Don't call `isTriviallyDeadInstructions()` once we discover that
an instruction is dead. Instead, set DFS number zero (as suggested
by Danny) and forget about it (this also speeds up things as we
won't try to reprocess that block).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28930
llvm-svn: 292676
Summary:
This rewrites store expression/leader handling. We no longer use the
value operand as the leader, instead, we store it separately. We also
now store the stored value as part of the expression, and compare it
when comparing stores for equality. This enables us to get rid of a
bunch of our previous hacks and machinations, as the existing
machinery takes care of everything *except* updating the stored value
on classes. The only time we have to update it is if the storecount
goes to 0, and when we do, we destroy it.
Since we no longer use the value operand as the leader, during elimination, we have to use the value operand. Doing this also fixes a bunch of store forwarding cases we were missing.
Any value operand we use is guaranteed to either be updated by previous eliminations, or minimized by future ones.
(IE the fact that we don't use the most dominating value operand when it's not a constant does not affect anything).
Sadly, this change also exposes that we didn't pay attention to the
output of the pr31594.ll test, as it also very clearly exposes the
same store leader bug we are fixing here.
(I added pr31682.ll anyway, but maybe we think that's too large to be useful)
On the plus side, propagate-ir-flags.ll now passes due to the
corrected store forwarding.
This change was 3 stage'd on darwin and linux, with the full test-suite.
Reviewers:
davide
Subscribers:
llvm-commits
llvm-svn: 292648
Like several other loop passes (the vectorizer, etc) this pass doesn't
really fit the model of a loop pass. The critical distinction is that it
isn't intended to be pipelined together with other loop passes. I plan
to add some documentation to the loop pass manager to make this more
clear on that side.
LoopSink is also different because it doesn't really need a lot of the
infrastructure of our loop passes. For example, if there aren't loop
invariant instructions causing a preheader to exist, there is no need to
form a preheader. It also doesn't need LCSSA because this pass is
only involved in sinking invariant instructions from a preheader into
the loop, not reasoning about live-outs.
This allows some nice simplifications to the pass in the new PM where we
can directly walk the loops once without restructuring them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28921
llvm-svn: 292589
Part of the assert has been left active for further debugging.
The other part has been turned into a stat for tracking for the
moment.
llvm-svn: 292583
This can prove that:
extern int f;
int g() {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 365; ++i) {
x /= f;
}
return x;
}
always returns zero. Thanks to Sanjoy for confirming this
transformation actually made sense (bugs are mine).
llvm-svn: 292531
Summary:
In case of non-alloca pointers, we check for whether it is a pointer
from malloc-like calls and it is not captured. In such case, we can
promote the pointer, as the caller will have no way to access this pointer
even if there is unwinding in middle of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, reames, eli.friedman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28834
llvm-svn: 292510
Summary: Partial unrolling should have separate threshold with full unrolling.
Reviewers: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Reviewed By: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28831
llvm-svn: 292293
unique exit block if available rather than rolling it ourselves.
This is a little disappointing because that helper doesn't do anything
clever to short-circuit the (surprisingly expensive) computation of all
exit blocks. What's worse is that the way we compute this is hopelessly,
hilariously inefficient. We're literally computing the same information
two different ways and multiple times each way:
- hasDedicatedExits computes the exit block set and then looks at the
predecessors of each
- getExitingBlocks computes the set of loop blocks which have exiting
successors
- getUniqueExitBlock(s) computes the set of non-loop blocks reached from
loop blocks (sound familiar?)
Anyways, at some point we should clean all of this up in the LoopInfo
API, but for now just simplifying the user I'm about to touch.
llvm-svn: 292282
I hope that for any code, it is changed only with good reason and only
when the author knows what they are doing...
There is of course good reason to comment here about the subtlety of the
process, and I've left that comment in tact.
llvm-svn: 292275
instead of members.
No state was being provided by the object so this seems strictly
simpler.
I've also tried to improve the name and comments for the functions to
more thoroughly document what they are doing.
llvm-svn: 292274
that we know has exactly one element when all we are going to do is get
that one element out of it.
Instead, pass around that one element.
There are more simplifications to come in this code...
llvm-svn: 292273
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
Summary:
This is a testcase where phi node cycling happens, and because we do
not order the leaders by domination or anything similar, the leader
keeps changing.
Using std::set for the members is too expensive, and we actually don't
need them sorted all the time, only at leader changes.
We could keep both a set and a vector, and keep them mostly sorted and
resort as necessary, or use a set and a fibheap, but all of this seems
premature.
