We use constant folding to see if an intrinsic evaluates to the same value as a
constant that we know. If we don't take the undefinedness into account we get a
value that doesn't match the actual implementation, and miscompiled code.
This was uncovered by Chandler's simplifycfg changes.
llvm-svn: 173356
Okay, here's how to reproduce the problem:
1) Build a Release (or Release+Asserts) version of clang in the normal way.
2) Using the clang & clang++ binaries from (1), build a Release (or
Release+Asserts) version of the same sources, but this time enable LTO ---
specify the `-flto' flag on the command line.
3) Run the ARC migrator tests:
$ arcmt-test --args -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 -fsyntax-only -x objective-c++ ./src/tools/clang/test/ARCMT/cxx-rewrite.mm
You'll see that the output isn't correct (the whitespace is off).
The mis-compile is in the function `RewriteBuffer::RemoveText' in the
clang/lib/Rewrite/Core/Rewriter.cpp file. When that function and RewriteRope.cpp
are compiled with LTO and the `arcmt-test' executable is regenerated, you'll see
the error. When those files are not LTO'ed, then the output of the `arcmt-test'
is fine.
It is *really* hard to get a testcase out of this. I'll file a PR with what I
have currently.
--- Reverse-merging r172363 into '.':
U include/llvm/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.h
U lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp
--- Reverse-merging r171325 into '.':
U test/Transforms/InstCombine/objsize.ll
G include/llvm/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.h
G lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp
llvm-svn: 172756
some optimization opportunities (in the enclosing supper-expressions).
rule 1. (-0.0 - X ) * Y => -0.0 - (X * Y)
if expression "-0.0 - X" has only one reference.
rule 2. (0.0 - X ) * Y => -0.0 - (X * Y)
if expression "0.0 - X" has only one reference, and
the instruction is marked "noSignedZero".
2. Eliminate negation (The compiler was already able to handle these
opt if the 0.0s are replaced with -0.0.)
rule 3: (0.0 - X) * (0.0 - Y) => X * Y
rule 4: (0.0 - X) * C => X * -C
if the expr is flagged "noSignedZero".
3.
Rule 5: (X*Y) * X => (X*X) * Y
if X!=Y and the expression is flagged with "UnsafeAlgebra".
The purpose of this transformation is two-fold:
a) to form a power expression (of X).
b) potentially shorten the critical path: After transformation, the
latency of the instruction Y is amortized by the expression of X*X,
and therefore Y is in a "less critical" position compared to what it
was before the transformation.
4. Remove the InstCombine code about simplifiying "X * select".
The reasons are following:
a) The "select" is somewhat architecture-dependent, therefore the
higher level optimizers are not able to precisely predict if
the simplification really yields any performance improvement
or not.
b) The "select" operator is bit complicate, and tends to obscure
optimization opportunities. It is btter to keep it as low as
possible in expr tree, and let CodeGen to tackle the optimization.
llvm-svn: 172551
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C_A: reassociation is allowed
C_R: reciprocal of a constant C is appropriate, which means
- 1/C is exact, or
- reciprocal is allowed and 1/C is neither a special value nor a denormal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
rule1: (X/C1) / C2 => X / (C2*C1) (if C_A)
=> X * (1/(C2*C1)) (if C_A && C_R)
rule 2: X*C1 / C2 => X * (C1/C2) if C_A
rule 3: (X/Y)/Z = > X/(Y*Z) (if C_A && at least one of Y and Z is symbolic value)
rule 4: Z/(X/Y) = > (Z*Y)/X (similar to rule3)
rule 5: C1/(X*C2) => (C1/C2) / X (if C_A)
rule 6: C1/(X/C2) => (C1*C2) / X (if C_A)
rule 7: C1/(C2/X) => (C1/C2) * X (if C_A)
llvm-svn: 172488
o. X/C1 * C2 => X * (C2/C1) (if C2/C1 is neither special FP nor denormal)
o. X/C1 * C2 -> X/(C1/C2) (if C2/C1 is either specical FP or denormal, but C1/C2 is a normal Fp)
Let MDC denote multiplication or dividion with one & only one operand being a constant
o. (MDC ± C1) * C2 => (MDC * C2) ± (C1 * C2)
(so long as the constant-folding doesn't yield any denormal or special value)
llvm-svn: 171793
turning a code like this:
if (foo)
free(foo)
into that:
free(foo)
Move a call to free from basic block FB into FB's predecessor, P,
when the path from P to FB is taken only if the argument of free is
not equal to NULL.
