Local linkage is internal or private, and private is a specialization of
internal, so either is fine for all our "local linkage" queries.
llvm-svn: 373986
Summary:
When we iterate over uses of functions and expect them to be call sites,
we now use abstract call sites to allow callback calls.
Reviewers: sstefan1, uenoku
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, hfinkel, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67871
llvm-svn: 373985
This can come up in Bit Stream abstractions.
The pattern looks big/scary, but it can't be simplified any further.
It only is so simple because a number of my preparatory folds had
happened already (shift amount reassociation / shift amount
reassociation in bit test, sign bit test detection).
Highlights:
* There are two main flavors: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zWi
The difference is add vs. sub, and left-shift of -1 vs. 1
* Since we only change the shift opcode,
we can preserve the exact-ness: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/4u4
* There can be truncation after high-bit-extraction:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/slHc1 (the main pattern i'm after!)
Which means that we need to ignore zext of shift amounts and of NBits.
* The sign-extending magic can be extended itself (in add pattern
via sext, in sub pattern via zext. not the other way around!)
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/NhG
(or those sext/zext can be sinked into `select`!)
Which again means we should pay attention when matching NBits.
* We can have both truncation of extraction and widening of magic:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/XTw
In other words, i don't believe we need to have any checks on
bitwidths of any of these constructs.
This is worsened in general by the fact that we may have `sext` instead
of `zext` for shift amounts, and we don't yet canonicalize to `zext`,
although we should. I have not done anything about that here.
Also, we really should have something to weed out `sub` like these,
by folding them into `add` variant.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42389
llvm-svn: 373964
True, no test coverage is being added here. But those non-canonical
predicates that are already handled here already have no test coverage
as far as i can tell. I tried to add tests for them, but all the patterns
already get handled elsewhere.
llvm-svn: 373962
Summary:
Currently, we pre-check whether we need to produce a mask or not.
This involves some rather magical constants.
I'd like to extend this fold to also handle the situation
when there's also a `trunc` before outer shift.
That will require another set of magical constants.
It's ugly.
Instead, we can just compute the mask, and check
whether mask is a pass-through (all-ones) or not.
This way we don't need to have any magical numbers.
This change is NFC other than the fact that we now compute
the mask and then check if we need (and can!) apply it.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68470
llvm-svn: 373961
Summary:
When we do `ConstantExpr::getZExt()`, that "extends" `undef` to `0`,
which means that for patterns a/b we'd assume that we must not produce
any bits for that channel, while in reality we simply didn't care
about that channel - i.e. we don't need to mask it.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68239
llvm-svn: 373960
Doing this makes MSVC complain that `empty(someRange)` could refer to
either C++17's std::empty or LLVM's llvm::empty, which previously we
avoided via SFINAE because std::empty is defined in terms of an empty
member rather than begin and end. So, switch callers over to the new
method as it is added.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68439
llvm-svn: 373935
This reverts SVN r373833, as it caused a failed assert "Non-zero loop
cost expected" on building numerous projects, see PR43582 for details
and reproduction samples.
llvm-svn: 373882
I don't see an ideal solution to these 2 related, potentially large, perf regressions:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42708https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43146
We decided that load combining was unsuitable for IR because it could obscure other
optimizations in IR. So we removed the LoadCombiner pass and deferred to the backend.
Therefore, preventing SLP from destroying load combine opportunities requires that it
recognizes patterns that could be combined later, but not do the optimization itself (
it's not a vector combine anyway, so it's probably out-of-scope for SLP).
Here, we add a scalar cost model adjustment with a conservative pattern match and cost
summation for a multi-instruction sequence that can probably be reduced later.
This should prevent SLP from creating a vector reduction unless that sequence is
extremely cheap.
In the x86 tests shown (and discussed in more detail in the bug reports), SDAG combining
will produce a single instruction on these tests like:
movbe rax, qword ptr [rdi]
or:
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi]
Not some (half) vector monstrosity as we currently do using SLP:
vpmovzxbq ymm0, dword ptr [rdi + 1] # ymm0 = mem[0],zero,zero,..
vpsllvq ymm0, ymm0, ymmword ptr [rip + .LCPI0_0]
movzx eax, byte ptr [rdi]
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 5]
shl rcx, 40
movzx edx, byte ptr [rdi + 6]
shl rdx, 48
or rdx, rcx
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 7]
shl rcx, 56
or rcx, rdx
or rcx, rax
vextracti128 xmm1, ymm0, 1
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vpshufd xmm1, xmm0, 78 # xmm1 = xmm0[2,3,0,1]
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vmovq rax, xmm0
or rax, rcx
vzeroupper
ret
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67841
llvm-svn: 373833
We do indeed already get it right in some cases, but only transitively,
with one-use restrictions. Since we only need to produce a single
comparison, it makes sense to match the pattern directly:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/kPg
llvm-svn: 373802
Initially (D65380) i believed that if we have rightshift-trunc-rightshift,
we can't do any folding. But as it usually happens, i was wrong.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/GEwhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/gN2O
In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43564 we happen to have
this very sequence, of two right shifts separated by trunc.