After running some statistics, we are able to avoid the vast majority
of sorting by keeping a "next leader" field. Most congruence classes only have
leader changes once or twice during GVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28594
llvm-svn: 291968
It was always zero. When we move a store from `initial` to its
own congruency class, we end up with a negative store count, which
is obviously wrong.
Also, while here, change StoreCount to be signed so that the assertions
actually fire.
Ack'ed by Daniel Berlin.
llvm-svn: 291725
classes, and updating checking to allow for equivalence through
reachability.
(Sadly, the checking here is not perfect, and can't be made perfect,
so we'll have to disable it after we are satisfied with correctness.
Right now it is just "very unlikely" to happen.)
llvm-svn: 291698
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
These are interesting again because the user may not be aware that this
is a common reason preventing LICM.
A const is removed from an instruction pointer declaration in order to
pass it to ORE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27940
llvm-svn: 291649
In some cases StructurizeCfg updates root node, but dominator info
remains unchanges, it causes crash when expensive checks are enabled.
To cope with this problem a new method was added to DominatorTreeBase
that allows adding new root nodes, it is called in StructurizeCfg to
put dominator tree in sync.
This change fixes PR27488.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28114
llvm-svn: 291530
Summary: LLVM's non-standard notion of phi nodes means we can't both try to substitute for undef in phi nodes *and* use phi nodes as leaders all the time. This changes NewGVN to use the same semantics as SimplifyPHINode to decide which phi nodes are equivalent.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28312
llvm-svn: 291308
This is fixing a bug where Loop Vectorization is widening a load but
with a lower alignment. Hoisting the load without propagating the alignment
will allow inst-combine to later deduce a higher alignment that what the pointer
actually is.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28408
llvm-svn: 291281
order to avoid jumpy line tables. Calls are left alone because they may be inlined.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28390
llvm-svn: 291258
Promotion is always legal when a store within the loop is guaranteed to execute.
However, this is not a necessary condition - for promotion to be memory model
semantics-preserving, it is enough to have a store that dominates every exit
block. This is because if the store dominates every exit block, the fact the
exit block was executed implies the original store was executed as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28147
llvm-svn: 291171
Summary:
Preheader instruction's operands will always be invariant w.r.t. the loop which its the preheader
for.
Memory aliases are handled in canSinkOrHoistInst.
Reviewers: danielcdh, davidxl
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28270
llvm-svn: 291132
performing partial redundancy elimination (PRE). Not doing so can cause jumpy line
tables and confusing (though correct) source attributions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27857
llvm-svn: 291037
Apparently my suggestion of using ternary doesn't really work
as clang complains about incompatible types on LHS and RHS. Some
GCC versions happen to accept the code but clang behaviour is
correct here.
llvm-svn: 290822
Summary:
This avoids the very fragile code for null expressions. We could also use a denseset that tracks which things have null expressions instead, but that seems pretty fragile and premature optimization.
This resolves a number of infinite loop cases, test reductions coming.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28193
llvm-svn: 290816
Summary: Previously, we tried to fix up the equivalences during symbolic evaluation. This does not work. Now, we change the equivalences during congruence finding, where it belongs. We also initialize the equivalence table to give a maximal answer.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28192
llvm-svn: 290815
CVP doesn't care about the order of blocks visited, but by using a pre-order traversal over the graph we can a) not visit unreachable blocks and b) optimize as we go so that analysis of later blocks produce slightly more precise results.
I noticed this via inspection and don't have a concrete example which points to the issue.
llvm-svn: 290760
This is similar to the allocfn case - if an alloca is not captured, then it's
necessarily thread-local.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28170
llvm-svn: 290738
Summary:
The current loop complete unroll algorithm checks if unrolling complete will reduce the runtime by a certain percentage. If yes, it will apply a fixed boosting factor to the threshold (by discounting cost). The problem for this approach is that the threshold abruptly. This patch makes the boosting factor a function of runtime reduction percentage, capped by a fixed threshold. In this way, the threshold changes continuously.
The patch also simplified the code by reducing one parameter in UP.
The patch only affects code-gen of two speccpu2006 benchmark:
445.gobmk binary size decreases 0.08%, no performance change.
464.h264ref binary size increases 0.24%, no performance change.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26989
llvm-svn: 290737
"Changed" doesn't actually change within the loop, so there's
no reason to keep track of it - we always return false during
analysis and true after the transformation is made.
llvm-svn: 290735
This moves the exit block and insertion point computation to be eager,
instead of after seeing the first scalar we can promote.
