The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
MMI must match the function passed, and MF has a handle on MMI. Use that instead
of accepting it as separate argument. No Functional Change.
llvm-svn: 279701
Save the function in the class, and then don't pass it around. This reduces the
number of parameters and makes calls to member functions simpler.
No Functional Change.
llvm-svn: 279700
The original commit was reverted because of a buildbot problem with LazyCallGraph::SCC handling (not related to the OptBisect handling).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267231
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
This is in preparation for tail duplication during block placement. See D18226.
This needs to be a utility class for 2 reasons. No passes may run after block
placement, and also, tail-duplication affects subsequent layout decisions, so
it must be interleaved with placement, and can't be separated out into its own
pass. The original pass is still useful, and now runs by delegating to the
utility class.
llvm-svn: 265842
I noticed that this isn't covered by our existing tests and spent some
time trying to come up with an example it actually hits. I tried hand
rolling something based on the explanation in the comment, but couldn't
get anything that didn't abort tail duplication earlier for one reason
or another.
Then, I tried cranking tail-dup-size cranked up so this would fire
more and ran a bootstrap of clang and the nightly test suite - those
don't hit this either.
This reverts r132816 and replaces it with an assert.
llvm-svn: 265347
Currently, AnalyzeBranch() fails non-equality comparison between floating points
on X86 (see https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23875). This is because this
function can modify the branch by reversing the conditional jump and removing
unconditional jump if there is a proper fall-through. However, in the case of
non-equality comparison between floating points, this can turn the branch
"unanalyzable". Consider the following case:
jne.BB1
jp.BB1
jmp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
AnalyzeBranch() will reverse "jp .BB1" to "jnp .BB2" and then "jmp .BB2" will be
removed:
jne.BB1
jnp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
However, AnalyzeBranch() cannot analyze this branch anymore as there are two
conditional jumps with different targets. This may disable some optimizations
like block-placement: in this case the fall-through behavior is enforced even if
the fall-through block is very cold, which is suboptimal.
Actually this optimization is also done in block-placement pass, which means we
can remove this optimization from AnalyzeBranch(). However, currently
X86::COND_NE_OR_P and X86::COND_NP_OR_E are not reversible: there is no defined
negation conditions for them.
In order to reverse them, this patch defines two new CondCode X86::COND_E_AND_NP
and X86::COND_P_AND_NE. It also defines how to synthesize instructions for them.
Here only the second conditional jump is reversed. This is valid as we only need
them to do this "unconditional jump removal" optimization.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11393
llvm-svn: 264199
Summary:
Convergent instrs shouldn't be made control-dependent on other values,
but this is basically the whole point of tail duplication. So just bail
if we see a convergent instruction.
Reviewers: iteratee
Subscribers: jholewinski, jhen, hfinkel, tra, jingyue, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17320
llvm-svn: 261540
TailDuplicate can run on either on SSA code or non-SSA code, as indicated to
it by MRI->isSSA() ("PreRegAlloc" here). TailDuplicate does extra work to
preserve SSA invariants when it duplicates code. This patch makes it skip
some of this extra work in the case where the code is not in SSA form.
llvm-svn: 261450
This patch improves a temporary fix in r255530 so that we can normalize
successor list without trigger assertion failures in tail duplication pass.
llvm-svn: 255638
The normalization may cause assertion failures on SystemZ and some out-of-tree
tests. The root cause is that unknown probabilities are materialized into known
ones by calling getSuccProbability(), which is then used to add another
successor to the same MBB which results in mixed known and unknown
probabilities. But currently those mixed probabilities cannot be normalized.
I will compose another patch to fix the root issue.
llvm-svn: 255530
This patch adds some missing calls to MBB::normalizeSuccProbs() in several
locations where it should be called. Those places are found by checking if the
sum of successors' probabilities is approximate one in MachineBlockPlacement
pass with some instrumented code (not in this patch).
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15259
llvm-svn: 255455
(This is the second attempt to submit this patch. The first caused two assertion
failures and was reverted. See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25687)
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254377
and the follow-up r254356: "Fix a bug in MachineBlockPlacement that may cause assertion failure during BranchProbability construction."
Asserts were firing in Chromium builds. See PR25687.
llvm-svn: 254366
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254348
Do not tail duplicate blocks where the successor has a phi node,
and the corresponding value in that phi node uses a subregister.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13922
llvm-svn: 250877
getLandingPadSuccessor assumes that each invoke can have at most one EH
pad successor, but WinEH invokes can have more than one. Two out of
three callers of getLandingPadSuccessor don't use the returned
landingpad, so we can make them use this simple predicate instead.
Eventually we'll have to circle back and fix SplitKit.cpp so that
register allocation works. Baby steps.
llvm-svn: 247904
With subregister liveness enabled we can detect the case where only
parts of a register are live in, this is expressed as a 32bit lanemask.
The current code only keeps registers in the live-in list and therefore
enumerated all subregisters affected by the lanemask. This turned out to
be too conservative as the subregister may also cover additional parts
of the lanemask which are not live. Expressing a given lanemask by
enumerating a minimum set of subregisters is computationally expensive
so the best solution is to simply change the live-in list to store the
lanemasks as well. This will reduce memory usage for targets using
subregister liveness and slightly increase it for other targets
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12442
llvm-svn: 247171
Create wrapper methods in the Function class for the OptimizeForSize and MinSize
attributes. We want to hide the logic of "or'ing" them together when optimizing
just for size (-Os).
Currently, we are not consistent about this and rely on a front-end to always set
OptimizeForSize (-Os) if MinSize (-Oz) is on. Thus, there are 18 FIXME changes here
that should be added as follow-on patches with regression tests.
This patch is NFC-intended: it just replaces existing direct accesses of the attributes
by the equivalent wrapper call.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11734
llvm-svn: 243994
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
If we duplicate an instruction then we must also clear kill flags on any uses we rewrite.
Otherwise we might be killing a register which was used in other BBs.
For example, here the entry BB ended up with these instructions, the ADD having been tail duplicated.
%vreg24<def> = t2ADDri %vreg10<kill>, 1, pred:14, pred:%noreg, opt:%noreg; GPRnopc:%vreg24 rGPR:%vreg10
%vreg22<def> = COPY %vreg10; GPR:%vreg22 rGPR:%vreg10
The copy here is inserted after the add and so needs vreg10 to be live.
llvm-svn: 236782
Canonicalize access to function attributes to use the simpler API.
getAttributes().getAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> getFnAttribute(Kind)
getAttributes().hasAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> hasFnAttribute(Kind)
Also, add `Function::getFnStackAlignment()`, and canonicalize:
getAttributes().getStackAlignment(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex)
=> getFnStackAlignment()
llvm-svn: 229208
shorter/easier and have the DAG use that to do the same lookup. This
can be used in the future for TargetMachine based caching lookups from
the MachineFunction easily.
Update the MIPS subtarget switching machinery to update this pointer
at the same time it runs.
llvm-svn: 214838
define below all header includes in the lib/CodeGen/... tree. While the
current modules implementation doesn't check for this kind of ODR
violation yet, it is likely to grow support for it in the future. It
also removes one layer of macro pollution across all the included
headers.
Other sub-trees will follow.
llvm-svn: 206837
Kyle Butt