Summary:
This patch resolves an issue where the metadata of a loop is not added to the
new loop latch, and not removed from the old loop latch. This issue occurs in
the SplitBlockPredecessors function, which adds a new block in a loop, and
in the case that the block passed into this function is the header of the loop,
the loop can be modified such that the latch of the loop is replaced.
This patch applies to the Loop Simplify pass since it ensures that each loop
has exit blocks which only have predecessors that are inside of the loop. In
the case that this is not true, the pass will create a new exit block for the
loop. This guarantees that the loop preheader/header will dominate the exit blocks.
Author: sidbav (Sidharth Baveja)
Reviewers: asbirlea (Alina Sbirlea), chandlerc (Chandler Carruth), Whitney (Whitney Tsang), bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour)
Reviewed By: asbirlea (Alina Sbirlea)
Subscribers: hiraditya (Aditya Kumar), llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83869
Summary:
When a loop has multiple backedges, loop simplification attempts to
separate them out into nested loops. This results in incorrect control
flow in the presence of some functions like a GPU barrier. This change
skips the transformation when such "convergent" function calls are
present in the loop body.
Reviewed By: nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80078
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
> llvm-svn: 363046
llvm-svn: 363786
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 363046
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 360162
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
LoopUtils.cpp contains a utility that splits an loop exit block, so that the new block contains only edges coming from the loop. In the case of nested loops, the exit path for the inner loop might also be the back-edge of the outer loop. The new block which is inserted on this path, is now a latch for the outer loop, and it needs to hold the loop metadata for the outer loop. (The test case gives a more concrete view of the situation.)
Patch by Chang Lin (clin1)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53876
llvm-svn: 346810
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
This patch was temporarily reverted because it has exposed bug 37229 on
PowerPC platform. The bug is unrelated to the patch and was just a general
bug in the optimization done for PowerPC platform only. The bug was fixed
by the patch rL331410.
This patch returns the disabled commit since the bug was fixed.
llvm-svn: 331427
This reverts commit 023c8be90980e0180766196cba86f81608b35d38.
This patch triggers miscompile of zlib on PowerPC platform. Most likely it is
caused by some pre-backend PPC-specific pass, but we don't clearly know the
reason yet. So we temporally revert this patch with intention to return it
once the problem is resolved. See bug 37229 for details.
llvm-svn: 330893
In the function `simplifyOneLoop` we optimistically assume that changes in the
inner loop only affect this very loop and have no impact on its parents. In fact,
after rL329047 has been merged, we can now calculate exit counts for outer
loops which may depend on inner loops. Thus, we need to invalidate all parents
when we do something to a loop.
There is an evidence of incorrect behavior of `simplifyOneLoop`: when we insert
`SE->verify()` check in the end of this funciton, it fails on a bunch of existing
test, in particular:
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-not-forced.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-pgo.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop2.ll
Note that previously we have fixed issues of this variety, see rL328483.
This patch makes this function invalidate the outermost loop properly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45937
Reviewed By: chandlerc
llvm-svn: 330576
Currently, `getExact` fails if it sees two exit counts in different blocks. There is
no solid reason to do so, given that we only calculate exact non-taken count
for exiting blocks that dominate latch. Using this fact, we can simply take min
out of all exits of all blocks to get the exact taken count.
This patch makes the calculation more optimistic with enforcing our assumption
with asserts. It allows us to calculate exact backedge taken count in trivial loops
like
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if (i > 50) break;
. . .
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44676
Reviewed By: fhahn
llvm-svn: 328611
Summary:
We are incorrectly updating the LI when loop-simplify generates
dedicated exit blocks for a loop. The issue is that there's an implicit
assumption that the Preds passed into UpdateAnalysisInformation are
reachable. However, this is not true and breaks LI by incorrectly
updating the header of a loop.
One such case is when we generate dedicated exits when the exit block is
a landing pad (through SplitLandingPadPredecessors). There maybe other
cases as well, since we do not guarantee that Preds passed in are
reachable basic blocks.
The added test case shows how loop-simplify breaks LI for the outer loop (and DT in turn)
after we try to generate the LoopSimplifyForm.
Reviewers: davide, chandlerc, sanjoy
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41519
llvm-svn: 321653
Summary:
This patch teaches SCEV to calculate the maxBECount when the end bound
of the loop can vary. Note that we cannot calculate the exactBECount.
This will only be done when both conditions are satisfied:
1. the loop termination condition is strictly LT.
