In case we update a ValuePHI node created earlier, we could update it
based on a different OpPHI which could be in a different block.
We need to update the TempToBlock mapping reflecting the new block,
otherwise we would end up placing the new phi node in a wrong block.
This problem is exposed by the test case in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504.
This patch fixes a slightly simpler problem than in the bug report. In
the bug's re-producer, the additional problem is that we are re-using a
ValuePHI node with to few incoming values for the new OpPHI. If this
patch makes sense, I will follow it up with a patch that creates a new
PHI node if the existing PHI node has a different number of incoming
values.
Reviewers: davide, dberlin
Reviewed By: dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43770
llvm-svn: 326181
It's not guaranteed. There's a bug open to sort them in predecessor
order, but it won't happen anytime soon. In the meanwhile, passes
will have to do an O(#preds) scan. Such is life.
llvm-svn: 316953
Summary:
After a discussion with Rekka, i believe this (or a small variant)
should fix the remaining phi-of-ops problems.
Rekka's algorithm for completeness relies on looking up expressions
that should have no leader, and expecting it to fail (IE looking up
expressions that can't exist in a predecessor, and expecting it to
find nothing).
Unfortunately, sometimes these expressions can be simplified to
constants, but we need the lookup to fail anyway. Additionally, our
simplifier outsmarts this by taking these "not quite right"
expressions, and simplifying them into other expressions or walking
through phis, etc. In the past, we've sometimes been able to find
leaders for these expressions, incorrectly.
This change causes us to not to try to phi of ops such expressions.
We determine safety by seeing if they depend on a phi node in our
block.
This is not perfect, we can do a bit better, but this should be a
"correctness start" that we can then improve. It also requires a
bunch of caching that i'll eventually like to eliminate.
The right solution, longer term, to the simplifier issues, is to make
the query interface for the instruction simplifier/constant folder
have the flags we need, so that we can keep most things going, but
turn off the possibly-invalid parts (threading through phis, etc).
This is an issue in another wrong code bug as well.
Reviewers: davide, mcrosier
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37175
llvm-svn: 312401
Summary: When we backtranslate expressions, we can't use the predicateinfo, since we are evaluating them in a different context.
Reviewers: davide, mcrosier
Subscribers: sanjoy, Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37174
llvm-svn: 312352
This make it consistent with STATISTIC which it will often appears near.
While there move one DEBUG_COUNTER instance out of an anonymous namespace. It's already declaring a static variable so the namespace is unnecessary.
llvm-svn: 310637
This is fine as nothing in the code relies on leader and memory
leader being the same for a given congruency class. Ack'ed by
Dan.
Fixes PR33720.
llvm-svn: 307699
We weren't actually checking for duplicated stores, as the condition
was always actually false. This was found by Coverity, and I have
no clue how to trigger this in real-world code (although I
tried for a bit).
llvm-svn: 305867
1. When there is no perfect iteration order, we can't let phi nodes
put themselves in terms of things that come later in the iteration
order, or we will endlessly cycle (the normal RPO algorithm clears the
hashtable to avoid this issue).
2. We are sometimes erasing the wrong expression (causing pessimism)
because our equality says loads and stores are the same.
We introduce an exact equality function and use it when erasing to
make sure we erase only identical expressions, not equivalent ones.
llvm-svn: 304807
Otherwise we don't revisit an instruction that could be simplified,
and when we verify, we discover there's something that changed, i.e.
what we had wasn't a maximal fixpoint.
Fixes PR32836.
llvm-svn: 303715
In the case where we have an operand defined by a lod of the
same memory location. Historically this was a VariableExpression
because we wanted to make sure they ended up in the same class,
but if we create the right expression, they end up in the same
class anyway.
Fixes PR32897. Thanks to Dan for the detailed discussion and the
fix suggestion.
llvm-svn: 303475
Florian Hahn