LICM deletes trivially dead instructions which it won't attempt to sink.
Attempt to salvage debug values which reference these instructions.
llvm-svn: 327800
This builds on the work from https://reviews.llvm.org/D44287. It turned out supporting fcmp was much easier than I realized, so let's do that now.
As an aside, our -O3 handling of a floating point IVs leaves a lot to be desired. We do convert the float IV to an integer IV, but do so late enough that many other optimizations are missed (e.g. we don't vectorize).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44542
llvm-svn: 327722
It is common to have conditional exits within a loop which are known not to be taken on some iterations, but not necessarily all. This patches extends our reasoning around guaranteed to execute (used when establishing whether it's safe to dereference a location from the preheader) to handle the case where an exit is known not to be taken on the first iteration and the instruction of interest *is* known to be taken on the first iteration.
This case comes up in two major ways:
* If we have a range check which we've been unable to eliminate, we frequently know that it doesn't fail on the first iteration.
* Pass ordering. We may have a check which will be eliminated through some sequence of other passes, but depending on the exact pass sequence we might never actually do so or we might miss other optimizations from passes run before the check is finally eliminated.
The initial version (here) is implemented via InstSimplify. At the moment, it catches a few cases, but misses a lot too. I added test cases for missing cases in InstSimplify which I'll follow up on separately. Longer term, we should probably wire SCEV through to here to get much smarter loop aware simplification of the first iteration predicate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44287
llvm-svn: 327664
Update BlockColors after splitting predecessors. Do not allow splitting
EHPad for sinking when the BlockColors is not empty, so we can
simply assign predecessor's color to the new block.
Fixes PR36184
llvm-svn: 324916
Before r324429 we essentially didn't have a verification of LCSSA, so
no wonder that it has been broken: currently loop-sink breaks it (the
attached test illustrates the failure).
It was detected during a stage2 RA build, so to unbreak it I'm disabling
the check for now.
llvm-svn: 324445
This recommits r320823 reverted due to the test failure in sink-foldable.ll and
an unused variable. Added "REQUIRES: aarch64-registered-target" in the test
and removed unused variable.
Original commit message:
Continue trying to sink an instruction if its users in the loop is foldable.
This will allow the instruction to be folded in the loop by decoupling it from
the user outside of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, davidxl, efriedma, danielcdh, bmakam, mcrosier
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: javed.absar, bmakam, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37076
llvm-svn: 320858
This recommit r320823 after fixing a test failure.
Original commit message:
Continue trying to sink an instruction if its users in the loop is foldable.
This will allow the instruction to be folded in the loop by decoupling it from
the user outside of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, davidxl, efriedma, danielcdh, bmakam, mcrosier
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: javed.absar, bmakam, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37076
llvm-svn: 320833
Summary:
Continue trying to sink an instruction if its users in the loop is foldable.
This will allow the instruction to be folded in the loop by decoupling it from
the user outside of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, davidxl, efriedma, danielcdh, bmakam, mcrosier
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: javed.absar, bmakam, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37076
llvm-svn: 320823
Summary: This change fix PR35342 by replacing only the current use with undef in unreachable blocks.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, igor-laevsky
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40184
llvm-svn: 318551
This patch implements Chandler's idea [0] for supporting languages that
require support for infinite loops with side effects, such as Rust, providing
part of a solution to bug 965 [1].
Specifically, it adds an `llvm.sideeffect()` intrinsic, which has no actual
effect, but which appears to optimization passes to have obscure side effects,
such that they don't optimize away loops containing it. It also teaches
several optimization passes to ignore this intrinsic, so that it doesn't
significantly impact optimization in most cases.
As discussed on llvm-dev [2], this patch is the first of two major parts.
The second part, to change LLVM's semantics to have defined behavior
on infinite loops by default, with a function attribute for opting into
potential-undefined-behavior, will be implemented and posted for review in
a separate patch.