The cost is relatively small (the computation happens anyway, see discussion
on D28147), and the code is easier to follow, and can bail out earlier
if there's a catchswitch present.
llvm-svn: 290729
We would check whether we have a prehader *or* dedicated exit blocks,
and go into the promotion loop. Then, for each alias set we'd check
if we have a preheader *and* dedicated exit blocks, and bail if not.
Instead, bail immediately if we don't have both.
llvm-svn: 290728
We want to recompute LCSSA only when we actually promoted a value.
This means we only need to look at changes made by promotion when
deciding whether to recompute it or not, not at regular sinking/hoisting.
(This was what the code was documented as doing, just not what it did)
Hopefully NFC.
llvm-svn: 290726
Summary:
The optimal iteration order for this problem is RPO order. We want to
process as many preds of a backedge as we can before we process the
backedge.
At the same time, as we add predicate handling, we want to be able to
touch instructions that are dominated by a given block by
ranges (because a change in value numbering a predicate possibly
affects all users we dominate that are using that predicate).
If we don't do it this way, we can't do value inference over
backedges (the paper covers this in depth).
The newgvn branch currently overshoots the last part, and guarantees
that it will touch *at least* the right set of instructions, but it
does touch more. This is because the bitvector instruction ranges are
currently generated in RPO order (so we take the max and the min of
the ranges of dominated blocks, which means there are some in the
middle we didn't have to touch that we did).
We can do better by sorting the dominator tree, and then just using
dominator tree order.
As a preliminary, the dominator tree has some RPO guarantees, but not
enough. It guarantees that for a given node, your idom must come
before you in the RPO ordering. It guarantees no relative RPO ordering
for siblings. We add siblings in whatever order they appear in the module.
So that is what we fix.
We sort the children array of the domtree into RPO order, and then use
the dominator tree for ordering, instead of RPO, since the dominator
tree is now a valid RPO ordering.
Note: This would help any other pass that iterates a forward problem
in dominator tree order. Most of them are single pass. It will still
maximize whatever result they compute. We could also build the
dominator tree in this order, but our incremental updates would still
put it out of sort order, and recomputing the sort order is almost as
hard as general incremental updates of the domtree.
Also note that the sorting does not affect any tests, etc. Nothing
depends on domtree order, including the verifier, the equals
functions for domtree nodes, etc.
How much could this matter, you ask?
Here are the current numbers.
This is generated by running NewGVN over all files in LLVM.
Note that once we propagate equalities, the differences go up by an
order of magnitude or two (IE instead of 29, the max ends up in the
thousands, since the worst case we add a factor of N, where N is the
number of branch predicates). So while it doesn't look that stark for
the default ordering, it gets *much much* worse. There are also
programs in the wild where the difference is already pretty stark
(2 iterations vs hundreds).
RPO ordering:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
Default dominator tree ordering:
755081 Number of iterations is 1
116234 Number of iterations is 2
603 Number of iterations is 3
27 Number of iterations is 4
2 Number of iterations is 5
1 Number of iterations is 7
Dominator tree sorted:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
<yay!>
Really bad ordering (sort domtree siblings in postorder. not quite the
worst possible, but yeah):
754008 Number of iterations is 1
21 Number of iterations is 10
8 Number of iterations is 11
6 Number of iterations is 12
5 Number of iterations is 13
2 Number of iterations is 14
2 Number of iterations is 15
3 Number of iterations is 16
1 Number of iterations is 17
2 Number of iterations is 18
96642 Number of iterations is 2
1 Number of iterations is 20
2 Number of iterations is 21
1 Number of iterations is 22
1 Number of iterations is 29
17266 Number of iterations is 3
2598 Number of iterations is 4
798 Number of iterations is 5
273 Number of iterations is 6
186 Number of iterations is 7
80 Number of iterations is 8
42 Number of iterations is 9
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28129
llvm-svn: 290699
emplace_back is not faster if it is equivalent to push_back. In this cases emplaced value had the
same type that the one stored in container. It is ugly and it might be even slower (see
Scott Meyers presentation about emplacement).
llvm-svn: 290685
Mostly use a bit more idiomatic C++ where we can,
so we can combine some things later.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28111
llvm-svn: 290550
The pass creates some state which expects to be cleaned up by
a later instance of the same pass. opt-bisect happens to expose
this not ideal design because calling skipLoop() will result in
this state not being cleaned up at times and an assertion firing
in `doFinalization()`. Chandler tells me the new pass manager will
give us options to avoid these design traps, but until it's not ready,
we need a workaround for the current pass infrastructure. Fix provided
by Andy Kaylor, see the review for a complete discussion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25848
llvm-svn: 290427
The code have been developed by Daniel Berlin over the years, and
the new implementation goal is that of addressing shortcomings of
the current GVN infrastructure, i.e. long compile time for large
testcases, lack of phi predication, no load/store value numbering
etc...
