ComputeValueKnownInPredecessors has a "visited" set to prevent infinite
loops, since a value can be visited more than once. However, the
implementation didn't prevent the algorithm from taking exponential
time. Instead of removing elements from the RecursionSet one at a time,
we should keep around the whole set until
ComputeValueKnownInPredecessors finishes, then discard it.
The testcase is synthetic because I was having trouble effectively
reducing the original. But it's basically the same idea.
Instead of failing, we could theoretically cache the result instead.
But I don't think it would help substantially in practice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54239
llvm-svn: 346562
As K has to dominate I, IIUC I's range metadata must be a subset of
K's. After Eli's recent clarification to the LangRef, loading a value
outside of the range is undefined behavior.
Therefore if I's range contains elements outside of K's range and we would load
one such value, K would cause undefined behavior.
In cases like hoisting/sinking, we still want the most generic range
over all code paths to/from the hoist/sink point. As suggested in the
patches related to D47339, I will refactor the handling of those
scenarios and try to decouple it from this function as follow up, once
we switched to a similar handling of metadata in most of
combineMetadata.
I updated some tests checking mostly the merging of metadata to keep the
metadata of to dominating load. The most interesting one is probably test8 in
test/Transforms/JumpThreading/thread-loads.ll. It contained a comment
about the alias metadata preventing us to eliminate the branch, but it
seem like the actual problem currently is that we merge the ranges of
both loads and cannot eliminate the icmp afterwards. With this patch, we
manage to eliminate the icmp, as the range of the first load excludes 8.
Reviewers: efriedma, nlopes, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51629
llvm-svn: 345456
This patch makes the DoesKMove argument non-optional, to force people
to think about it. Most cases where it is false are either code hoisting
or code sinking, where we pick one instruction from a set of
equal instructions among different code paths.
Reviewers: dberlin, nlopes, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47475
llvm-svn: 340606
Summary:
When recording uses we need to rewrite after cloning a loop we need to
check if the use is not dominated by the original def. The initial
assumption was that the cloned basic block will introduce a new path and
thus the original def will only dominate the use if they are in the same
BB, but as the reproducer from PR37745 shows it's not always the case.
This fixes PR37745.
Reviewers: haicheng, Ka-Ka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48111
llvm-svn: 335675
phi is on lhs of a comparison op.
For the following testcase,
L1:
%t0 = add i32 %m, 7
%t3 = icmp eq i32* %t2, null
br i1 %t3, label %L3, label %L2
L2:
%t4 = load i32, i32* %t2, align 4
br label %L3
L3:
%t5 = phi i32 [ %t0, %L1 ], [ %t4, %L2 ]
%t6 = icmp eq i32 %t0, %t5
br i1 %t6, label %L4, label %L5
We know if we go through the path L1 --> L3, %t6 should always be true. However
currently, if the rhs of the eq comparison is phi, JumpThreading fails to
evaluate %t6 to true. And we know that Instcombine cannot guarantee always
canonicalizing phi to the left hand side of the comparison operation according
to the operand priority comparison mechanism in instcombine. The patch handles
the case when rhs of the comparison op is a phi.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46275
llvm-svn: 331266
Reapply the patches with a fix. Thanks Ilya and Hans for the reproducer!
This reverts commit r330416.
The issue was that removing predecessors invalidated uses that we stored
for rewrite. The fix is to finish manipulating with CFG before we select
uses for rewrite.
llvm-svn: 330431
Revert r330413: "[SSAUpdaterBulk] Use SmallVector instead of DenseMap for storing rewrites."
