As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch fixes an issue where we would compute an unnecessarily small alignment during scalar promotion when no store is not to be guaranteed to execute, but we've proven load speculation safety. Since speculating a load requires proving the existing alignment is valid at the new location (see Loads.cpp), we can use the alignment fact from the load.
For non-atomics, this is a performance problem. For atomics, this is a correctness issue, though an *incredibly* rare one to see in practice. For atomics, we might not be able to lower an improperly aligned load or store (i.e. i32 align 1). If such an instruction makes it all the way to codegen, we *may* fail to codegen the operation, or we may simply generate a slow call to a library function. The part that makes this super hard to see in practice is that the memory location actually *is* well aligned, and instcombine knows that. So, to see a failure, you have to have a) hit the bug in LICM, b) somehow hit a depth limit in InstCombine/ValueTracking to avoid fixing the alignment, and c) then have generated an instruction which fails codegen rather than simply emitting a slow libcall. All around, pretty hard to hit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58809
llvm-svn: 355217
This should have been part of r355110, but my brain isn't quite awake yet, despite the coffee. Per the original submit comment... Doing scalar promotion w/o being able to prove the alignment of the hoisted load or sunk store is a bug. Update tests to actually show the alignment so that impact of the patch which fixes this can be seen.
llvm-svn: 355111
Doing scalar promotion w/o being able to prove the alignment of the hoisted load or sunk store is a bug. Update tests to actually show the alignment so that impact of the patch which fixes this can be seen.
llvm-svn: 355110
Summary:
In case of non-alloca pointers, we check for whether it is a pointer
from malloc-like calls and it is not captured. In such case, we can
promote the pointer, as the caller will have no way to access this pointer
even if there is unwinding in middle of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, reames, eli.friedman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28834
llvm-svn: 292510
Summary: Add a test case for LICM when promoting locals that may be read after the throw within the loop.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28822
llvm-svn: 292261
Fangrui Song