When replacing an assume(false) with a store, we have to be more careful
with the order we insert the new access. This patch updates the code to
look at the accesses in the block to find a suitable insertion point.
Alterantively we could check the defining access of the assume, but IIRC
there has been some discussion about making assume() readnone, so
looking at the access list might be more future proof.
Fixes PR48072.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90784
- As convergent intrinsics/calls could only be moved to
control-equivalent blocks, or more precisely the same divergent
branch, PRE needs to skip them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90391
GVN Load PRE can split the backedge causing breaking the loop structure where the latch
contains the conditional branch with for example induction variable.
Different optimizations expect this form of the loop, so it is better to preserve it for some time.
This CL adds an option to control an ability to split backedge.
Default value is true so technically it is NFC and current behavior is not changed.
Reviewers: fedor.sergeev, mkazantsev, nikic, reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: mkazasntsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89854
Use context to prove that load can be safely executed at a point where load is being hoisted.
Postpone the decision about safety of speculative load execution till the moment we know
where we hoist load and check safety at that context.
Reviewers: nikic, fhahn, mkazantsev, lebedev.ri, efriedma, reames
Reviewed By: reames, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88725
If we try to coerce a vector of non-integral pointers to a narrower type (either narrower vector or single pointer), we use inttoptr and violate the semantics of non-integral pointers. In theory, we can handle many of these cases, we just need to use a different code idiom to convert without going through inttoptr and back.
This shows up as wrong code bugs, and in some cases, crashes due to failed asserts. Modeled after a change which has lived downstream for a couple years, though completely rewritten to be more idiomatic.
Introduce a helper which can be used to update the debug location of an
Instruction after the instruction is hoisted. This can be used to safely
drop a source location as recommended by the docs.
For more context, see the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D60913.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85670
-debug-pass is a legacy PM only option.
Some tests checks that the pass returned that it made a change,
which is not relevant to the NPM, since passes return PreservedAnalyses.
Some tests check that passes are freed at the proper time, which is also
not relevant to the NPM.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87945
This pass is like DeadCodeEliminationPass, but only does one pass
through a function instead of iterating on users of eliminated
instructions.
DeadCodeEliminationPass should be used in all cases.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87933
This matches the legacy PM name and makes all tests in
Transforms/LoopSimplifyCFG pass under NPM.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87948
The other assume tests seem to be dealing with equalities in
particular. Test implication for the condition itself, especially
the negated case from PR47496.
Preserve MemorySSA if it is available before running GVN.
DSE with MemorySSA will run closely after GVN. If GVN and 2 other
passes preserve MemorySSA, DSE can re-use MemorySSA used by LICM
when doing LTO.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86534
The 1st try was reverted because I missed an assert that
needed softening.
As discussed in D86798 / rG09652721 , we were potentially
returning a different result for whether an Instruction
is commutable depending on if we call the base class or
derived class method.
This requires relaxing asserts in GVN, but that pass
seems to be working otherwise.
NewGVN requires more work because it uses different
code paths for numbering binops and calls.
As discussed in D86798 / rG09652721 , we were potentially
returning a different result for whether an Instruction
is commutable depending on if we call the base class or
derived class method.
This requires relaxing an assert in GVN, but that pass
seems to be working otherwise.
NewGVN requires more work because it uses different
code paths for numbering binops and calls.
Introduce a helper on Instruction which can be used to update the debug
location after hoisting.
Use this in GVN and LICM, where we were mistakenly introducing new line
0 locations after hoisting (the docs recommend dropping the location in
this case).
For more context, see the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D60913.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85670
While this doesn't appear to help with the perf issue being exposed by
D84108, the function as-is is very weird, convoluted, and what's worse,
recursive.
There was no need for `SpeculativelyAvaliableAndUsedForSpeculation`,
tri-state choice is enough. We don't even ever check for that state.