And "just" so that happens, we apparently can fold the pattern
if the total shift amount is either 0, or it's equal to the bitwidth
of the innermost widest shift - i.e. if we are left with only the
original sign bit. Which is exactly what is wanted there.
llvm-svn: 373801
Without this we can encounter link errors or incorrect behaviour
at runtime as a result of the wrong function being referenced.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67945
llvm-svn: 373678
Summary: This PR creates a utility class called ValueProfileCollector that tells PGOInstrumentationGen and PGOInstrumentationUse what to value-profile and where to attach the profile metadata. It then refactors logic scattered in PGOInstrumentation.cpp into two plugins that plug into the ValueProfileCollector.
Authored By: Wael Yehia <wyehia@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewer: davidxl, tejohnson, xur
Reviewed By: davidxl, tejohnson, xur
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tag: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67920
Patch By Wael Yehia <wyehia@ca.ibm.com>
llvm-svn: 373601
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/8BY - valid for lshr+trunc+variable sext
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/7jk - the variable sext can be redundant
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qslu - 'exact'-ness of first shift can be preserver
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IF63 - without trunc we could view this as
more general "drop redundant mask before right-shift",
but let's handle it here for now
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/iip - likewise, without trunc, variable sext can be redundant.
There's more patterns for sure - e.g. we can have 'lshr' as the final shift,
but that might be best handled by some more generic transform, e.g.
"drop redundant masking before right-shift" (PR42456)
I'm singling-out this sext patch because you can only extract
high bits with `*shr` (unlike abstract bit masking),
and i *know* this fold is wanted by existing code.
I don't believe there is much to review here,
so i'm gonna opt into post-review mode here.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43523
llvm-svn: 373542
bcopy is still widely used mainly for network apps. Sadly, LLVM has no optimizations for bcopy, but there are some for memmove.
Since bcopy == memmove, it is profitable to transform bcopy to memmove and use current optimizations for memmove for free here.
llvm-svn: 373537
Terminators like invoke can have users outside the current basic block.
We have to replace those users with undef, before replacing the
terminator.
This fixes a crash exposed by rL373430.
Reviewers: brzycki, asbirlea, davide, spatel
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68327
llvm-svn: 373513
There are no users that pass in LazyValueInfo, so we can simplify the
function a bit.
Reviewers: brzycki, asbirlea, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68297
llvm-svn: 373488
Summary:
This fixes a hole in the handling of devirtualized targets that were
local but need promoting due to devirtualization in another module. We
were not correctly referencing the promoted symbol in some cases. Make
sure the code that updates the name also looks at the ExportedGUIDs set
by utilizing a callback that checks all conditions (the callback
utilized by the internalization/promotion code).
Reviewers: pcc, davidxl, hiraditya
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, Prazek, inglorion, steven_wu, dexonsmith, dang, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68159
llvm-svn: 373485
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<PHINode> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373481
removeUnreachableBlocks knows how to preserve the DomTree, so make use
of it instead of re-computing the DT.
Reviewers: davide, kuhar, brzycki
Reviewed By: davide, kuhar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68298
llvm-svn: 373430
Two small changes in llvm::removeUnreachableBlocks() to avoid unnecessary (re-)computation.
First, replace the use of count() with find(), which has better time complexity.
Second, because we have already computed the set of dead blocks, replace the second loop over all basic blocks to a loop only over the already computed dead blocks. This simplifies the loop and avoids recomputation.