Revert r330403 "Reapply "[PR16756] Use SSAUpdaterBulk in JumpThreading." one more time."
r330403 commit seems to crash clang during our integrate while doing PGO build with the following stacktrace:
#2 llvm::SSAUpdaterBulk::RewriteAllUses(llvm::DominatorTree*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PHINode*>*)
#3 llvm::JumpThreadingPass::ThreadEdge(llvm::BasicBlock*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::BasicBlock*> const&, llvm::BasicBlock*)
#4 llvm::JumpThreadingPass::ProcessThreadableEdges(llvm::Value*, llvm::BasicBlock*, llvm::jumpthreading::ConstantPreference, llvm::Instruction*)
#5 llvm::JumpThreadingPass::ProcessBlock(llvm::BasicBlock*)
The crash happens while compiling 'lib/Analysis/CallGraph.cpp'.
r3340413 is reverted due to conflicting changes.
llvm-svn: 330416
Hopefully, changing set to vector removes nondeterminism detected by
some bots, or the new assert will catch something.
This reverts commit r330180.
llvm-svn: 330403
One more, hopefully the last, bug is fixed: when forming UsesToRewrite
we should ignore phi operands coming from edges that we want to delete.
This reverts r329910.
llvm-svn: 330175
In r312664 (D36404), JumpThreading stopped threading edges into
loop headers. Unfortunately, I observed a significant performance
regression as a result of this change. Upon further investigation,
the problematic pattern looked something like this (after
many high level optimizations):
while (true) {
bool cond = ...;
if (!cond) {
<body>
}
if (cond)
break;
}
Now, naturally we want jump threading to essentially eliminate the
second if check and hook up the edges appropriately. However, the
above mentioned change, prevented it from doing this because it would
have to thread an edge into the loop header.
Upon further investigation, what is happening is that since both branches
are threadable, JumpThreading picks one of them at arbitrarily. In my
case, because of the way that the IR ended up, it tended to pick
the one to the loop header, bailing out immediately after. However,
if it had picked the one to the exit block, everything would have
worked out fine (because the only remaining branch would then be folded,
not thraded which is acceptable).
Thus, to fix this problem, we can simply eliminate loop headers from
consideration as possible threading targets earlier, to make sure that
if there are multiple eligible branches, we can still thread one of
the ones that don't target a loop header.
Patch by Keno Fischer!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42260
llvm-svn: 328798
JumpThreading iterates over F until the IR quiesces. Transforming
unreachable BBs increases compile time and it is also possible to
never stabilize causing JumpThreading to hang. An older attempt at
fixing this problem was D3991 where removeUnreachableBlocks(F)
was called before JumpThreading began. This has a few drawbacks:
* expensive - the routine attempts to fix up the IR to identify
additional BBs that can be removed along with unreachable BBs.
* aggressive - does not identify and preserve the shape of the IR.
At a minimum it does not preserve loop hierarchies.
* invasive - altering reachable blocks it may disrupt IR shapes
that could have otherwise been JumpThreaded.
This patch avoids removeUnreachableBlocks(F) and instead tracks
unreachable BBs in a SmallPtrSet using DominatorTree to validate the
initial state of all BBs. We then rely on subsequent passes to identify
and remove these unreachable blocks from F.
Reviewers: dberlin, sebpop, kuhar, dinesh.d
Reviewed by: sebpop, kuhar
Subscribers: hiraditya, uabelho, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44177
llvm-svn: 327713
Summary:
It is possible for LVI to encounter instructions that are not in valid
SSA form and reference themselves. One example is the following:
%tmp4 = and i1 %tmp4, undef
Before this patch LVI would recurse until running out of stack memory
and crashed. This patch marks these self-referential instructions as
Overdefined and aborts analysis on the instruction.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33357
Reviewers: craig.topper, anna, efriedma, dberlin, sebpop, kuhar
Reviewed by: dberlin
Subscribers: uabelho, spatel, a.elovikov, fhahn, eli.friedman, mzolotukhin, spop, evandro, davide, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34135
llvm-svn: 327432
In r263618, JumpThreading learned to look trough simple cast instructions, but
only if the source of those cast instructions was a phi/cmp i1 (in an effort to
limit compile time effects). I think this condition is too restrictive. For
switches with limited value range, InstCombine will readily introduce an extra
trunc instruction to a smaller integer type (e.g. from i8 to i2), leaving us in
the somewhat perverse situation that jump-threading would work before running
instcombine, but not after. Since instcombine produces this pattern, I think we
need to consider it canonical and support it in JumpThreading. In general,
for limiting recursion, I think the existing restriction to phi and cmp nodes
should be sufficient to avoid looking through unprofitable chains of
instructions.
