Summary:
iterateOnFunction creates a ReversePostOrderTraversal object which does a post order traversal in its constructor and stores the results in an internal vector. Iteration over it just reads from the internal vector in reverse order.
The GVN code seems to be unaware of this and iterates over ReversePostOrderTraversal object and makes a copy of the vector into a local vector. (I think at one point in time we used a DFS here instead which would have required the local vector).
The net affect of this is that we have two vectors containing the basic block list. As I didn't want to expose the implementation detail of ReversePostOrderTraversal's constructor to GVN, I've changed the code to do an explicit post order traversal storing into the local vector and then reverse iterate over that.
I've also removed the reserve(256) since the ReversePostOrderTraversal wasn't doing that. I can add it back if we thinks it important. Though it seemed weird that it wasn't based on the size of the function.
Reviewers: davide, anemet, dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31084
llvm-svn: 298191
Loop unswitching can be extremely harmful for a SIMT target. In case
if hoisted condition is not uniform a SIMT machine will execute both
clones of a loop sequentially. Therefor LoopUnswitch checks if the
condition is non-divergent.
Since DivergenceAnalysis adds an expensive PostDominatorTree analysis
not needed for non-SIMT targets a new option is added to avoid unneded
analysis initialization. The method getAnalysisUsage is called when
TargetTransformInfo is not yet available and we cannot use it here.
For that reason a new field DivergentTarget is added to PassManagerBuilder
to control the behavior and set this field from a target.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30796
llvm-svn: 298104
We were not handling getelemenptr instructions of vector type before.
Since getelemenptr instructions for vector types follow the same rule as
getelementptr instructions for non-vector types, we can just handle them
in the same way.
llvm-svn: 298028
Summary:
In commit r289548 ([ADCE] Add code to remove dead branches) a redundant loop
nest was accidentally introduced, which implements exactly the same
functionality as has already been available right after. This redundancy has
been found when inspecting the ADCE code in the context of our recent
discussions on post-dominator modeling. This redundant code was also eliminated
by r296535 (which sparked the discussion), but only as part of a larger semantic
change of the post-dominance modeling. As this redundency in [ADCE] is really
just an oversight completely independent of the post-dominance changes under
discussion, we remove this redundancy independently.
Reviewers: dberlin, david2050
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31023
llvm-svn: 297929
Summary:
These are the functions used to determine when values of loads can be
extracted from stores, etc, and to perform the necessary insertions to
do this. There are no changes to the functions themselves except
reformatting, and one case where memdep was informed of a removed load
(which was pushed into the caller).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30478
llvm-svn: 297438
Summary: Use AA when scanning to find an available load value.
Reviewers: rengolin, mcrosier, hfinkel, trentxintong, dberlin
Reviewed By: rengolin, dberlin
Subscribers: aemerson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30352
llvm-svn: 297284
Recommitting patch which was previously reverted in r297159. These
changes should address the casting issues.
The original patch enables dbg.value intrinsics to be attached to
newly inserted PHI nodes.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30701
llvm-svn: 297269
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.
This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243
llvm-svn: 296897
and also "clang-format GenericDomTreeConstruction.h, since the current
formatting makes it look like their is a bug in the loop indentation, and there
is not"
This reverts commit r296535.
There are still some open design questions which I would like to discuss. I
revert this for Daniel (who gave the OK), as he is on vacation.
llvm-svn: 296812
Now that terminators can be EH pads, this code needs to iterate over the
immediate dominators of the EH pad to find a valid insertion point.
Fix for PR32107
Patch by Robert Olliff!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30511
llvm-svn: 296698
Summary:
Currently, our post-dom tree tries to ignore and remove the effects of
infinite loops. It fails miserably at this, because it tries to do it
ahead of time, and thus can only detect self-loops, and any other type
of infinite loop, it pretends doesn't exist at all.
This can, in a bunch of cases, lead to wrong answers and a completely
empty post-dom tree.
Wrong answer:
```
declare void foo()
define internal void @f() {
entry:
br i1 undef, label %bb35, label %bb3.i
bb3.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bb3.i
bb35.loopexit3:
br label %bb35
bb35:
ret void
}
```
We get:
```
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,7}
[2] %bb35 {1,6}
[3] %bb35.loopexit3 {2,3}
[3] %entry {4,5}
```
This is a trivial modification of the testcase for PR 6047
Note that we pretend bb3.i doesn't exist.
We also pretend that bb35 post-dominates entry.
While it's true that it does not exit in a theoretical sense, it's not
really helpful to try to ignore the effect and pretend that bb35
post-dominates entry. Worse, we pretend the infinite loop does
nothing (it's usually considered a side-effect), and doesn't even
exist, even when it calls a function. Sadly, this makes it impossible
to use when you are trying to move code safely. All compilers also
create virtual or real single exit nodes (including us), and connect
infinite loops there (which this patch does). In fact, others have
worked around our behavior here, to the point of building their own
post-dom trees:
https://zneak.github.io/fcd/2016/02/17/structuring.html and pointing
out the region infrastructure is near-useless for them with postdom in
this state :(
Completely empty post-dom tree:
```
define void @spam() #0 {
bb:
br label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb1, %bb
br label %bb1
bb2: ; No predecessors!
ret void
}
```
Printing analysis 'Post-Dominator Tree Construction' for function 'foo':
=============================--------------------------------
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,1}
:(
(note that even if you ignore the effects of infinite loops, bb2
should be present as an exit node that post-dominates nothing).
