- hoist checks out of loops where SCEV is smart enough
- add additional statistics to measure how much we loose for not supporting interprocedural and pointers loaded from memory
llvm-svn: 157649
The test case feeds the following into InstCombine's visitSelect:
%tobool8 = icmp ne i32 0, 0
%phitmp = select i1 %tobool8, i32 3, i32 0
Then instcombine replaces the right side of the switch with 0, doesn't notice
that nothing changes and tries again indefinitely.
This fixes PR12897.
llvm-svn: 157587
Implemented IntItem - the wrapper around APInt. Why not to use APInt item directly right now?
1. It will very difficult to implement case ranges as series of small patches. We got several large and heavy patches. Each patch will about 90-120 kb. If you replace ConstantInt with APInt in SwitchInst you will need to changes at the same time all Readers,Writers and absolutely all passes that uses SwitchInst.
2. We can implement APInt pool inside and save memory space. E.g. we use several switches that works with 256 bit items (switch on signatures, or strings). We can avoid value duplicates in this case.
3. IntItem can be easyly easily replaced with APInt.
4. Currenly we can interpret IntItem both as ConstantInt and as APInt. It allows to provide SwitchInst methods that works with ConstantInt for non-updated passes.
Why I need it right now? Currently I need to update SimplifyCFG pass (EqualityComparisons). I need to work with APInts directly a lot, so peaces of code
ConstantInt *V = ...;
if (V->getValue().ugt(AnotherV->getValue()) {
...
}
will look awful. Much more better this way:
IntItem V = ConstantIntVal->getValue();
if (AnotherV < V) {
}
Of course any reviews are welcome.
P.S.: I'm also going to rename ConstantRangesSet to IntegersSubset, and CRSBuilder to IntegersSubsetMapping (allows to map individual subsets of integers to the BasicBlocks).
Since in future these classes will founded on APInt, it will possible to use them in more generic ways.
llvm-svn: 157576
replicating the code for every place it's needed, we instead generate a function
that does that for us. This function is local to the executable, so there
shouldn't be any writing violations.
llvm-svn: 157564
making it stronger and more sane.
Delete the code from tblgen that produced the old code.
Besides being a path forward in intrinsic sanity, this also eliminates a bunch of
machine generated code that was compiled into Function.o
llvm-svn: 157545
then it doesn't alter the instructions composing it, however it would continue
to move the instructions to just before the expression root. Ensure it doesn't
move them either, so now it really does nothing if there is nothing to do. That
commit also ensured that nsw etc flags weren't cleared if the expression was not
being changed. Tweak this a bit so that it doesn't clear flags on the initial
part of a computation either if that part didn't change but later bits did.
llvm-svn: 157518
are passed in. However, those arguments may be in a write-protected area, as far
as the runtime library is concerned. For instance, the data could be placed into
a 'linkedit' section, which isn't writable. Emit the code from
llvm_gcda_increment_indirect_counter directly into the function instead.
Note: The code for this is ugly, and can lead to bloat. We should look into
simplifying this code instead of having all of these branches.
<rdar://problem/11181370>
llvm-svn: 157505
with arbitrary topologies (previously it would give up when hitting a diamond
in the use graph for example). The testcase from PR12764 is now reduced from
a pile of additions to the optimal 1617*%x0+208. In doing this I changed the
previous strategy of dropping all uses for expression leaves to one of dropping
all but one use. This works out more neatly (but required a bunch of tweaks)
and is also safer: some recently fixed bugs during recursive linearization were
because the linearization code thinks it completely owns a node if it has no uses
outside the expression it is linearizing. But if the node was also in another
expression that had been linearized (and thus all uses of the node from that
expression dropped) then the conclusion that it is completely owned by the
expression currently being linearized is wrong. Keeping one use from within each
linearized expression avoids this kind of mistake.
llvm-svn: 157467
LowerSwitch::Clusterify : main functinality was replaced with CRSBuilder::optimize, so big part of Clusterify's code was reduced.
test/Transform/LowerSwitch/feature.ll - this test was refactored: grep + count was replaced with FileCheck usage.
llvm-svn: 157384
leader table. That's because it wasn't expecting instructions to turn up as
leader for a value number that is not its own, but equality propagation could
create this situation. One solution is to have the leader table use a WeakVH
but this slows down GVN by about 5%. Instead just have equality propagation not
add instructions to the leader table, only constants and arguments. In theory
this might cause GVN to run more (each time it changes something it runs again)
but it doesn't seem to occur enough to cause a slow down.
llvm-svn: 157251
so that it can be reused in MemCpyOptimizer. This analysis is needed to remove
an unnecessary memcpy when returning a struct into a local variable.
rdar://11341081
PR12686
llvm-svn: 156776
refactor code a bit to enable future changes to support run-time information
add support to compute allocation sizes at run-time if penalty > 1 (e.g., malloc(x), calloc(x, y), and VLAs)
llvm-svn: 156515
replace the operands of expressions with only one use with undef and generate
a new expression for the original without using RAUW to update the original.
Thus any copies of the original expression held in a vector may end up
referring to some bogus value - and using a ValueHandle won't help since there
is no RAUW. There is already a mechanism for getting the effect of recursion
non-recursively: adding the value to be recursed on to RedoInsts. But it wasn't
being used systematically. Have various places where recursion had snuck in at
some point use the RedoInsts mechanism instead. Fixes PR12169.
llvm-svn: 156379
The primitive conservative heuristic seems to give a slight overall
improvement while not regressing stuff. Make it available to wider
testing. If you notice any speed regressions (or significant code
size regressions) let me know!
llvm-svn: 156258
Kostya Serebryany