[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html
[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118632.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38336
llvm-svn: 317729
Summary:
The current LICM allows sinking an instruction only when it is exposed to exit
blocks through a trivially replacable PHI of which all incoming values are the
same instruction. This change enhance LICM to sink a sinkable instruction
through non-trivially replacable PHIs by spliting predecessors of loop
exits.
Reviewers: hfinkel, majnemer, davidxl, bmakam, mcrosier, danielcdh, efriedma, jtony
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: nemanjai, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37163
llvm-svn: 317335
This test checks that load from constant memory will be sunk regardless of
aliasing stores in the loop.
Patch by Daniil Suchkov!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39113
llvm-svn: 316207
Sinking of unordered atomic load into loop must be disallowed because it turns
a single load into multiple loads. The relevant section of the documentation
is: http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html#unordered, specifically the Notes for
Optimizers section. Here is the full text of this section:
> Notes for optimizers
> In terms of the optimizer, this **prohibits any transformation that
> transforms a single load into multiple loads**, transforms a store into
> multiple stores, narrows a store, or stores a value which would not be
> stored otherwise. Some examples of unsafe optimizations are narrowing
> an assignment into a bitfield, rematerializing a load, and turning loads
> and stores into a memcpy call. Reordering unordered operations is safe,
> though, and optimizers should take advantage of that because unordered
> operations are common in languages that need them.
Patch by Daniil Suchkov!
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38392
llvm-svn: 315438
There is no situation where this rarely-used argument cannot be
substituted with a DIExpression and removing it allows us to simplify
the DWARF backend. Note that this patch does not yet remove any of
the newly dead code.
rdar://problem/33580047
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35951
llvm-svn: 309426
Summary:
When we have patterns like
loop:
%la = load %ptr, !tbaa
%lba = load %ptr, !tbaa !noalias
AliasSetTracker would previously think that the two types of annotation for
the pointer conflict, dropping both for the purpose of determining alias sets.
That is clearly way too conservative, as the tbaa is still valid whether or
not one of the memory accesses has additional AA metadata. We could go
one step further and attempt to properly merge the AA metadata,
but it's not clear that that would be worth it since that may introduce
additional MD nodes, which may be undesirable since this is merely an
Analysis.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32139
llvm-svn: 306727
Summary:
This allows strlen to be moved out of the loop in case its argument is
not modified in the loop in LICM.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davide, sanjoy, dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34323
llvm-svn: 305641
Summary: This allows pthread_self to be pulled out of a loop by LICM.
Reviewers: hfinkel, arsenm, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: davide, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32782
llvm-svn: 303495
Summary:
Instead of keeping a variable indicating whether there are early exits
in the loop. We keep all the early exits. This improves LICM's ability to
move instructions out of the loop based on is-guaranteed-to-execute.
I am going to update compilation time as well soon.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, efriedma, mkuper
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32433
llvm-svn: 301196
When allowed, we can hoist a division out of a loop in favor of a
multiplication by the reciprocal. Fixes PR32157.
Patch by vit9696!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30819
llvm-svn: 299911
Summary:
This change solves the same problem as D30726, except that this only
throws out the bathwater.
AST was not correctly tracking and deleting UnknownInstructions via
handles. The existing code only tracks "pointers" in its
`ASTCallbackVH`, so an UnknownInstruction (that isn't also def'ing a
pointer used by another memory instruction) never gets a
`ASTCallbackVH`.
There are two other ways to solve this problem:
- Use the `PointerRec` scheme for both known and unknown instructions.
- Use a `CallbackVH` that erases the offending Instruction from the
UnknownInstruction list.
Both of the above changes seemed to be significantly (and unnecessarily
IMO) more complex than this.
Reviewers: chandlerc, dberlin, hfinkel, reames
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30849
llvm-svn: 297539
Extend our store promotion code to deal with unordered atomic accesses. Ordered atomics continue to be unhandled.