The current code just implements the "core" GVN algorithm, although
other pieces (load coercion, phi handling, predicate system) are
already implemented in a branch out of tree. Once the core is stable,
we'll start adding pieces on top of the base framework.
The test currently living in test/Transform/NewGVN are a copy
of the ones in GVN, with proper `XFAIL` (missing features in NewGVN).
A flag will be added in a future commit to enable NewGVN, so that
interested parties can exercise this code easily.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26224
llvm-svn: 290346
from the old pass manager in the new one.
I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.
I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.
Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.
One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.
I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.
I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042
llvm-svn: 290325
In r267672, where the loop distribution pragma was introduced, I tried
it hard to keep the old behavior for opt: when opt is invoked
with -loop-distribute, it should distribute the loop (it's off by
default when ran via the optimization pipeline).
As MichaelZ has discovered this has the unintended consequence of
breaking a very common developer work-flow to reproduce compilations
using opt: First you print the pass pipeline of clang
with -debug-pass=Arguments and then invoking opt with the returned
arguments.
clang -debug-pass will include -loop-distribute but the pass is invoked
with default=off so nothing happens unless the loop carries the pragma.
While through opt (default=on) we will try to distribute all loops.
This changes opt's default to off as well to match clang. The tests are
modified to explicitly enable the transformation.
llvm-svn: 290235
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Summary:
This patch will add loop metadata on the pre and post loops generated by IRCE.
Currently, we have metadata for disabling optimizations such as vectorization,
unrolling, loop distribution and LICM versioning (and confirmed that these
optimizations check for the metadata before proceeding with the transformation).
The pre and post loops generated by IRCE need not go through loop opts (since
these are slow paths).
Added two test cases as well.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26806
llvm-svn: 289588
Summary:
This is last in of a series of patches to evolve ADCE.cpp to support
removing of unnecessary control flow.
This patch adds the code to update the control and data flow graphs
to remove the dead control flow.
Also update unit tests to test the capability to remove dead,
may-be-infinite loop which is enabled by the switch
-adce-remove-loops.
Previous patches:
D23824 [ADCE] Add handling of PHI nodes when removing control flow
D23559 [ADCE] Add control dependence computation
D23225 [ADCE] Modify data structures to support removing control flow
D23065 [ADCE] Refactor anticipating new functionality (NFC)
D23102 [ADCE] Refactoring for new functionality (NFC)
Reviewers: dberlin, majnemer, nadav, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: llvm-commits, david2050, freik, twoh
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24918
llvm-svn: 289548
The motivating example is:
extern int patatino;
int goo() {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
x *= patatino;
}
return x;
}
Currently SCCP will not realize that this function returns always zero,
therefore will try to unroll and vectorize the loop at -O3 producing an
awful lot of (useless) code. With this change, it will just produce:
0000000000000000 <g>:
xor %eax,%eax
retq
llvm-svn: 289175
The fix committed in r288851 doesn't cover all the cases.
In particular, if we have an instruction with side effects
which has a no non-dbg use not depending on the bits, we still
perform RAUW destroying the dbg.value's first argument.
Prevent metadata from being replaced here to avoid the issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27534
llvm-svn: 288987
In the case of a fully redundant load LI dominated by an equivalent load V, GVN
should always preserve the original debug location of V. Otherwise, we risk to
introduce an incorrect stepping.
If V has debug info, then clearly it should not be modified. If V has a null
debugloc, then it is still potentially incorrect to propagate LI's debugloc
because LI may not post-dominate V.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27468
llvm-svn: 288903
BDCE has two phases:
1. It asks SimplifyDemandedBits if all the bits of an instruction are dead, and if so,
replaces all its uses with the constant zero.
2. Then, it asks SimplifyDemandedBits again if the instruction is really dead
(no side effects etc..) and if so, eliminates it.
Now, in 1) if all the bits of an instruction are dead, we may end up replacing a dbg use:
%call = tail call i32 (...) @g() #4, !dbg !15
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 %call, i64 0, metadata !8, metadata !16), !dbg !17
->
%call = tail call i32 (...) @g() #4, !dbg !15
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, i64 0, metadata !8, metadata !16), !dbg !17
but not eliminating the call because it may have arbitrary side effects.
In other words, we lose some debug informations.