The basic idea here is that we need to perform a depth-first traversal
of the predecessors of the basic block in question, either finding a
preexisting state for the block in a map, or inserting a "placeholder"
`SpeculativelyAvaliable`,
If we encounter an `Unavaliable` block, then we need to give up search,
and back-propagate the `Unavaliable` state to the each successor of
said block, more specifically to the each `SpeculativelyAvaliable`
we've just created.
However, if we have traversed entirety of the predecessors and have not
encountered an `Unavaliable` block, then it must mean the value is fully
available. We could update each inserted `SpeculativelyAvaliable` into
a `Avaliable`, but we don't need to, as assertion excersizes,
because we can assume that if we see an `SpeculativelyAvaliable` entry,
it is actually `Avaliable`, because during the time we've produced it,
if we would have found that it has an `Unavaliable` predecessor,
we would have updated it's successors, including this block,
into `Unavaliable`
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84181
Summary: To match NewPM name. Also the new name is clearer and more consistent.
Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, asbirlea, kerbowa, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84542
Make sure we do not call
constainsConstantExpression/containsUndefElement on ConstantExpression,
which is not supported.
In particular, containsUndefElement/constainsConstantExpression are only
supported on constants which are supported by getAggregateElement.
Unfortunately there's no convenient way to check if a constant supports
getAggregateElement, so just check for non-constantexpressions with
vector type. Other users of those functions do so too.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, craig.topper, lebedev.ri, jdoerfert, aqjune
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84512
Here we teach the ConstantFolding analysis pass that it is not legal to
replace a load of a bitcast constant (having a non-integral addrspace)
with a bitcast of the value of that constant (with a different
non-integral addrspace).
But also teach it that certain bit patterns are always known and
convertable (a fact it already uses elsewhere). This required us to also
fix a globalopt test, since, after this change, LLVM is able to realize
that the test actually is a valid transform (NULL is always a known
bit-pattern) and so it doesn't need to emit the failure remarks for it.
Also simplify some of the negative tests for transforms by avoiding a
type change in their bitcast, and add positive versions of the same
tests, to show that they otherwise should work.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59730
Currently load instructions are added to the cache for invariant pointer
group dependencies, but only pointer values are removed currently. That
leads to dangling AssertingVHs in the test case below, where we delete a
load from an invariant pointer group. We should also remove the entries
from the cache.
Fixes PR46054.
Reviewers: efriedma, hfinkel, asbirlea
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81726
This patch adds a new option to CriticalEdgeSplittingOptions to control
whether loop-simplify form must be preserved. It is them used by GVN to
indicate that loop-simplify form does not have to be preserved.
This fixes a crash exposed by 189efe295b.
If the critical edge we are splitting goes from a block inside a loop to
a block outside the loop, splitting the edge will create a new exit
block. As a result, the new block will branch to the original exit
block, which will add a non-loop predecessor, breaking loop-simplify
form. To preserve loop-simplify form, the predecessor blocks of the
original exit are split, but that does not work for blocks with
indirectbr terminators. If preserving loop-simplify form is requested,
bail out , before making any changes.
Reviewers: reames, hfinkel, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81582
If we don't know anything about the alignment of a pointer, Align(1) is
still correct: all pointers are at least 1-byte aligned.
Included in this patch is a bugfix for an issue discovered during this
cleanup: pointers with "dereferenceable" attributes/metadata were
assumed to be aligned according to the type of the pointer. This
wasn't intentional, as far as I can tell, so Loads.cpp was fixed to
stop making this assumption. Frontends may need to be updated. I
updated clang's handling of C++ references, and added a release note for
this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80072
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
The "null-pointer-is-valid" attribute needs to be checked by many
pointer-related combines. To make the check more efficient, convert
it from a string into an enum attribute.
In the future, this attribute may be replaced with data layout
properties.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
No changes relative to last time, but after a mitigation for
an AMDGPU regression landed.
---
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
Matt Arsenault