This is a resubmittion of 263158 change.
This patch fixes the problem which occurs when loop-vectorize tries to use @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsic for a non-default addrspace pointer. It fails with "Calling a function with a bad signature!" assertion in CallInst constructor because it tries to pass a non-default addrspace pointer to the pointer argument which has default addrspace.
The fix is to add pointer type as another overloaded type to @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsics.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17270
llvm-svn: 266086
Summary:
This change teaches SCEV to see reduce `(extractvalue
0 (op.with.overflow X Y))` into `op X Y` (with a no-wrap tag if
possible).
Reviewers: atrick, regehr
Subscribers: mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18684
llvm-svn: 265912
This re-commits r265535 which was reverted in r265541 because it
broke the windows bots. The problem was that we had a PointerIntPair
which took a pointer to a struct allocated with new. The problem
was that new doesn't provide sufficient alignment guarantees.
This pattern was already present before r265535 and it just happened
to work. To fix this, we now separate the PointerToIntPair from the
ExitNotTakenInfo struct into a pointer and a bool.
Original commit message:
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265786
Summary:
Fixes PR26774.
If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation"
section and jump directly to "This patch".
Motivation:
I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the
optimizer has license to discard. So transforming:
```
void f(unsigned x) {
unsigned t = 5 / x;
(void)t;
}
```
to
```
void f(unsigned x) { }
```
is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined
else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard
undefined behavior).
Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done
by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also
involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is
`undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by
definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef`
value).
Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume
that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the
behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same
function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat
linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a
differently optimized version of the same source level function.
For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is
actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in
it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original
function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and
at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with
a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two
atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only
if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine
this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the
comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a
refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the
unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since
the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the
unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate
transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function
does not write to memory.
Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking
differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic
examples that involved neither.
This patch:
This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as
`GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type
allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at
link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see
such a function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634
llvm-svn: 265762
This makes it possible to distinguish between mesa shaders
and other kernels even in the presence of compute shaders.
Patch By: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18559
llvm-svn: 265589
Summary:
When the backedge taken codition is computed from an icmp, SCEV can
deduce the backedge taken count only if one of the sides of the icmp
is an AddRecExpr. However, due to sign/zero extensions, we sometimes
end up with something that is not an AddRecExpr.
However, we can use SCEV predicates to produce a 'guarded' expression.
This change adds a method to SCEV to get this expression, and the
SCEV predicate associated with it.
In HowManyGreaterThans and HowManyLessThans we will now add a SCEV
predicate associated with the guarded backedge taken count when the
analyzed SCEV expression is not an AddRecExpr. Note that we only do
this as an alternative to returning a 'CouldNotCompute'.
We use new feature in Loop Access Analysis and LoopVectorize to analyze
and transform more loops.
Reviewers: anemet, mzolotukhin, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: flyingforyou, mcrosier, atrick, mssimpso, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17201
llvm-svn: 265535
Prior to this patch, CFLAA wouldn't tag arguments/globals properly if
it didn't find any "interesting" edges on them. This means that, if all
you do is store constants to a global or argument, we would never
actually treat it as a global/argument.
Test case:
define void @foo(i32* %A, i32* %B) #0 {
entry:
store i32 0, i32* %A, align 4
store i32 0, i32* %B, align 4
ret void
}
CFLAA would say that %A can't alias %B, because neither pointer was
used in an interesting way. This patch makes us note whether something
is an argument, global, ... regardless of how interesting CFLAA thinks
its uses are.
(For the record, using a value in an interesting way means loading
from it, using it in a GEP, ...)
llvm-svn: 265474
A seg-fault occurs due to a reference of a null pointer, which is
the value returned by getConstantPart. This function returns
null if the constant part is not found. The code that calls this
function needs to check for the null return value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18718
llvm-svn: 265319
PPC has a vector popcount, this lets the vectorizer use the correct cost
for it. Tweak X86 test to use an intrinsic that's actually scalarized (we
have a somewhat efficient lowering for vector popcount using SSE, the
cost model finds that now).
llvm-svn: 265005
We used to only allow SCEVAddRecExpr for pointer expressions in order to
be able to compute the bounds. However this is also trivially possible
for loop-invariant addresses (scUnknown) since then the bounds are the
address itself.
Interestingly, we used allow this for the special case when the
loop-invariant address happens to also be an SCEVAddRecExpr (in an outer
loop).
There are a couple more loops that are vectorized in SPEC after this.
My guess is that the main reason we don't see more because for example a
loop-invariant load is vectorized into a splat vector with several
vector-inserts. This is likely to make the vectorization unprofitable.
I.e. we don't notice that a later LICM will move all of this out of the
loop so the cost estimate should really be 0.
llvm-svn: 264243
Summary:
These intrinsics expose the BUFFER_ATOMIC_* instructions and will be used
by Mesa to implement atomics with buffer semantics. The intrinsic interface
matches that of buffer.load.format and buffer.store.format, except that the
GLC bit is not exposed (it is automatically deduced based on whether the
return value is used).