2. the IV is proven to not overflow.
This provides more information to users of SCEV and can be used to
improve identification of finite loops.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, silviu.baranga, atrick
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38825
llvm-svn: 315683
There is no situation where this rarely-used argument cannot be
substituted with a DIExpression and removing it allows us to simplify
the DWARF backend. Note that this patch does not yet remove any of
the newly dead code.
rdar://problem/33580047
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35951
llvm-svn: 309426
This patch reworks the function that searches constants in Add and Mul SCEV expression
chains so that now it does not visit a node more than once, and also renames this function
for better correspondence between its implementation and semantics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35931
llvm-svn: 309367
This was reverted in r306252, but I already had the bug fixed and was
just trying to form a test case.
The original commit factored the logic for forming dedicated exits
inside of LoopSimplify into a helper that could be used elsewhere and
with an approach that required fewer intermediate data structures. See
that commit for full details including the change to the statistic, etc.
The code looked fine to me and my reviewers, but in fact didn't handle
indirectbr correctly -- it left the 'InLoopPredecessors' vector dirty.
If you have code that looks *just* right, you can end up leaking these
predecessors into a subsequent rewrite, and crash deep down when trying
to update PHI nodes for predecessors that don't exist.
I've added an assert that makes the bug much more obvious, and then
changed the code to reliably clear the vector so we don't get this bug
again in some other form as the code changes.
I've also added a test case that *does* manage to catch this while also
giving some nice positive coverage in the face of indirectbr.
The real code that found this came out of what I think is CPython's
interpreter loop, but any code with really "creative" interpreter loops
mixing indirectbr and other exit paths could manage to tickle the bug.
I was hard to reduce the original test case because in addition to
having a particular pattern of IR, the whole thing depends on the order
of the predecessors which is in turn depends on use list order. The test
case added here was designed so that in multiple different predecessor
orderings it should always end up going down the same path and tripping
the same bug. I hope. At least, it tripped it for me without
manipulating the use list order which is better than anything bugpoint
could do...
llvm-svn: 306257
I did some basic testing while looking for a bug in my recent change to
loop simplify and even though it didn't find the bug it seems like
a useful improvement anyways.
llvm-svn: 306256
Summary:
When setting debugloc for instructions created in SplitBlockPredecessors, current implementation copies debugloc from the first-non-phi instruction of the original basic block. However, if the first-non-phi instruction is a call for @llvm.dbg.value, the debugloc of the instruction may point the location outside of the block itself. For the example code of
```
1 typedef struct _node_t {
2 struct _node_t *next;
3 } node_t;
4
5 extern node_t *root;
6
7 int foo() {
8 node_t *node, *tmp;
9 int ret = 0;
10
11 node = tmp = root->next;
12 while (node != root) {
13 while (node) {
14 tmp = node;
15 node = node->next;
16 ret++;
17 }
18 }
19
20 return ret;
21 }
```
, below is the basicblock corresponding to line 12 after Reassociate expressions pass:
```
while.cond: ; preds = %while.cond2, %entry
%node.0 = phi %struct._node_t* [ %1, %entry ], [ null, %while.cond2 ]
%ret.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %ret.1, %while.cond2 ]
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 %ret.0, i64 0, metadata !19, metadata !20), !dbg !21
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %struct._node_t* %node.0, i64 0, metadata !11, metadata !20), !dbg !31
%cmp = icmp eq %struct._node_t* %node.0, %0, !dbg !33
br i1 %cmp, label %while.end5, label %while.cond2, !dbg !35
```
As you can see, the first-non-phi instruction is a call for @llvm.dbg.value, and the debugloc is
```
!21 = !DILocation(line: 9, column: 7, scope: !6)
```
, which is a definition of 'ret' variable and outside of the scope of the basicblock itself. However, current implementation picks up this debugloc for the instructions created in SplitBlockPredecessors. This patch addresses this problem by picking up debugloc from the first-non-phi-non-dbg instruction.
Reviewers: dblaikie, samsonov, eugenis
Reviewed By: eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29867
llvm-svn: 295106
This test seems to have largely been relying on asserts being tripped.
It had a very specific and somewhat uninteresting grep of the output,
but it never really did anything to cause SCEV to be preserved across
loop simplify, certainly not explicitly. And a later addition to it
actually added CHECK lines despite the test never running FileCheck.
