Summary:
Add a flag to the FunctionToLoopAdaptor that allows enabling MemorySSA only for the loop pass managers that are known to preserve it.
If an LPM is known to have only loop transforms that *all* preserve MemorySSA, then use MemorySSA if `EnableMSSALoopDependency` is set.
If an LPM has loop passes that do not preserve MemorySSA, then the flag passed is `false`, regardless of the value of `EnableMSSALoopDependency`.
When using a custom loop pass pipeline via `passes=...`, use keyword `loop` vs `loop-mssa` to use MemorySSA in that LPM. If a loop that does not preserve MemorySSA is added while using the `loop-mssa` keyword, that's an error.
Add the new `loop-mssa` keyword to a few tests where a difference occurs when enabling MemorySSA.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66376
llvm-svn: 369548
Summary:
The getClobberingMemoryAccess API checks for clobbering accesses in a loop by walking the backedge. This may check if a memory access is being
clobbered by the loop in a previous iteration, depending how smart AA got over the course of the updates in MemorySSA (it does not occur when built from scratch).
If no clobbering access is found inside the loop, it will optimize to an access outside the loop. This however does not mean that access is safe to sink.
Given:
```
for i
load a[i]
store a[i]
```
The access corresponding to the load can be optimized to outside the loop, and the load can be hoisted. But it is incorrect to sink it.
In order to sink the load, we'd need to check no Def clobbers the Use in the same iteration. With this patch we currently restrict sinking to either
Defs not existing in the loop, or Defs preceding the load in the same block. An easy extension is to ensure the load (Use) post-dominates all Defs.
Caught by PR42294.
This issue also shed light on the converse problem: hoisting stores in this same scenario would be illegal. With this patch we restrict
hoisting of stores to the case when their corresponding Defs are dominating all Uses in the loop.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63582
llvm-svn: 363982
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
If there is no clobbering access for a store inside the loop, that store
can only be hoisted if there are no interfearing loads.
A more general verification introduced here: there are no loads that are
not optimized to an access outside the loop.
Addresses PR40586.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57967
llvm-svn: 353734
Teach LICM to hoist stores out of loops when the store writes to a location otherwise unused in the loop, writes a value which is invariant, and is guaranteed to execute if the loop is entered.
Worth noting is that this transformation is partially overlapping with the existing promotion transformation. Reasons this is worthwhile anyway include:
* For multi-exit loops, this doesn't require duplication of the store.
* It kicks in for case where we can't prove we exit through a normal exit (i.e. we may throw), but can prove the store executes before that possible side exit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50925
llvm-svn: 340974
Alina Sbirlea