The change of hasSideEffects is required for TableGen to accept the pattern
that matches the intrinsic.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, arsenm
Subscribers: arsenm, rivanvx, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18151
llvm-svn: 263791
Summary:
As explained by the comment, threads will typically see different values
returned by atomic instructions even if the arguments are equal.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18156
llvm-svn: 263719
Summary:
When multiple threads perform an atomic op with the same arguments, they
will usually see different return values.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18101
llvm-svn: 263440
This patch fixes the problem which occurs when loop-vectorize tries to use @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsic for a non-default addrspace pointer. It fails with "Calling a function with a bad signature!" assertion in CallInst constructor because it tries to pass a non-default addrspace pointer to the pointer argument which has default addrspace.
The fix is to add pointer type as another overloaded type to @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsics.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17270
llvm-svn: 263158
actually finish wiring up the old call graph.
There were bugs in the old call graph that hadn't been caught because it
wasn't being tested. It wasn't being tested because it wasn't in the
pipeline system and we didn't have a printing pass to run in tests. This
fixes all of that.
As for why I'm still keeping the old call graph alive its so that I can
port GlobalsAA to the new pass manager with out forking it to work with
the lazy call graph. That's clearly the right eventual design, but it
seems pragmatic to defer that until its necessary. The old call graph
works just fine for GlobalsAA.
llvm-svn: 263104
As part of r251146 InstCombine was extended to call computeKnownBits on
every value in the function to determine whether it happens to be
constant. This increases typical compiletime by 1-3% (5% in irgen+opt
time) in my measurements. On the other hand this case did not trigger
once in the whole llvm-testsuite.
This patch introduces the notion of ExpensiveCombines which are only
enabled for OptLevel > 2. I removed the check in InstructionSimplify as
that is called from various places where the OptLevel is not known but
given the rarity of the situation I think a check in InstCombine is
enough.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16835
llvm-svn: 263047
Building on the previous change, this generalizes
ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work with
{Ext(C?A:B)+k0,+,Ext(C?A:B)+k1} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation, and k0 and k1 are constants.
llvm-svn: 262979
This change generalizes ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work
with {Ext(C?A:B),+,Ext(C?A:B)} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation.
llvm-svn: 262978
Summary:
This testcase had me confused. It made me believe that you can use
alias scopes and alias scopes list interchangeably with alias.scope and
noalias. Both langref and the other testcase use scope lists so I went
looking.
Turns out using scope directly only happens to work by chance. When
ScopedNoAliasAAResult::mayAliasInScopes traverses this as a scope list:
!1 = !{!1, !0, !"some scope"}
, the first entry is in fact a scope but only because the scope is
happened to be defined self-referentially to make it unique globally.
The remaining elements in the tuple (!0, !"some scope") are considered
as scopes but AliasScopeNode::getDomain will just bail on those without
any error.
This change avoids this ambiguity in the test but I've also been
wondering if we should issue some sort of a diagnostics.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, hfinkel
Subscribers: mssimpso, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16670
llvm-svn: 262841
This experiment was originally about trying to use facts implied dominating conditions to infer more precise known bits. While the compile time was found to be acceptable on several large code bases, we never found sufficiently profitable examples to justify turning on the code by default. Given this, it's time to abandon the experiment.
Several folks have commented that they've found this useful for experimentation, but nothing has come of those experiments. Given how easy the patch is to apply, there's no reason to leave the code in tree.
For anyone interested in further investigation in this area, I recommend finding the summary email I sent on one of the original review threads. In particular, I now believe the use-list based approach is strictly worse than the dom-tree-walking approach.
llvm-svn: 262646
After r262438 we can have provably positive NSW SCEV expressions whose
zero extensions cannot be simplified (since r262438 makes SCEV better at
computing constant ranges). This means demoting sexts of positive add
recurrences eagerly can result in an unsimplified zero extension where
we could have had a simplified sign extension. This change fixes the
issue by teaching SCEV to demote sext of a positive SCEV expression to a
zext only if the sext could not be simplified.
llvm-svn: 262638
Have ScalarEvolution::getRange re-consider cases like "{C?A:B,+,C?P:Q}"
by factoring out "C" and computing RangeOf{A,+,P} union RangeOf({B,+,Q})
instead.
The latter can be easier to compute precisely in cases like
"{C?0:N,+,C?1:-1}" N is the backedge taken count of the loop; since in
such cases the latter form simplifies to [0,N+1) union [0,N+1).
llvm-svn: 262438
it to actually test the new pass manager AA wiring.
This patch was extracted from the (somewhat too large) D12357 and
rebosed on top of the slightly different design of the new pass manager
AA wiring that I just landed. With this we can start testing the AA in
a thorough way with the new pass manager.
Some minor cleanups to the code in the pass was necessitated here, but
otherwise it is a very minimal change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17372
llvm-svn: 261403
Artur Pilipenko