This patch changes post-dom to properly handle infinite loops and does
root finding during calculation to prevent empty tress in such cases.
We match gcc's (and the canonical theoretical) behavior for infinite
loops (find the backedge, connect it to the exit block).
Testcases coming as soon as i finish running this on a ton of random graphs :)
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: bryant, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29705
llvm-svn: 296535
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
llvm-svn: 296345
Summary:
BranchInst, SwitchInst (with non-default case) with Undef as input is not
possible at this point. As we always default-fold terminator to one target in
ResolvedUndefsIn and set the input accordingly.
So we should only have constantint/blockaddress here.
If ConstantFoldTerminator fails, that could mean 2 things.
1. ConstantFoldTerminator is doing something unexpected, i.e. not folding on constantint
or blockaddress and not making blocks that should be dead dead.
2. This is not a terminator on constantint or blockaddress. Its on a constant or
overdefined, then this block should not be dead.
In both cases, we should assert.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30381
llvm-svn: 296281
LoopUnswitch/simplify-with-nonvalness.ll is the test case for this.
The LIC has 2 users and deleting the 1st user when it can be simplified
invalidated the iterator for the 2nd user.
llvm-svn: 296069
Summary: In case we do not know what the condition is in an unswitched loop, but we know its definitely NOT a known constant. We can perform simplifcations based on this information.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chenli, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28968
llvm-svn: 296041
While not CVP's fault, this caused miscompiles (PR31181). Reverting
until those are resolved.
(This also reverts the follow-ups r288154 and r288161 which removed the
flag.)
llvm-svn: 296030
In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
llvm-svn: 296003
Summary:
Depends on D29606 and D29682
Makes us pass GVN's edge.ll (we also will pass a few other testcases
they just need cleaning up).
Thoughts on the Predicate* hiearchy of classes especially welcome :)
(it's not clear to me how best to organize it, and currently, the getBlock* seems ... uglier than maybe wasting a field somewhere or something).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29747
llvm-svn: 295889
Add updater to passes that now need it.
Move around code in MemorySSA to expose needed functions.
Summary: Mostly cleanup
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30221
llvm-svn: 295887
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
This enables peeling of loops with low dynamic iteration count by default,
when profile information is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27734
llvm-svn: 295796
The new method introduced under "-lsr-exp-narrow" option (currenlty set to true).
Summary:
The method is based on registers number mathematical expectation and should be
generally closer to optimal solution.
Please see details in comments to
"LSRInstance::NarrowSearchSpaceByDeletingCostlyFormulas()" function
(in lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D29862
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 295704
Summary: This begins using the predicateinfo pass in NewGVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29682
llvm-svn: 295583
Summary:
JumpThreading for guards feature has been reverted at https://reviews.llvm.org/rL295200
due to the following problem: the feature used the following algorithm for detection of
diamond patters:
1. Find a block with 2 predecessors;
2. Check that these blocks have a common single parent;
3. Check that the parent's terminator is a branch instruction.
The problem is that these checks are insufficient. They may pass for a non-diamond
construction in case if those two predecessors are actually the same block. This may
happen if parent's terminator is a br (either conditional or unconditional) to a block
that ends with "switch" instruction with exactly two branches going to one block.
This patch re-enables the JumpThreading for guards and fixes this issue by adding the
check that those found predecessors are actually different blocks. This guarantees that
parent's terminator is a conditional branch with exactly 2 different successors, which
is now ensured by assertions. It also adds two more tests for this situation (with parent's
terminator being a conditional and an unconditional branch).
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: anna, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30036
llvm-svn: 295410
In rL294814, we allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from loops
other than current loop. This is good for the case when induction variable
of outerloop being used in expr in innerloop. But it is very bad to allow
such Reg from sibling loop because we may need to add lsr.iv in other sibling
loops when scev expanding those SCEVAddRecExpr type exprs. For the testcase
below, one loop can be inserted with a bunch of lsr.iv because of LSR for
other loops.
// The induction variable j from a loop in the middle will have initial
// value generated from previous sibling loop and exit value used by its
// next sibling loop.
void goo(long i, long j);
long cond;
void foo(long N) {
long i = 0;
long j = 0;
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
}
The fix is to only allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from current
loop or its parents.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30021
llvm-svn: 295378
Summary:
Function isCompatibleIVType is already used as a guard before the call to
SE.getMinusSCEV(OperExpr, PrevExpr);
in LSRInstance::ChainInstruction. getMinusSCEV requires the expressions
to be of the same type, so we now consider two pointers with different
address spaces to be incompatible, since it is possible that the pointers
in fact have different sizes.
