ]
...
%indvar.next = add i64 %indvar, 1
%indvar.next1 = add i64 %indvar, 1
And this is not legal because there are two PHI entries for %do.body6 each with
a distinct value.
Unfortunately, I don't have an in-tree test case.
llvm-svn: 188614
The great thing about the SCEVAddRec No-Wrap flag (unlike nsw/nuw) is
that is can be preserved while normalizing (reassociating and
factoring).
The bad thing is that is can't be tranfered back to IR, which is one
of the reasons I don't like the concept of SCEVExpander.
Sorry, I can't think of a direct way to test this, which is why these
were FIXMEs for so long. I just think it's a good time to finally
clean it up.
llvm-svn: 186273
TargetTransformInfo rather than TargetLowering, removing one of the
primary instances of the layering violation of Transforms depending
directly on Target.
This is a really big deal because LSR used to be a "special" pass that
could only be tested fully using llc and by looking at the full output
of it. It also couldn't run with any other loop passes because it had to
be created by the backend. No longer is this true. LSR is now just
a normal pass and we should probably lift the creation of LSR out of
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp and into the PassManagerBuilder. =] I've not done
this, or updated all of the tests to use opt and a triple, because
I suspect someone more familiar with LSR would do a better job. This
change should be essentially without functional impact for normal
compilations, and only change behvaior of targetless compilations.
The conversion required changing all of the LSR code to refer to the TTI
interfaces, which fortunately are very similar to TargetLowering's
interfaces. However, it also allowed us to *always* expect to have some
implementation around. I've pushed that simplification through the pass,
and leveraged it to simplify code somewhat. It required some test
updates for one of two things: either we used to skip some checks
altogether but now we get the default "no" answer for them, or we used
to have no information about the target and now we do have some.
I've also started the process of removing AddrMode, as the TTI interface
doesn't use it any longer. In some cases this simplifies code, and in
others it adds some complexity, but I think it's not a bad tradeoff even
there. Subsequent patches will try to clean this up even further and use
other (more appropriate) abstractions.
Yet again, almost all of the formatting changes brought to you by
clang-format. =]
llvm-svn: 171735
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
getIntPtrType support for multiple address spaces via a pointer type,
and also introduced a crasher bug in the constant folder reported in
PR14233.
These commits also contained several problems that should really be
addressed before they are re-committed. I have avoided reverting various
cleanups to the DataLayout APIs that are reasonable to have moving
forward in order to reduce the amount of churn, and minimize the number
of commits that were reverted. I've also manually updated merge
conflicts and manually arranged for the getIntPtrType function to stay
in DataLayout and to be defined in a plausible way after this revert.
Thanks to Duncan for working through this exact strategy with me, and
Nick Lewycky for tracking down the really annoying crasher this
triggered. (Test case to follow in its own commit.)
After discussing with Duncan extensively, and based on a note from
Micah, I'm going to continue to back out some more of the more
problematic patches in this series in order to ensure we go into the
LLVM 3.2 branch with a reasonable story here. I'll send a note to
llvmdev explaining what's going on and why.
Summary of reverted revisions:
r166634: Fix a compiler warning with an unused variable.
r166607: Add some cleanup to the DataLayout changes requested by
Chandler.
r166596: Revert "Back out r166591, not sure why this made it through
since I cancelled the command. Bleh, sorry about this!
r166591: Delete a directory that wasn't supposed to be checked in yet.
r166578: Add in support for getIntPtrType to get the pointer type based
on the address space.
llvm-svn: 167221
The TargetTransform changes are breaking LTO bootstraps of clang. I am
working with Nadav to figure out the problem, but I am reverting it for now
to get our buildbots working.
This reverts svn commits: 165665 165669 165670 165786 165787 165997
and I have also reverted clang svn 165741
llvm-svn: 166168
All SCEV expressions used by LSR formulae must be safe to
expand. i.e. they may not contain UDiv unless we can prove nonzero
denominator.
Fixes PR11356: LSR hoists UDiv.
llvm-svn: 160205
verifier does. This correctly handles invoke.
Thanks to Duncan, Andrew and Chris for the comments.
Thanks to Joerg for the early testing.
llvm-svn: 151469
know where users will be added. Because of this, it cannot use
Builder.GetInsertPoint at all.
This patch
* removes the FIXME about adding the assert.
* adds a comment explaining hy we don't have one.
* removes a broken logic that only works for some callers and is not needed
since r150884.
* adds an assert to caller that would have caught the bug fixed by r150884.
llvm-svn: 151015
Chandler Carruth