Patch by Keno Fischer!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42262
llvm-svn: 327150
Summary:
The LazyValueInfo pass caches a copy of the DominatorTree when available.
Whenever there are pending DominatorTree updates within JumpThreading's
DeferredDominance object we cannot use the cached DT for LVI analysis.
This commit adds the new methods enableDT() and disableDT() to LVI.
JumpThreading also sets the appropriate usage model before calling LVI
analysis methods.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36133
Reviewers: sebpop, dberlin, kuhar
Reviewed by: sebpop, kuhar
Subscribers: uabelho, llvm-commits, aprantl, hiraditya, a.elovikov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42717
llvm-svn: 325356
Summary:
This patch attempts to fix the DomTree incremental insertion bug found here [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35969 | PR35969 ]] .
When performing an insertion into a piece of unreachable CFG, we may find the same not at different levels. When this happens, the node can turn out to be affected when we find it starting from a node with a lower level in the tree. The level at which we start visitation affects if we consider a node affected or not.
This patch tracks the lowest level at which each node was visited during insertion and allows it to be visited multiple times, if it can cause it to be considered affected.
Reviewers: brzycki, davide, dberlin, grosser
Reviewed By: brzycki
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42231
llvm-svn: 322993
Summary:
See D37528 for a previous (non-deferred) version of this
patch and its description.
Preserves dominance in a deferred manner using a new class
DeferredDominance. This reduces the performance impact of
updating the DominatorTree at every edge insertion and
deletion. A user may call DDT->flush() within JumpThreading
for an up-to-date DT. This patch currently has one flush()
at the end of runImpl() to ensure DT is preserved across
the pass.
LVI is also preserved to help subsequent passes such as
CorrelatedValuePropagation. LVI is simpler to maintain and
is done immediately (not deferred). The code to perform the
preversation was minimally altered and simply marked as
preserved for the PassManager to be informed.
This extends the analysis available to JumpThreading for
future enhancements such as threading across loop headers.
Reviewers: dberlin, kuhar, sebpop
Reviewed By: kuhar, sebpop
Subscribers: mgorny, dmgreen, kuba, rnk, rsmith, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40146
llvm-svn: 322401
Summary:
See D37528 for a previous (non-deferred) version of this
patch and its description.
Preserves dominance in a deferred manner using a new class
DeferredDominance. This reduces the performance impact of
updating the DominatorTree at every edge insertion and
deletion. A user may call DDT->flush() within JumpThreading
for an up-to-date DT. This patch currently has one flush()
at the end of runImpl() to ensure DT is preserved across
the pass.
LVI is also preserved to help subsequent passes such as
CorrelatedValuePropagation. LVI is simpler to maintain and
is done immediately (not deferred). The code to perfom the
preversation was minimally altered and was simply marked
as preserved for the PassManager to be informed.
This extends the analysis available to JumpThreading for
future enhancements. One example is loop boundary threading.
Reviewers: dberlin, kuhar, sebpop
Reviewed By: kuhar, sebpop
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40146
llvm-svn: 321825
PRE in JumpThreading should not be able to hoist copy of non-speculable loads across
instructions that don't always transfer execution to their successors, otherwise they may
introduce an unsafe load which otherwise would not be executed.
The same problem for GVN was fixed as rL316975.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40347
llvm-svn: 321063
Summary:
See D37528 for a previous (non-deferred) version of this
patch and its description.
Preserves dominance in a deferred manner using a new class
DeferredDominance. This reduces the performance impact of
updating the DominatorTree at every edge insertion and
deletion. A user may call DDT->flush() within JumpThreading
for an up-to-date DT. This patch currently has one flush()
at the end of runImpl() to ensure DT is preserved across
the pass.
