When the BasicBlock containing the return instrution has a PHI with 2
incoming values, FoldReturnIntoUncondBranch will remove the no longer
used incoming value and remove the no longer needed phi as well. This
leaves us with a BB that no longer has a PHI, but the subsequent call
to FoldReturnIntoUncondBranch from FoldReturnAndProcessPred will not
remove the return instruction (which still uses the result of the call
instruction). This prevents EliminateRecursiveTailCall to remove
the value, as it is still being used in a basicblock which has no
predecessors.
The basicblock can not be erased on the spot, because its iterator is
still being used in runTRE.
This issue was exposed when removing the threshold on size for lifetime
marker insertion for named temporaries in clang. The testcase is a much
reduced version of peelOffOuterExpr(const Expr*, const ExplodedNode *)
from clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporterVisitors.cpp.
llvm-svn: 222354
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 restores the commit from SVN r219899 with an additional change to ensure
that the CodeGen is correct for the case that was identified as being incorrect
(originally PR7272).
In the case that during inlining we need to synthesize a value on the stack
(i.e. for passing a value byval), then any function involving that alloca must
be stripped of its tailness as the restriction that it does not access the
parent's stack no longer holds. Unfortunately, a single alloca can cause a
rippling effect through out the inlining as the value may be aliased or may be
mutated through an escaped external call. As such, we simply track if an alloca
has been introduced in the frame during inlining, and strip any tail calls.
llvm-svn: 220811
by my refactoring of this code.
The method isSafeToLoadUnconditionally assumes that the load will
proceed with the preferred type alignment. Given that, it has to ensure
that the alloca or global is at least that aligned. It has always done
this historically when a datalayout is present, but has never checked it
when the datalayout is absent. When I refactored the code in r220156,
I exposed this path when datalayout was present and that turned the
latent bug into a patent bug.
This fixes the issue by just removing the special case which allows
folding things without datalayout. This isn't worth the complexity of
trying to tease apart when it is or isn't safe without actually knowing
the preferred alignment.
llvm-svn: 220161
This reverts commit r219899.
This also updates byval-tail-call.ll to make it clear what was breaking.
Adding r219899 again will cause the load/store to disappear.
llvm-svn: 220093
Make tail recursion elimination a bit more aggressive. This allows us to get
tail recursion on functions that are just branches to a different function. The
fact that the function takes a byval argument does not restrict it from being
optimised into just a tail call.
llvm-svn: 219899
Summary: This patch introduces two new iterator ranges and updates existing code to use it. No functional change intended.
Test Plan: All tests (make check-all) still pass.
Reviewers: dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4481
llvm-svn: 213474
Summary:
This adds two new diagnostics: -pass-remarks-missed and
-pass-remarks-analysis. They take the same values as -pass-remarks but
are intended to be triggered in different contexts.
-pass-remarks-missed is used by LLVMContext::emitOptimizationRemarkMissed,
which passes call when they tried to apply a transformation but
couldn't.
-pass-remarks-analysis is used by LLVMContext::emitOptimizationRemarkAnalysis,
which passes call when they want to inform the user about analysis
results.
The patch also:
1- Adds support in the inliner for the two new remarks and a
test case.
2- Moves emitOptimizationRemark* functions to the llvm namespace.
3- Adds an LLVMContext argument instead of making them member functions
of LLVMContext.
Reviewers: qcolombet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3682
llvm-svn: 209442
The number of tail call to loop conversions remains the same (1618 by my count).
The new algorithm does a local scan over the use-def chains to identify local "alloca-derived" values, as well as points where the alloca could escape. Then, a visit over the CFG marks blocks as being before or after the allocas have escaped, and annotates the calls accordingly.
llvm-svn: 208017
definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
The -tailcallelim pass should be checking if byval or inalloca args can
be captured before marking calls as tail calls. This was the real root
cause of PR7272.
With a better fix in place, revert the inliner change from r105255. The
test case it introduced still passes and has been moved to
test/Transforms/Inline/byval-tail-call.ll.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3403
llvm-svn: 206789
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
to ensure we don't mess up any of the overrides. Necessary for cleaning
up the Value use iterators and enabling range-based traversing of use
lists.
llvm-svn: 202958
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
Ideally only those transform passes that run at -O0 remain enabled,
in reality we get as close as we reasonably can.
Passes are responsible for disabling themselves, it's not the job of
the pass manager to do it for them.
llvm-svn: 200892
Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all,
TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker.
Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But
given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have
the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back
parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute.
Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture
escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed
allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily
conservative since:
1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not
access the caller's stack via its arguments.
2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with
the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping
allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed
indirectly by A.
With the changes introduced by this patch:
1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do
nothing and bail early.
2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we
do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments:
i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces
significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created
by the TRE algorithm.
ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas
with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping
nocapture allocas.
3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not):
i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail
marker.
ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function,
attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function.
Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky.
rdar://14324281.
llvm-svn: 186057
generic function calls and intrinsics. This is somewhat overlapping with
an existing intrinsic cost method, but that one seems targetted at
vector intrinsics. I'll merge them or separate their names and use cases
in a separate commit.
This sinks the test of 'callIsSmall' down into TTI where targets can
control it. The whole thing feels very hack-ish to me though. I've left
a FIXME comment about the fundamental design problem this presents. It
isn't yet clear to me what the users of this function *really* care
about. I'll have to do more analysis to figure that out. Putting this
here at least provides it access to proper analysis pass tools and other
such. It also allows us to more cleanly implement the baseline cost
interfaces in TTI.
With this commit, it is now theoretically possible to simplify much of
the inline cost analysis's handling of calls by calling through to this
interface. That conversion will have to happen in subsequent commits as
it requires more extensive restructuring of the inline cost analysis.
The CodeMetrics class is now really only in the business of running over
a block of code and aggregating the metrics on that block of code, with
the actual cost evaluation done entirely in terms of TTI.
llvm-svn: 173148
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
very small but very important bugfix:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->get();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
[...]
should have read:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->getUser();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
Fixes PR14143!
llvm-svn: 166407
minor behavior changes with this, but nothing I have seen evidence of in
the wild or expect to be meaningful. The real goal is unifying our logic
and simplifying the interfaces. A summary of the changes follows:
- Make 'callIsSmall' actually accept a callsite so it can handle
intrinsics, and simplify callers appropriately.
- Nuke a completely bogus declaration of 'callIsSmall' that was still
lurking in InlineCost.h... No idea how this got missed.
- Teach the 'isInstructionFree' about the various more intelligent
'free' heuristics that got added to the inline cost analysis during
review and testing. This mostly surrounds int->ptr and ptr->int casts.
- Switch most of the interesting parts of the inline cost analysis that
were essentially computing 'is this instruction free?' to use the code
metrics routine instead. This way we won't keep duplicating logic.
All of this is motivated by the desire to allow other passes to compute
a roughly equivalent 'cost' metric for a particular basic block as the
inline cost analysis. Sadly, re-using the same analysis for both is
really messy because only the actual inline cost analysis is ever going
to go to the contortions required for simplification, SROA analysis,
etc.
llvm-svn: 156140
Some code want to check that *any* call within a function has the 'returns
twice' attribute, not just that the current function has one.
llvm-svn: 142221
Arnaud A. de Grandmaison