Most of the change is straight-forward, the only complicated bit is in the reasoning around mixing of atomic and non-atomic memory access. Rather than trying to reason about the complex semantics in these cases, I simply disallowed promotion when both atomic and non-atomic accesses are present. This is conservatively correct.
It seems really tempting to just promote all access to atomics, but the original accesses might have been conditional. Since we can't lower an arbitrary atomic type, it might not be safe to promote all access to atomic. Consider a loop like the following:
while(b) {
load i128 ...
if (can lower i128 atomic)
store atomic i128 ...
else
store i128
}
It could be there's no race on the location and thus the code is perfectly well defined even if we can't lower a i128 atomically.
It's not clear we need to be this conservative - arguably the program above is brocken since it can't be lowered unless the branch is folded - but I didn't want to have to fix any fallout which might result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15592
llvm-svn: 295015
Summary:
We can hoist out loads that are dominated by invariant.start, to the preheader.
We conservatively assume the load is variant, if we see a corresponding
use of invariant.start (it could be an invariant.end or an escaping
call).
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29331
llvm-svn: 293887
skip sub-subloops.
The logic to skip subloops dated from when this code was shared with the
cached case. Once it was factored out to only run in the case of
recomputed subloops it became a dangerous bug. If a subsubloop contained
an interfering instruction it would be silently skipped from the alias
sets for LICM.
With the old pass manager this was extremely hard to trigger as it would
require failing to visit these subloops with the LICM pass but then
visiting the outer loop somehow. I've not yet contrived any test case
that actually manages to trigger this.
But with the new pass manager we don't do the cross-loop caching hack
that the old PM does and so we recompute alias set information from
first principles. While this seems much cleaner and simpler it exposed
this bug and would subtly miscompile code due to failing to correctly
model the aliasing constraints of deeply nested loops.
llvm-svn: 293273
Floating point intrinsics in LLVM are generally not speculatively
executed, since most of them are defined to behave the same as libm
functions, which set errno.
However, the @llvm.powi.* intrinsics do not correspond to any libm
function, and lacks any defined error handling semantics in LangRef.
It most certainly does not alter errno.
llvm-svn: 293041
This adds the last remaining core feature of the loop pass pipeline in
the new PM and removes the last of the really egregious hacks in the
LICM tests.
Sadly, this requires really substantial changes in the unittests in
order to provide and maintain simplified loops. This is particularly
hard because for example LoopSimplify will try to fold undef branches to
an ideal direction and simplify the loop accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28766
llvm-svn: 292709
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
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: Add a test case for LICM when promoting locals that may be read after the throw within the loop.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28822
llvm-svn: 292261
runnig LCSSA over them prior to running the loop pipeline.
This also teaches the loop PM to verify that LCSSA form is preserved
throughout the pipeline's run across the loop nest.
Most of the test updates just leverage this new functionality. One has to be
relaxed with the new PM as IVUsers is less powerful when it sees LCSSA input.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28743
llvm-svn: 292241
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
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
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
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
Summary:
This change adds some verification in the IR verifier around struct path
TBAA metadata.
Other than some basic sanity checks (e.g. we get constant integers where
we expect constant integers), this checks:
- That by the time an struct access tuple `(base-type, offset)` is
"reduced" to a scalar base type, the offset is `0`. For instance, in
C++ you can't start from, say `("struct-a", 16)`, and end up with
`("int", 4)` -- by the time the base type is `"int"`, the offset
better be zero. In particular, a variant of this invariant is needed
for `llvm::getMostGenericTBAA` to be correct.
- That there are no cycles in a struct path.
- That struct type nodes have their offsets listed in an ascending
order.
- That when generating the struct access path, you eventually reach the
access type listed in the tbaa tag node.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, chandlerc, reames, mehdi_amini, manmanren
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26438
llvm-svn: 289402
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: 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
Anastasis Grammenos