Some restrictions apply on P and FB to be sure that this code motion
is profitable. Namely:
1. FB must have only one predecessor P.
2. FB must contain only the call to free plus an unconditional
branch to S.
3. P's successors are FB and S.
Because of 1., we will not increase the code size when moving the call
to free from FB to P.
Because of 2., FB will be empty after the move.
Because of 2. and 3., P's branch instruction becomes useless, so as FB
(simplifycfg will do the job).
llvm-svn: 171762
When the least bit of C is greater than V, (x&C) must be greater than V
if it is not zero, so the comparison can be simplified.
Although this was suggested in Target/X86/README.txt, it benefits any
architecture with a directly testable form of AND.
Patch by Kevin Schoedel
llvm-svn: 170576
This assumes (1 << n) is always not zero. Consider n is greater than word size.
Although I know it is undefined, this transforms undefined behavior hidden.
This led clang unexpected behavior with some failures. I will investigate to fix undefined shl in clang.
llvm-svn: 170128
This change attempts to simplify (X^Y) -> X or Y in the user's context if we know that
only bits from X or Y are demanded.
A minimized case is provided bellow. This change will simplify "t>>16" into "var1 >>16".
=============================================================
unsigned foo (unsigned val1, unsigned val2) {
unsigned t = val1 ^ 1234;
return (t >> 16) | t; // NOTE: t is used more than once.
}
=============================================================
Note that if the "t" were used only once, the expression would be finally optimized as well.
However, with with this change, the optimization will take place earlier.
Reviewed by Nadav, Thanks a lot!
llvm-svn: 169317
This change tries to simmplify E1 = " X >> C1 << C2" into :
- E2 = "X << (C2 - C1)" if C2 > C1, or
- E2 = "X >> (C1 - C2)" if C1 > C2, or
- E2 = X if C1 == C2.
Reviewed by Nadav. Thanks!
llvm-svn: 169182
This patch migrates the puts optimizations from the simplify-libcalls
pass into the instcombine library call simplifier.
All the simplifiers from simplify-libcalls have now been migrated to
instcombine. Yay! Just a few other bits to migrate (prototype attribute
inference and a few statistics) and simplify-libcalls can finally be put
to rest.
llvm-svn: 168925
My commit to migrate the printf simplifiers from the simplify-libcalls
in r168604 introduced a regression reported by Duncan [1]. The problem
is that in some cases the library call simplifier can return a new value
that has no uses and the new value's type is different than the old value's
type (which is fine because there are no uses). The specific case that
triggered the bug looked something like:
declare void @printf(i8*, ...)
...
call void (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* %fmt)
Which we want to optimized into:
call i32 @putchar(i32 104)
However, the code was attempting to replace all uses of the printf with
the putchar and the types differ, hence a crash. This is fixed by *just*
deleting the original instruction when there are no uses. The old
simplify-libcalls pass is already doing something similar.
[1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-November/056338.html
llvm-svn: 168716
InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp, which had many issues.
(At least two bugs were noted on llvm-commits, and it was overly conservative.)
Instead, use getOrEnforceKnownAlignment.
llvm-svn: 168629
Enhancement to InstCombine. Try to catch this opportunity:
---------------------------------------------------------------
((X^C1) >> C2) ^ C3 => (X>>C2) ^ ((C1>>C2)^C3)
where the subexpression "X ^ C1" has more than one uses, and
"(X^C1) >> C2" has single use.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewed by Nadav (with minor change per his request).
llvm-svn: 168615
Benjamin Kramer