LVI is also preserved to help subsequent passes such as
CorrelatedValuePropagation. LVI is simpler to maintain and
is done immediately (not deferred). The code to perfom the
preversation was minimally altered and was simply marked
as preserved for the PassManager to be informed.
This extends the analysis available to JumpThreading for
future enhancements. One example is loop boundary threading.
Reviewers: dberlin, kuhar, sebpop
Reviewed By: kuhar, sebpop
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40146
llvm-svn: 320612
Consider this type of a loop:
for (...) {
...
if (...) continue;
...
}
Normally, the "continue" would branch to the loop control code that
checks whether the loop should continue iterating and which contains
the (often) unique loop latch branch. In certain cases jump threading
can "thread" the inner branch directly to the loop header, creating
a second loop latch. Loop canonicalization would then transform this
loop into a loop nest. The problem with this is that in such a loop
nest neither loop is countable even if the original loop was. This
may inhibit subsequent loop optimizations and be detrimental to
performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36404
llvm-svn: 312664
JumpThreading claims to preserve LVI, but it doesn't preserve
the analyses which LVI holds a reference to (e.g. the Dominator).
In the current pass manager infrastructure, after JT runs, the
PM frees these analyses (including DominatorTree) but preserves
LVI.
CorrelatedValuePropagation runs immediately after and queries
a corrupted domtree, causing weird miscompiles.
This commit disables the preservation of LVI for the time being.
Eventually, we should either move LVI to a proper dependency
tracking mechanism (i.e. an analyses shouldn't hold references
to other analyses and compute them on demand if needed), or
we should teach all the passes preserving LVI to preserve the
analyses LVI depends on.
The new pass manager has a mechanism to invalidate LVI in case
one of the analyses it depends on becomes invalid, so this problem
shouldn't exist (at least not in this immediate form), but handling
of analyses holding references is still a very delicate subject.
Fixes PR33917 (and rustc).
llvm-svn: 309355
Summary:
When simplifying unconditional branches from empty blocks, we pre-test if the
BB belongs to a set of loop headers and keep the block to prevent passes from
destroying canonical loop structure. However, the current algorithm fails if
the destination of the branch is a loop header. Especially when such a loop's
latch block is folded into loop header it results in additional backedges and
LoopSimplify turns it into a nested loop which prevent later optimizations
from being applied (e.g., loop unrolling and loop interleaving).
This patch augments the existing algorithm by further checking if the
destination of the branch belongs to a set of loop headers and defer
eliminating it if yes to LateSimplifyCFG.
Fixes PR33605: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33605
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: ashutosh.nema, gberry, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35411
llvm-svn: 308422
Add the following pattern to TryToUnfoldSelectInCurrBB()
bb:
%p = phi [0, %bb1], [1, %bb2], [0, %bb3], [1, %bb4], ...
%c = cmp %p, 0
%s = select %c, trueval, falseval
The Select in the above pattern will be unfolded and then jump-threaded. The
current implementation does not allow CMP in the middle of PHI and Select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34762
llvm-svn: 308050
This patch builds over https://reviews.llvm.org/rL303349 and replaces
the use of the condition only if it is safe to do so.
We should not blindly RAUW the condition if experimental.guard or assume
is a use of that
condition. This is because LVI may have used the guard/assume to
identify the
value of the condition, and RUAWing will fold the guard/assume and uses
before the guards/assumes.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong, mkazantsev
Reviewed by: sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
llvm-svn: 303633
Summary:
We have a bug when RAUWing the condition if experimental.guard or assumes is a use of that
condition. This is because LazyValueInfo may have used the guards/assumes to identify the
value of the condition at the end of the block. RAUW replaces the uses
at the guard/assume as well as uses before the guard/assume. Both of
these are incorrect.