This patch fixes the problem making sure that BDCE does nothing with the instruction if
it has side effects and no non-dbg uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27471
llvm-svn: 288851
There are two cases handled here:
1) a branch on undef
2) a switch with an undef condition.
Both cases are currently handled by ResolvedUndefsIn. If we have
a branch on undef, we force its value to false (which is trivially
foldable). If we have a switch on undef, we force to the first
constant (which is also foldable).
llvm-svn: 288725
so we can stop using DW_OP_bit_piece with the wrong semantics.
The entire back story can be found here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161114/405934.html
The gist is that in LLVM we've been misinterpreting DW_OP_bit_piece's
offset field to mean the offset into the source variable rather than
the offset into the location at the top the DWARF expression stack. In
order to be able to fix this in a subsequent patch, this patch
introduces a dedicated DW_OP_LLVM_fragment operation with the
semantics that we used to apply to DW_OP_bit_piece, which is what we
actually need while inside of LLVM. This patch is complete with a
bitcode upgrade for expressions using the old format. It does not yet
fix the DWARF backend to use DW_OP_bit_piece correctly.
Implementation note: We discussed several options for implementing
this, including reserving a dedicated field in DIExpression for the
fragment size and offset, but using an custom operator at the end of
the expression works just fine and is more efficient because we then
only pay for it when we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27361
rdar://problem/29335809
llvm-svn: 288683
Now that PointerType is no longer a SequentialType, all SequentialTypes
have an associated number of elements, so we can move that information to
the base class, allowing for a number of simplifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27122
llvm-svn: 288464
As proposed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106640.html
This is for a couple of reasons:
- Values of type PointerType are unlike the other SequentialTypes (arrays
and vectors) in that they do not hold values of the element type. By moving
PointerType we can unify certain aspects of how the other SequentialTypes
are handled.
- PointerType will have no place in the SequentialType hierarchy once
pointee types are removed, so this is a necessary step towards removing
pointee types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26595
llvm-svn: 288462
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
This just extracts out the transfer rules for constant ranges into a single shared point. As it happens, neither bit of code actually overlaps in terms of the handled operators, but with this change that could easily be tweaked in the future.
I also want to have this separated out to make experimenting with a eager value info implementation and possibly a ValueTracking-like fixed depth recursion peephole version. There's no reason all four of these can't share a common implementation which reduces the chances of bugs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27294
llvm-svn: 288413
[recommitting after the fix in r288307]
This requires some changes to the opt-diag API. Hal and I have
discussed this at the Dev Meeting and came up with a streaming delimiter
(setExtraArgs) to solve this.
Arguments after this delimiter are only included in the optimization
records and not in the remarks printed in the compiler output. (Note,
how in the test the content of the YAML file changes but the remarks on
the compiler output don't.)
This implements the green GVN message with a bug fix at line
http://lab.llvm.org:8080/artifacts/opt-view_test-suite/build/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Dhrystone/CMakeFiles/dry.dir/html/_org_test-suite_SingleSource_Benchmarks_Dhrystone_dry.c.html#L446
The fix is that now we properly include the constant value in the
message: "load of type i32 eliminated in favor of 7"
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26489
llvm-svn: 288380
If LoopInfo is available during GVN, BasicAA will use it. However
MergeBlockIntoPredecessor does not update LI as it merges blocks.
This didn't use to cause problems because LI was freed before
GVN/BasicAA. Now with OptimizationRemarkEmitter, the lifetime of LI is
extended so LI needs to be kept up-to-date during GVN.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27288
llvm-svn: 288307
Summary:
Fix a case when first register in a search has maximum
RegUses.getUsedByIndices(Reg).count()
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26877
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 288278
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
llvm-svn: 288274
Michel Dänzer reported that r288051, "[StructurizeCFG] Use range-based
for loops", introduced a bug into rebuildSSA, wherein we were iterating
over an instruction's use list while modifying it, without taking care
to do this correctly.
llvm-svn: 288200
The flag was introduced because the optimization controlled by the flag initially caused regressions. All the regressions were fixed some time ago and the flag has been false for quite a while.
llvm-svn: 288154
Enable scalar hoisting at -Oz as it is safe to hoist scalars to a place
where they are partially needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27111
llvm-svn: 288141
Preserving lifetime markers isn't as important as allowing promotion,
so just drop the lifetime markers if necessary.
This also fixes an assertion failure where other parts of SROA assumed
that lifetime markers never block promotion.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=29139.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24854
llvm-svn: 288074
Summary:
As far as I can tell, doing our own computations in
NearestCommonDominator is a false optimization -- DomTree will build up
what appears to be exactly this data when it decides it's worthwhile.
