The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
Currently, AnalyzeBranch() fails non-equality comparison between floating points
on X86 (see https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23875). This is because this
function can modify the branch by reversing the conditional jump and removing
unconditional jump if there is a proper fall-through. However, in the case of
non-equality comparison between floating points, this can turn the branch
"unanalyzable". Consider the following case:
jne.BB1
jp.BB1
jmp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
AnalyzeBranch() will reverse "jp .BB1" to "jnp .BB2" and then "jmp .BB2" will be
removed:
jne.BB1
jnp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
However, AnalyzeBranch() cannot analyze this branch anymore as there are two
conditional jumps with different targets. This may disable some optimizations
like block-placement: in this case the fall-through behavior is enforced even if
the fall-through block is very cold, which is suboptimal.
Actually this optimization is also done in block-placement pass, which means we
can remove this optimization from AnalyzeBranch(). However, currently
X86::COND_NE_OR_P and X86::COND_NP_OR_E are not reversible: there is no defined
negation conditions for them.
In order to reverse them, this patch defines two new CondCode X86::COND_E_AND_NP
and X86::COND_P_AND_NE. It also defines how to synthesize instructions for them.
Here only the second conditional jump is reversed. This is valid as we only need
them to do this "unconditional jump removal" optimization.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11393
llvm-svn: 264199
I noticed this test as part of:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11393
...which is confusing enough as-is.
Let's show the exact codegen, so the changes will be more obvious.
llvm-svn: 262874
Currently, AnalyzeBranch() fails non-equality comparison between floating points
on X86 (see https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23875). This is because this
function can modify the branch by reversing the conditional jump and removing
unconditional jump if there is a proper fall-through. However, in the case of
non-equality comparison between floating points, this can turn the branch
"unanalyzable". Consider the following case:
jne.BB1
jp.BB1
jmp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
AnalyzeBranch() will reverse "jp .BB1" to "jnp .BB2" and then "jmp .BB2" will be
removed:
jne.BB1
jnp.BB2
.BB1:
...
.BB2:
...
However, AnalyzeBranch() cannot analyze this branch anymore as there are two
conditional jumps with different targets. This may disable some optimizations
like block-placement: in this case the fall-through behavior is enforced even if
the fall-through block is very cold, which is suboptimal.
Actually this optimization is also done in block-placement pass, which means we
can remove this optimization from AnalyzeBranch(). However, currently
X86::COND_NE_OR_P and X86::COND_NP_OR_E are not reversible: there is no defined
negation conditions for them.
In order to reverse them, this patch defines two new CondCode X86::COND_E_AND_NP
and X86::COND_P_AND_NE. It also defines how to synthesize instructions for them.
Here only the second conditional jump is reversed. This is valid as we only need
them to do this "unconditional jump removal" optimization.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11393
llvm-svn: 258847
Kyle Butt