For now, disable RAUW for conditions and fix the logic as a next
step: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33257
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames, trentxintong
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33279
llvm-svn: 303349
We may not be able to rewrite indirect branch target, but we also want to take it into
account when folding, i.e. if it and all its successor's predecessors go to the same
destination, we can fold, i.e. no need to thread.
llvm-svn: 301816
Summary: [JumpThread] Do RAUW in case Cond folds to a constant in the CFG
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32407
llvm-svn: 301804
Summary:
In case all predecessor go to a single successor of current BB. We want to fold (not thread).
I failed to update the phi nodes properly in the last patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300657.
Phi nodes values are per predecessor in LLVM.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32400
llvm-svn: 301139
Summary: In case all predecessor go to a single successor of current BB. We want to fold (not thread).
Reviewers: efriedma, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: dberlin, majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30869
llvm-svn: 300657
Summary:
In case we are loading on a phi-load in SimplifyPartiallyRedundantLoad.
Try to phi translate it into incoming values in the predecessors before
we search for available loads.
This needs https://reviews.llvm.org/D30524
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy, efriedma, dberlin, rengolin
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: junbuml, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30543
llvm-svn: 298217
Summary: Use AA when scanning to find an available load value.
Reviewers: rengolin, mcrosier, hfinkel, trentxintong, dberlin
Reviewed By: rengolin, dberlin
Subscribers: aemerson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30352
llvm-svn: 297284
Summary:
JumpThreading for guards feature has been reverted at https://reviews.llvm.org/rL295200
due to the following problem: the feature used the following algorithm for detection of
diamond patters:
1. Find a block with 2 predecessors;
2. Check that these blocks have a common single parent;
3. Check that the parent's terminator is a branch instruction.
The problem is that these checks are insufficient. They may pass for a non-diamond
construction in case if those two predecessors are actually the same block. This may
happen if parent's terminator is a br (either conditional or unconditional) to a block
that ends with "switch" instruction with exactly two branches going to one block.
This patch re-enables the JumpThreading for guards and fixes this issue by adding the
check that those found predecessors are actually different blocks. This guarantees that
parent's terminator is a conditional branch with exactly 2 different successors, which
is now ensured by assertions. It also adds two more tests for this situation (with parent's
terminator being a conditional and an unconditional branch).
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: anna, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30036
llvm-svn: 295410
Summary:
This patch allows JumpThreading also thread through guards.
Virtually, guard(cond) is equivalent to the following construction:
if (cond) { do something } else {deoptimize}
Yet it is not explicitly converted into IFs before lowering.
This patch enables early threading through guards in simple cases.
Currently it covers the following situation:
if (cond1) {
// code A
} else {
// code B
}
// code C
guard(cond2)
// code D
If there is implication cond1 => cond2 or !cond1 => cond2, we can transform
this construction into the following:
if (cond1) {
// code A
// code C
} else {
// code B
// code C
guard(cond2)
}
// code D
Thus, removing the guard from one of execution branches.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29620
llvm-svn: 294617
Summary: While scanning predecessors to find an available loaded value, if the predecessor has a single predecessor, we can continue scanning through the single predecessor.
Reviewers: mcrosier, rengolin, reames, davidxl, haicheng
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29200
llvm-svn: 293896
invalidation of deleted functions in GlobalDCE.
This was always testing a bug really triggered in GlobalDCE. Right now
we have analyses with asserting value handles into IR. As long as those
remain, when *deleting* an IR unit, we cannot wait for the normal
invalidation scheme to kick in even though it was designed to work
correctly in the face of these kinds of deletions. Instead, the pass
needs to directly handle invalidating the analysis results pointing at
that IR unit.
I've tought the Inliner about this and this patch teaches GlobalDCE.
This will handle the asserting VH case in the existing test as well as
other issues of the same fundamental variety. I've moved the test into
the GlobalDCE directory and added a comment explaining what is going on.
Note that we cannot simply require LVI here because LVI is too lazy.
llvm-svn: 292773
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
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
Eli Friedman