Moreover, by building the cache ourselves, we cannot take advantage of
the cache that the domtree might have available.
In addition, I am not convinced of the correctness of the original code.
In particular, setting ResultIndex = 1 on the first addBlock instead of
setting it to 0 is quite fishy. Similarly, it's not clear to me that
setting IndexMap[Node] = 0 for every node as we walk up the tree finding
a common parent is correct. But rather than ponder over these
questions, I'd rather just make the code do the obviously-correct thing.
This patch also changes the NearestCommonDominator API a bit, improving
the names and getting rid of the boolean parameter in addBlock -- see
http://jlebar.com/2011/12/16/Boolean_parameters_to_API_functions_considered_harmful..html
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: aemerson, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26998
llvm-svn: 288050
Summary:
The iterative algorithm for Loop Unswitching may render some of the branches unreachable in the unswitched loops.
Given the exponential nature of the algorithm, this is quite an overhead.
This patch fixes this problem by selectively unswitching only those branches within a loop that are reachable from the loop header.
Reviewers: Michael Zolothukin, Anna Thomas, Weiming Zhao.
Subscribers: llvm-commits.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26299
llvm-svn: 287925
Summary:
No need to copy the RPOT vector before using it. Switch from std::map
to SmallDenseMap. Get rid of an unused variable (TempVisited). Get rid
of a typedef, RNVector, which is now used only once.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26997
llvm-svn: 287721
Summary:
"addRequired" and "addPreserved" look very similar when squished up next
to each other -- without the newline this code looked to me like it was
addRequired'ing DominatorTreeWrapperPass twice.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26996
llvm-svn: 287720
Summary: Lets us get rid of one member variable too.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26992
llvm-svn: 287716
We visit and/or, we try to derive a lattice value for the
instruction even if one of the operands is overdefined.
If the non-overdefined value is still 'unknown' just return and wait
for ResolvedUndefsIn to "plug in" the correct value. This simplifies
the logic a bit. While I'm here add tests for missing cases.
llvm-svn: 287709
Allow using an instruction other than a mul or phi as the base for
root-finding. For example, the included testcase includes a loop
which requires using a getelementptr as the base for root-finding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26529
llvm-svn: 287588
This patch updates a bunch of places where add_dependencies was being explicitly called to add dependencies on intrinsics_gen to instead use the DEPENDS named parameter. This cleanup is needed for a patch I'm working on to add a dependency debugging mode to the build system.
llvm-svn: 287206
Summary:
For flat loop, even if it is hot, it is not a good idea to unroll in runtime, thus we set a lower partial unroll threshold.
For hot loop, we set a higher unroll threshold and allows expensive tripcount computation to allow more aggressive unrolling.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: sanjoy, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26527
llvm-svn: 287186
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: 286999
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
Summary:
Unfolding selects was previously done with the help of a vector
of pointers that was then sorted to be able to remove duplicates.
As this sorting depends on the memory addresses, it was
non-deterministic. A SetVector is used now so that duplicates are
removed without the need of sorting first.
Reviewers: mgrang, efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26450
llvm-svn: 286807
All existing callers were manually extracting information out of an existing
GEP instruction and passing it to getGEPExpr(). Simplify the interface by
changing it to take a GEPOperator instead.
llvm-svn: 286751
No testcase included because I can't figure out how to reduce it.
(It's easy to write a testcase where rotation clones an assume,
but that doesn't actually seem to trigger the crash in opt on
its own; maybe an issue with the laziness?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26434
llvm-svn: 286410
Summary:
Unrolled Loop Size calculations moved to a function.
Constant representing number of optimized instructions
when "back edge" becomes "fall through" replaced with
variable.
Some comments added.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21719
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 286389
Scalar Evolution asserts when not all the operands of an Add Recurrence
Expression are loop invariants. Loop Strength Reduction should only
create affine Add Recurrences, so that both the start and the step of
the expression are loop invariants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26185
llvm-svn: 286347
Summary: For functions with profile data, we are confident that loop sink will be optimal in sinking code.
Reviewers: davidxl, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26155
llvm-svn: 286325
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: rengolin, haicheng, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, jmolloy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26391
llvm-svn: 286236
Summary:
In some specific scenarios with well understood operand bundle types
(like `"deopt"`) it may be possible to go ahead and convert recursion to
iteration, but TailRecursionElimination does not have that logic today
so avoid doing the right thing for now.