Patch by Rodrigo Caetano Rocha <rcor.cs@gmail.com>
Reviewers: efriedma, spatel, fhahn, xbolva00
Reviewed By: fhahn, xbolva00
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68191
llvm-svn: 373429
I submitted that patch after I got the LGTM, but the comments didn't
appear until after I submitted the change. This adds `const` to the
constructor argument and makes it a pointer.
llvm-svn: 373391
PR42924 points out that copying the GlobalsMetadata type during
construction of AddressSanitizer can result in exteremely lengthened
build times for translation units that have many globals. This can be addressed
by just making the GlobalsMD member in AddressSanitizer a reference to
avoid the copy. The GlobalsMetadata type is already passed to the
constructor as a reference anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68287
llvm-svn: 373389
This patch implements a variation of a well known techniques for JIT compilers - we have an implementation in tree as LoopPredication - but with an interesting twist. This version does not assume the ability to execute a path which wasn't taken in the original program (such as a guard or widenable.condition intrinsic). The benefit is that this works for arbitrary IR from any frontend (including C/C++/Fortran). The tradeoff is that it's restricted to read only loops without implicit exits.
This builds on SCEV, and can thus eliminate the loop varying portion of the any early exit where all exits are understandable by SCEV. A key advantage is that fixing deficiency exposed in SCEV - already found one while writing test cases - will also benefit all of full redundancy elimination (and most other loop transforms).
I haven't seen anything in the literature which quite matches this. Given that, I'm not entirely sure that keeping the name "loop predication" is helpful. Anyone have suggestions for a better name? This is analogous to partial redundancy elimination - since we remove the condition flowing around the backedge - and has some parallels to our existing transforms which try to make conditions invariant in loops.
Factoring wise, I chose to put this in IndVarSimplify since it's a generally applicable to all workloads. I could split this off into it's own pass, but we'd then probably want to add that new pass every place we use IndVars. One solid argument for splitting it off into it's own pass is that this transform is "too good". It breaks a huge number of existing IndVars test cases as they tend to be simple read only loops. At the moment, I've opted it off by default, but if we add this to IndVars and enable, we'll have to update around 20 test files to add side effects or disable this transform.
Near term plan is to fuzz this extensively while off by default, reflect and discuss on the factoring issue mentioned just above, and then enable by default. I also need to give some though to supporting widenable conditions in this framing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67408
llvm-svn: 373351
Expand the simplification of special cases of `log()` to include `log2()`
and `log10()` as well as intrinsics and more types.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67199
llvm-svn: 373261
Summary:
The BasicBlockManager is potentially broken and should not be used.
Replace all uses of the BasicBlockPass with a FunctionBlockPass+loop on
blocks.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jholewinski, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68234
llvm-svn: 373254
With this patch, compiler generated profile variables will have its own COMDAT
name for ELF format, which syncs the behavior with COFF. Tested with clang
PGO bootstrap. This shows a modest reduction in object sizes in ELF format.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68041
llvm-svn: 373241
If we happen to have the same div in two basic blocks,
and in one of those we also happen to have the rem part,
we'd match the div-rem pair, but the wrong ones.
So let's drop overly-ambiguous assert.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43500
llvm-svn: 373167
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 373166
profile symbol list.
Currently many existing users using profile-sample-accurate want to reduce
code size as much as possible. Their use cases are different from the scenario
profile symbol list tries to handle -- the major motivation of adding profile
symbol list is to get the major memory/code size saving without introduce
performance regression. So to keep the behavior of profile-sample-accurate
unchanged, we think decoupling these two things and using a new flag to
control the handling of profile symbol list may be better.
When profile-sample-accurate and the new flag profile-accurate-for-symsinlist
are both present, since profile-sample-accurate is a user assertion we let it
have a higher precedence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68047
llvm-svn: 373133
Summary:
This is valid for any `sext` bitwidth pair:
```
Processing /tmp/opt.ll..
----------------------------------------
%signed = sext %y
%r = shl %x, %signed
ret %r
=>
%unsigned = zext %y
%r = shl %x, %unsigned
ret %r
%signed = sext %y
Done: 2016
Optimization is correct!
```
(This isn't so for funnel shifts, there it's illegal for e.g. i6->i7.)
Main motivation is the C++ semantics:
```
int shl(int a, char b) {
return a << b;
}
```
ends as
```
%3 = sext i8 %1 to i32
%4 = shl i32 %0, %3
```
https://godbolt.org/z/0jgqUq
which is, as this shows, too pessimistic.
There is another problem here - we can only do the fold
if sext is one-use. But we can trivially have cases
where several shifts have the same sext shift amount.
This should be resolved, later.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, nlopes, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68103
llvm-svn: 373106
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373099
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<FunctionSummary> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373097
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<StructType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373095
We can't use short granules with stack instrumentation when targeting older
API levels because the rest of the system won't understand the short granule
tags stored in shadow memory.
