Summary:
This fixes an issue with MachineBlockPlacement due to a badly timed call
to `analyzeBranch` with `AllowModify` set to true. The timeline is as
follows:
1. `MachineBlockPlacement::maybeTailDuplicateBlock` calls
`TailDup.shouldTailDuplicate` on its argument, which in turn calls
`analyzeBranch` with `AllowModify` set to true.
2. This `analyzeBranch` call edits the terminator sequence of the block
based on the physical layout of the machine function, turning an
unanalyzable non-fallthrough block to a unanalyzable fallthrough
block. Normally MBP bails out of rearranging such blocks, but this
block was unanalyzable non-fallthrough (and thus rearrangeable) the
first time MBP looked at it, and so it goes ahead and decides where
it should be placed in the function.
3. When placing this block MBP fails to analyze and thus update the
block in keeping with the new physical layout.
Concretely, before (1) we have something like:
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL1 >
jmp LBL1
LBL1:
... A
LBL2:
... B
```
In (2), analyze branch simplifies this to
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL2 >
;; jmp LBL1 <- redundant jump removed
LBL1:
... A
LBL2:
... B
```
In (3), MachineBlockPlacement goes ahead with its plan of putting LBL2
after the first block since that is profitable.
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL2 >
;; jmp LBL1 <- redundant jump
LBL2:
... B
LBL1:
... A
```
and the program now has incorrect behavior (we no longer fall-through
from `LBL0` to `LBL1`) because MBP can no longer edit LBL0.
There are several possible solutions, but I went with removing the teeth
off of the `analyzeBranch` calls in TailDuplicator. That makes thinking
about the result of these calls easier, and breaks nothing in the lit
test suite.
I've also added some bookkeeping to the MachineBlockPlacement pass and
used that to write an assert that would have caught this.
Reviewers: chandlerc, gberry, MatzeB, iteratee
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27783
llvm-svn: 289764
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
The existing code hard-coded a limit of 20 instructions for duplication
when a block ended with an indirect branch. Extract this as an option.
No functional change intended.
llvm-svn: 280125
MMI must match the function passed, and MF has a handle on MMI. Use that instead
of accepting it as separate argument. No Functional Change.
llvm-svn: 279701
Save the function in the class, and then don't pass it around. This reduces the
number of parameters and makes calls to member functions simpler.
No Functional Change.
llvm-svn: 279700
This will allow tail duplication and tail merging during layout to have a
shared threshold to make sure that they don't overlap. No observable change
intended.
llvm-svn: 278981
If AnalyzeBranch can't analyze a block and it is possible to
fallthrough, then duplicating the block doesn't make sense, as only one
block can be the layout predecessor for the un-analyzable fallthrough.
Submitted wit a test case, but NOTE: the test case doesn't currently
fail. However, the test case fails with D20505 and would have saved me
some time debugging.
llvm-svn: 278866
If AnalyzeBranch can't analyze a block and it is possible to
fallthrough, then duplicating the block doesn't make sense, as only one
block can be the layout predecessor for the un-analyzable fallthrough.
Submitted wit a test case, but NOTE: the test case doesn't currently
fail. However, the test case fails with D20505 and would have saved me
some time debugging.
llvm-svn: 278288
Add a check that the layout predecessor of a block is an actual CFG
predecssor of the block as well. No current code fails this check, but
upcoming patches can trigger this, and it makes sense to separate it
out.
llvm-svn: 276066
canTailDuplicate accepts two blocks and returns true if the first can be
duplicated into the second successfully. Use this function to
encapsulate the heuristic.
llvm-svn: 276062
This logic was introduced in r157663 and does not make any sense to me.
The motivating example in rdar://11538365 looks like this:
This is the tail:
BB#16: derived from LLVM BB %if.end68
Live Ins: %R0 %R4 %R5
Predecessors according to CFG: BB#15 BB#5
tBLXi pred:14, pred:%noreg, <ga:@CFRelease>, %R0<kill>, <regmask>, %LR<imp-def,dead>, %SP<imp-use>, %SP<imp-def>
t2B <BB#20>, pred:14, pred:%noreg
Successors according to CFG: BB#20
This is the predBB:
BB#5:
Live Ins: %R5
Predecessors according to CFG: BB#4
%R4<def> = t2MOVi 0, pred:14, pred:%noreg, opt:%noreg
t2B <BB#16>, pred:14, pred:%noreg
Successors according to CFG: BB#16
However this is invalid machine code to begin with, if %R0 is live-in to
BB#16 then it must be live-in to BB#5 as well if BB#5 does not define
it. We should not need logic to retroactively fix broken machine code
and in fact the example from r157663 passes cleanly with the code
removed and I do not see any (newly) failing tests with the machine
verifier enabled.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22031
llvm-svn: 274655
This is mostly a mechanical change to make TargetInstrInfo API take
MachineInstr& (instead of MachineInstr* or MachineBasicBlock::iterator)
when the argument is expected to be a valid MachineInstr. This is a
general API improvement.
Although it would be possible to do this one function at a time, that
would demand a quadratic amount of churn since many of these functions
call each other. Instead I've done everything as a block and just
updated what was necessary.
This is mostly mechanical fixes: adding and removing `*` and `&`
operators. The only non-mechanical change is to split
ARMBaseInstrInfo::getOperandLatencyImpl out from
ARMBaseInstrInfo::getOperandLatency. Previously, the latter took a
`MachineInstr*` which it updated to the instruction bundle leader; now,
the latter calls the former either with the same `MachineInstr&` or the
bundle leader.
As a side effect, this removes a bunch of MachineInstr* to
MachineBasicBlock::iterator implicit conversions, a necessary step
toward fixing PR26753.
Note: I updated WebAssembly, Lanai, and AVR (despite being
off-by-default) since it turned out to be easy. I couldn't run tests
for AVR since llc doesn't link with it turned on.
llvm-svn: 274189
Summary:
Split NumInstrDups statistic into separate added/removed counts to avoid
negative stat being printed as unsigned.
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21335
llvm-svn: 272700
This used to be free, copying and moving DebugLocs became expensive
after the metadata rewrite. Passing by reference eliminates a ton of
track/untrack operations. No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 272512
When a block is tail-duplicated, the PHI nodes from that block are
replaced with appropriate COPY instructions. When those PHI nodes
contained use operands with subregisters, the subregisters were
dropped from the COPY instructions, resulting in incorrect code.
Keep track of the subregister information and use this information
when remapping instructions from the duplicated block.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19337
llvm-svn: 267583
The call to processPHI already erased MI from its parent, so MI isn't
even valid here, making the getParent() call a use-after-free in
addition to being redundant.
Found by ASan with the ArrayRecycler changes in llvm.org/pr26808.
llvm-svn: 266008
This is in preparation for tail duplication during block placement. See D18226.
This needs to be a utility class for 2 reasons. No passes may run after block
placement, and also, tail-duplication affects subsequent layout decisions, so
it must be interleaved with placement, and can't be separated out into its own
pass. The original pass is still useful, and now runs by delegating to the
utility class.
llvm-svn: 265842
Sanjoy Das