I need some input on whether `"funclet"` operand bundles should also
block tail recursion elimination. If not, I'll allow TRE across calls
with `"funclet"` operand bundles and add a test case.
Reviewers: rnk, majnemer, nlewycky, ahatanak
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26270
llvm-svn: 286147
Argument evaluation order is one of the edge cases where Clang differs
from GCC, yielding different IR depending on which compiler LLVM was
built with. Make the order deterministic and tune the test to actually
verify the order instead of trying to hide it.
llvm-svn: 286126
Summary:
SmallSetVector uses DenseSet, but that means we need to reserve some
values for the empty and tombstone keys.
It seems to me we should have a general way to let us store full-range
ints inside of DenseSets, and furthermore that we probably shouldn't
silently let you add ints into DenseSets without explicitly promising
that they're in range. But that's a battle for another day; for now,
just fix this code, since we currently do something Very Bad when
compiling ffmpeg.
Fixes PR30914.
Reviewers: jeremyhu
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26323
llvm-svn: 286038
This condition is trivially always true prior to the change. The comment
at the call site makes it clear that we expect *all* of these to be '=',
'S', or 'I' so fix the code.
We have a bug I will update to track the fact that Clang doesn't warn on
this: http://llvm.org/PR13101
llvm-svn: 285930
Summary:
It was detected that the reassociate pass could enter an inifite
loop when analysing dead code. Simply skipping to analyse basic
blocks that are dead avoids such problems (and as a side effect
we avoid spending time on optimising dead code).
The solution is using the same Reverse Post Order ordering of the
basic blocks when doing the optimisations, as when building the
precalculated rank map. A nice side-effect of this solution is
that we now know that we only try to do optimisations for blocks
with ranked instructions.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30818
Reviewers: llvm-commits, davide, eli.friedman, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26154
llvm-svn: 285793
Fixes PR 30784. Discussed with Justin, who pointed out that
in the new PassManager infrastructure we can have more fine-grained
control on which analyses we want to preserve, but this is the
best we can do with the current infrastructure.
llvm-svn: 285380
Summary: LICM may hoist instructions to preheader speculatively. Before code generation, we need to sink down the hoisted instructions inside to loop if it's beneficial. This pass is a reverse of LICM: looking at instructions in preheader and sinks the instruction to basic blocks inside the loop body if basic block frequency is smaller than the preheader frequency.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, chandlerc
Subscribers: anna, modocache, mgorny, beanz, reames, dberlin, chandlerc, mcrosier, junbuml, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778
llvm-svn: 285308
When the loop exit condition is canonicalized as a != compaison, reuse the
debug location of the original (non canonical) comparison.
Before this patch, the debug location of the new icmp was obtained from the
loop latch terminator. This patch fixes the issue by correctly setting the
IRBuilder's "current debug location" to the location of the original compare.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25953
llvm-svn: 285185
When indvars widened an induction variable, the debug location for the loop
increment computation was incorrectly set equal to the debug loc of the loop
latch terminator.
This patch fixes the issue by propagating the correct location from the
original loop increment instruction to the new widened increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25872
llvm-svn: 285083
Now that MemorySSA keeps track of whether MemoryUses are optimized, use
getClobberingMemoryAccess() to check MemoryUse memory dependencies since
it should no longer be so expensive.
This is a follow-up change to https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 285080
Summary:
When using MemorySSA, re-optimize MemoryPhis when removing a store since
this may create MemoryPhis with all identical arguments.
Also, when using MemorySSA to check if two MemoryUses are reading from
the same version of the heap, use the defining access instead of calling
getClobberingAccess, since the latter can currently result in many more
AA calls. Once the MemorySSA use optimization tracking changes are
done, we can remove this limitation, which should result in more loads
being CSE'd.
Reviewers: dberlin
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 284984
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: reames, bkramer, mcrosier, gberry, haicheng, jmolloy, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25477
llvm-svn: 284971
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
There's no agreement about this patch. I personally find the
PRE machinery of the current GVN hard enough to reason about
that I'm not sure I'll try to land this again, instead of working
on the rewrite).
llvm-svn: 284796
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
llvm-svn: 284629
In theory this could be generalized to move anything where
we prove the operands are available, but that would require
rewriting PRE. As NewGVN will hopefully come soon, and we're
trying to rewrite PRE in terms of NewGVN+MemorySSA, it's probably
not worth spending too much time on it. Fix provided by
Daniel Berlin!
llvm-svn: 284311
- Removed unused class members.
- Made class internal data private.
- Made class scoped data function scoped where it's possible.