Moreover, we need to be able to let old binaries (which won't understand
short granule tags) run on a new system that supports short granule
tags. Such binaries will call the __hwasan_tag_mismatch function when their
outlined checks fail. We can compensate for the binary's lack of support
for short granules by implementing the short granule part of the check in
the __hwasan_tag_mismatch function. Unfortunately we can't do anything about
inline checks, but I don't believe that we can generate these by default on
aarch64, nor did we do so when the ABI was fixed.
A new function, __hwasan_tag_mismatch_v2, is introduced that lets code
targeting the new runtime avoid redoing the short granule check. Because tag
mismatches are rare this isn't important from a performance perspective; the
main benefit is that it introduces a symbol dependency that prevents binaries
targeting the new runtime from running on older (i.e. incompatible) runtimes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68059
llvm-svn: 373035
Summary:
This patch extends the current capabilities in loop fusion to fuse guarded loops
(as defined in https://reviews.llvm.org/D63885). The patch adds the necessary
safety checks to ensure that it safe to fuse the guarded loops (control flow
equivalent, no intervening code, and same guard conditions). It also provides an
alternative method to perform the actual fusion of guarded loops. The mechanics
to fuse guarded loops are slightly different then fusing non-guarded loops, so I
opted to keep them separate methods. I will be cleaning this up in later
patches, and hope to converge on a single method to fuse both guarded and
non-guarded loops, but for now I think the review will be easier to keep them
separate.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, Meinersbur, dmgreen, etiotto, Whitney
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65464
llvm-svn: 373018
For a runtime loop if we can compute its trip count upperbound:
Don't unroll if:
1. loop is not guaranteed to run either zero or upperbound iterations; and
2. trip count upperbound is less than UnrollMaxUpperBound
Unless user or TTI asked to do so.
If unrolling, limit unroll factor to loop's trip count upperbound.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62989
Change-Id: I6083c46a9d98b2e22cd855e60523fdc5a4929c73
llvm-svn: 373017
The test case here previously infinite looped. Only one element from the GEP is used so SimplifyDemandedVectorElts would replace the other lanes in each index with undef leading to the first index being <0, undef, undef, undef>. But there's a GEP transform that tries to replace an index into a 0 sized type with a zero index. But the zero index check only works on ConstantInt 0 or ConstantAggregateZero so it would turn the index back to zeroinitializer. Resulting in a loop.
The fix is to use m_Zero() to allow a vector of zeroes and undefs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67977
llvm-svn: 373000
Summary:
FlattenCFG merges two 'if' basicblocks by inserting one basicblock
to another basicblock. The inserted basicblock can have a successor
that contains a PHI node whoes incoming basicblock is the inserted
basicblock. Since the existing code does not handle it, it becomes
a badref.
if (cond1)
statement
if (cond2)
statement
successor - contains PHI node whose predecessor is cond2
-->
if (cond1 || cond2)
statement
(BB for cond2 was deleted)
successor - contains PHI node whose predecessor is cond2 --> bad ref!
Author: Jaebaek Seo
Reviewers: asbirlea, kuhar, tstellar, chandlerc, davide, dexonsmith
Reviewed By: kuhar
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68032
llvm-svn: 372989
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereferences, but we should be able to use cast<BranchInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372977
Summary:
Removing an assumption (assert) that the CmpInst already has been
simplified in getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant. Solution is
to simply bail out instead of hitting the assertion. Instead we
assume that any profitable rewrite will happen in the next iteration
of InstCombine.
The reason why we can't assume that the CmpInst already has been
simplified is that the worklist does not guarantee such an ordering.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43376
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68022
llvm-svn: 372972
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereferences, but we should be able to use cast<> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372960
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<MemIntrinsic> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372959
For large functions, verifying the whole function after each loop takes
non-linear time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67571
llvm-svn: 372924
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
As @reames pointed out post-commit, rL371518 adds additional rounding
in some cases, when doing constant folding of the multiplication.
This breaks a guarantee llvm.fma makes and must be avoided.
This patch reapplies rL371518, but splits off the simplifications not
requiring rounding from SimplifFMulInst as SimplifyFMAFMul.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, reames, scanon
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67434
llvm-svn: 372899
Currently m_Br only takes references to BasicBlock*, which limits its
flexibility. For example, you have to declare a variable, even if you
ignore the result or you have to have additional checks to make sure the
matched BB matches an expected one.
This patch adds m_BasicBlock and m_SpecificBB matchers, which can be
used like the existing matchers for constants or values.