Reviewers: qcolombet, eli.friedman
Reviewed By: qcolombet
Subscribers: nhaehnle, Ka-Ka, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29885
llvm-svn: 295033
Extend our store promotion code to deal with unordered atomic accesses. Ordered atomics continue to be unhandled.
Most of the change is straight-forward, the only complicated bit is in the reasoning around mixing of atomic and non-atomic memory access. Rather than trying to reason about the complex semantics in these cases, I simply disallowed promotion when both atomic and non-atomic accesses are present. This is conservatively correct.
It seems really tempting to just promote all access to atomics, but the original accesses might have been conditional. Since we can't lower an arbitrary atomic type, it might not be safe to promote all access to atomic. Consider a loop like the following:
while(b) {
load i128 ...
if (can lower i128 atomic)
store atomic i128 ...
else
store i128
}
It could be there's no race on the location and thus the code is perfectly well defined even if we can't lower a i128 atomically.
It's not clear we need to be this conservative - arguably the program above is brocken since it can't be lowered unless the branch is folded - but I didn't want to have to fix any fallout which might result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15592
llvm-svn: 295015
it is dead or unreachable, as it should be.
This also makes the leader of INITIAL undef, enabling us to handle
irreducibility properly.
Summary:
This lets us verify, more than we do now, that we didn't screw up
value numbering.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29842
llvm-svn: 294844
Summary:
The patch adds instructions number generated by a solution
to LSR cost under "-lsr-insns-cost" option.
Reviewers: qcolombet, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28307
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 294821
The recommit includes some changes of testcases. No functional change to the patch.
In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 294814
This was marking the loop for deletion after the loop was deleted. This
almost works, except that when we do any kind of debug logging it starts
reading the name of the loop from deleted memory or otherwise blowing
up. This can fail in a bunch of ways. I recently added a test that
*always* does this, and it started failing on the sanitizer bots.
The fix is to mark the loop as deleted in the loop PM infrastructure
before we remove the loop. We can do this by passing the updater into
the routine. That also lets us simplify a bunch of other interface
components here for a net win.
llvm-svn: 294810
Chandler mentioned at the last social that the need for BFI in the new pass manager was causing a slight hiccup for this pass. Given this code has been checked in, but off for over a year, it makes sense to just remove it for now.
Note that there's nothing wrong with the general idea - it's actually a quite good one - and once we have the infrastructure in place to implement this without the full recompuation on every loop, we absolutely should.
llvm-svn: 294715
Summary:
This patch allows JumpThreading also thread through guards.
Virtually, guard(cond) is equivalent to the following construction:
if (cond) { do something } else {deoptimize}
Yet it is not explicitly converted into IFs before lowering.
This patch enables early threading through guards in simple cases.
Currently it covers the following situation:
if (cond1) {
// code A
} else {
// code B
}
// code C
guard(cond2)
// code D
If there is implication cond1 => cond2 or !cond1 => cond2, we can transform
this construction into the following:
if (cond1) {
// code A
// code C
} else {
// code B
// code C
guard(cond2)
}
// code D
Thus, removing the guard from one of execution branches.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29620
llvm-svn: 294617
Summary:
After the DFS order change for LVI, i have a few testcases that now
take forever.
The TL;DR - This is mainly due to the overdefined cache, but that
requires predicateinfo to fix[1]
In order to maximize reuse of the LVI cache for now, change the order
we iterate in.
This reduces my testcase from 5 minutes to 4 seconds.
I have verified cases like gmic do not get slower.
I am playing with whether the order should be postorder or idf.
[1] In practice, overdefined anywhere should be overdefined
everywhere, so this cache should be global. That also fixes this bug.
The problem, however, is that LVI relies on this cache being filled in
per-block because it wants different values in different blocks due to
precisely the naming issue that predicateinfo fixes. With
predicateinfo, making the cache global works fine on individual
passes, and also resolves this issue.
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, djasper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29679
llvm-svn: 294398
Currently IRCE relies on the loops it transforms to be (semantically) of
the form:
for (i = START; i < END; i++)
...
or
for (i = START; i > END; i--)
...
However, we were not verifying the presence of the START < END entry
check (i.e. check before the first iteration). We were only verifying
that the backedge was guarded by (i + 1) < END.
Usually this would work "fine" since (especially in Java) most loops do
actually have the START < END check, but of course that is not
guaranteed.
llvm-svn: 294375
This reverts commit r294250. It caused PR31891.
Add a test case that shows that inlinable calls retain location
information with an accurate scope.
llvm-svn: 294317
Summary: While scanning predecessors to find an available loaded value, if the predecessor has a single predecessor, we can continue scanning through the single predecessor.
Reviewers: mcrosier, rengolin, reames, davidxl, haicheng
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29200
llvm-svn: 293896
Summary:
We can hoist out loads that are dominated by invariant.start, to the preheader.
We conservatively assume the load is variant, if we see a corresponding
use of invariant.start (it could be an invariant.end or an escaping
call).
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29331
llvm-svn: 293887
Daniel Berlin