- Replace naked new/delete with unique_ptr.
- Made resources guaranteed to be freed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25464
llvm-svn: 284290
This is with an extra change to avoid calling MemoryLocation::get() on a call instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25542
llvm-svn: 284098
This CL didn't actually address the test case in PR30499, and clang
still crashes.
Also revert dependent change "Memory-SSA cleanup of clobbers interface, NFC"
Reverts r283965 and r283967.
llvm-svn: 284093
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
An arithmetic shift can be safely changed to a logical shift if the first
operand is known positive. This allows ComputeKnownBits (and similar analysis)
to determine the sign bit of the shifted value in some cases. In turn, this
allows InstCombine to canonicalize a signed comparison (a > 0) into an equality
check (a != 0).
PR30577
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25119
llvm-svn: 284013
This implements the cleanup that Danny asked to commit separately from the
previous fix to GVN-hoist in https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476#inline-219818
Tested with ninja check on x86_64-linux.
llvm-svn: 283967
This is a refreshed version of a patch that was reverted: it fixes
the problems reported in both PR30216 and PR30499, and
contains all the test-cases from both bugs.
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Tested on x86_64-linux with check and a test-suite run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476
llvm-svn: 283965
For each block check that it doesn't have any uses outside of it's innermost loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25364
llvm-svn: 283877
The core of the change is supposed to be NFC, however it also fixes
what I believe was an undefined behavior when calling:
va_start(ValueArgs, Desc);
with Desc being a StringRef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25342
llvm-svn: 283671
Summary: LoopSink pass uses some common function in LICM. This patch refactor the LICM code to make it usable by LoopSink pass (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778).
Reviewers: davidxl, danielcdh, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24168
llvm-svn: 283134
Splitting the edge is nontrivial because of the landing pad, and we would
currently assert trying to do it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24680
llvm-svn: 283129
Summary: Debug info should *not* affect optimization decisions. This patch updates loop unroller cost model to make it not affected by debug info.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: haicheng, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25098
llvm-svn: 282894
Summary:
The patch fixes regression caused by two earlier patches D18777 and D18867.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D24280
From: Li Huang
llvm-svn: 282650
This commit enables more unrolling for SystemZ by implementing the
SystemZTargetTransformInfo::getUnrollingPreferences() method.
It has been found that it is better to only unroll moderately, so the
DefaultUnrollRuntimeCount has been moved into UnrollingPreferences in order
to set this to a lower value for SystemZ (4).
Reviewers: Evgeny Stupachenko, Ulrich Weigand.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24451
llvm-svn: 282570
Assumptions on UndefValue and ConstantPointerNull aren't relevant to
other users. Ignore them entirely to avoid wasting cycles walking
through their (possibly extremely extensive (cross-module)) use-lists.
It wasn't clear how to add a specific test for this, and it'll be
covered anyway by an eventual patch that asserts when trying to access
the use-list of an instance of ConstantData.
llvm-svn: 282334
and also the dependent r282175 "GVN-hoist: do not dereference null pointers"
It's causing compiler crashes building Harfbuzz (PR30499).
llvm-svn: 282199
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24517
llvm-svn: 282168
Without this patch, GVN-hoist would think that a branch instruction is a scalar instruction
and would try to value number it. The patch filters out all such kind of irrelevant instructions.
A bit frustrating is that there is no easy way to discard all those very infrequent instructions,
a bit like isa<TerminatorInst> that stands for a large family of instructions. I'm thinking that
checking for those very infrequent other instructions would cost us more in compilation time
than just letting those instructions getting numbered, so I'm still thinking that a simpler check:
if (isa<TerminatorInst>(I))
return false;
is better than listing all the other less frequent instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23929
llvm-svn: 282160
Currently, we give up on loop interchange if we encounter a flow dependency
anywhere in the loop list. Worse yet, we don't even track output dependencies.
This patch updates the dependency matrix computation to track flow and output
dependencies in the same way we track anti dependencies.
This improves an internal workload by 2.2x.
Note the loop interchange pass is off by default and it can be enabled with
'-mllvm -enable-loopinterchange'
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24564
llvm-svn: 282101
Summary:
This is an NFC refactoring change as a precursor to the actual fix for rematerializing in
presence of phi.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24399
Pasted from review:
findRematerializableChainToBasePointer changed to return the root of the
chain. instead of true or false.
move the PHI matching logic into the caller by inspecting the root return value.
This includes an assertion that the alternate root is in the liveset for the
call.
Tested with current RS4GC tests.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24780
llvm-svn: 282023
Davide Italiano