I also had a look at the existing uses and updated a few. IMO it makes
the code a bit more explicit.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, majnemer, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68013
llvm-svn: 372885
If we generate the gc.relocate, and then later prove two arguments to the statepoint are equivalent, we should canonicalize the gc.relocate to the form we would have produced if this had been known before rewriting.
llvm-svn: 372771
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
For
```
#include <cassert>
char* test(char& base, signed long offset) {
__builtin_assume(offset < 0);
return &base + offset;
}
```
We produce
https://godbolt.org/z/r40U47
and again those two icmp's can be merged:
```
Name: 0
Pre: C != 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, C
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ult i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, C
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ALaphttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/slnN
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
i believe they all will go into InstSimplify.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67849
llvm-svn: 372768
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
This pattern isn't exactly what we get there
(strict vs. non-strict predicate), but this pattern does not
require known-bits analysis, so it is best to handle it first.
```
Name: 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, %offset
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, %offset
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/knp
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
they all will go into InstSimplify:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bIDZhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, majnemer, vsk, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67846
llvm-svn: 372767
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<CmpInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372732
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<LandingPadInst> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372727
The static analyzer is warning about a potential null dereference, but we should be able to use cast<Instruction> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 372726
When vectorisation is forced with a pragma, we optimise for min size, and we
need to emit runtime memory checks, then allow this code growth and don't run
in an assert like we currently do.
This is the result of D65197 and D66803, and was a use-case not really
considered before. If this now happens, we emit an optimisation remark warning
about the code-size expansion, which can be avoided by not forcing
vectorisation or possibly source-code modifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67764
llvm-svn: 372694
Summary:
Fold
or(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X)
into
X s> Y ? -1 : X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/d8Ab
clamp255 is a common operator in image processing, can be implemented
in a shifty way "(255 - X) >> 31 | X & 255". Fold shift into select
enables more optimization, e.g., vmin generation for ARM target.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, efriedma, spatel, kparzysz, bcahoon
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67800
llvm-svn: 372678
When a cold path is outlined, the value tracking in the assumption cache may be
invalidated due to the code motion. We would previously trip an assertion in
subsequent passes (but required the passes to happen in a single run as the
assumption cache is shared across the passes). Invalidating the cache ensures
that we get the correct information when needed with the legacy pass manager as
well.
llvm-svn: 372667
is available
In rL372232, we treated names showing up in profile as not cold when
profile-sample-accurate is enabled. This caused 70k size regression in
Chrome/Android. The patch put a guard and only enable the change when
profile symbol list is available, i.e., keep the old behavior when profile
symbol list is not available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67931
llvm-svn: 372665
"Implementations are free to malloc() a buffer containing either (size + 1) bytes or (strnlen(s, size) + 1) bytes. Applications should not assume that strndup() will allocate (size + 1) bytes when strlen(s) is smaller than size."
llvm-svn: 372647
Summary:
Motivation:
- If we can fold it to strdup, we should (strndup does more things than strdup).
- Annotation mechanism. (Works for strdup well).
strdup and strndup are part of C 20 (currently posix fns), so we should optimize them.
Reviewers: efriedma, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67679
llvm-svn: 372636
Summary:
If we have a pattern `(x & (-1 >> maskNbits)) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (-1 >> maskNbits)`
mask iff `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s>= 0` (i.e. `shiftNbits u>= maskNbits`).
So even if `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s< 0`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: c, normal+mask
%t0 = lshr i32 -1, C1
%t1 = and i32 %t0, %x
%r = shl i32 %t1, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = i32 ((-(C2-C1))+32)
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = lshr i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = trunc i64 %n3 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n4
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gslRa
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
This is not valid for pattern f - where "masking" is done via `ashr`.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67725
llvm-svn: 372630
Summary:
And this is **finally** the interesting part of that fold!
If we have a pattern `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (~(-1 << maskNbits))`
mask iff `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u>= bitwidth(x)`.
But that is actually ignorant, there's more general fold here:
In this pattern, `(maskNbits+shiftNbits)` actually correlates
with the number of low bits that will remain in the final value.
So even if `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u< bitwidth(x)`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: a, normal+mask
%onebit = shl i32 -1, C1
%mask = xor i32 %onebit, -1
%masked = and i32 %mask, %x
%r = shl i32 %masked, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = add i32 C1, C2
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = shl i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = xor i64 %n3, -1
%n5 = trunc i64 %n4 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n5
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/F5R
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
Similar fold exists for patterns c,d,e, will post patch later.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67677
llvm-svn: 372629
Summary:
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 372626
Johannes Doerfert