Now we actually print SCEV before and after loop simplify to make sure
it is *changing* and being *updated*. Which seems to be much more likely
the point of the test.
llvm-svn: 291740
insertUniqueBackedgeBlock in lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopSimplify.cpp now
propagates existing llvm.loop metadata to newly the added backedge.
llvm::TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock in lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp
now propagates existing llvm.loop metadata to the branch instructions in the
predecessor blocks of the empty block that is removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26495
llvm-svn: 287341
Summary:
This hopefully fixes PR28825. The problem now was that a value from the
original loop was used in a subloop, which became a sibling after separation.
While a subloop doesn't need an lcssa phi node, a sibling does, and that's
where we broke LCSSA. The most natural way to fix this now is to simply call
formLCSSA on the original loop: it'll do what we've been doing before plus
it'll cover situations described above.
I think we don't need to run formLCSSARecursively here, and we have an assert
to verify this (I've tried testing it on LLVM testsuite + SPECs). I'd be happy
to be corrected here though.
I also changed a run line in the test from '-lcssa -loop-unroll' to
'-lcssa -loop-simplify -indvars', because it exercises LCSSA
preservation to the same extent, but also makes less unrelated
transformation on the CFG, which makes it easier to verify.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23288
llvm-svn: 278173
This fixes PR28825. The problem was that we only checked if a value from
a created inner loop is used in the outer loop, and fixed LCSSA for
them. But we missed to fixup LCSSA for values used in exits of the outer
loop.
llvm-svn: 277877
Revert "[LoopSimplify] Update LCSSA after separating nested loops."
This reverts commit r275891.
Revert "[LCSSA] Post-process PHI-nodes created by SSAUpdate when constructing LCSSA form."
This reverts commit r275883.
llvm-svn: 276064
Summary:
Usually LCSSA survives this transformation, but in some cases (see
attached test) it doesn't: values from the original loop after
separating might be used from the outer loop. Before the transformation
it was the same loop, so LCSSA phis were not required.
This fixes PR28272.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21665
llvm-svn: 275891
While here move simplifyLoop() function to the new header, as
suggested by Chandler in the review.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21404
llvm-svn: 274959
Nearly all the changes to this pass have been done while maintaining and
updating other parts of LLVM. LLVM has had another pass, SROA, which
has superseded ScalarReplAggregates for quite some time.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21316
llvm-svn: 272737
Summary:
This fixes PR26682. Also add LCSSA as a preserved pass to LoopSimplify,
that looks correct to me and allows to write a test for the issue.
Reviewers: chandlerc, bogner, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21112
llvm-svn: 272224
Currently each Function points to a DISubprogram and DISubprogram has a
scope field. For member functions the scope is a DICompositeType. DIScopes
point to the DICompileUnit to facilitate type uniquing.
Distinct DISubprograms (with isDefinition: true) are not part of the type
hierarchy and cannot be uniqued. This change removes the subprograms
list from DICompileUnit and instead adds a pointer to the owning compile
unit to distinct DISubprograms. This would make it easy for ThinLTO to
strip unneeded DISubprograms and their transitively referenced debug info.
Motivation
----------
Materializing DISubprograms is currently the most expensive operation when
doing a ThinLTO build of clang.
We want the DISubprogram to be stored in a separate Bitcode block (or the
same block as the function body) so we can avoid having to expensively
deserialize all DISubprograms together with the global metadata. If a
function has been inlined into another subprogram we need to store a
reference the block containing the inlined subprogram.
Attached to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27284 is a python script
that updates LLVM IR testcases to the new format.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19034
<rdar://problem/25256815>
llvm-svn: 266446
Previously, subprograms contained a metadata reference to the function they
described. Because most clients need to get or set a subprogram for a given
function rather than the other way around, this created unneeded inefficiency.
For example, many passes needed to call the function llvm::makeSubprogramMap()
to build a mapping from functions to subprograms, and the IR linker needed to
fix up function references in a way that caused quadratic complexity in the IR
linking phase of LTO.
This change reverses the direction of the edge by storing the subprogram as
function-level metadata and removing DISubprogram's function field.
Since this is an IR change, a bitcode upgrade has been provided.
Fixes PR23367. An upgrade script for textual IR for out-of-tree clients is
attached to the PR.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14265
llvm-svn: 252219
As a follow-up to r246098, require `DISubprogram` definitions
(`isDefinition: true`) to be 'distinct'. Specifically, add an assembler
check, a verifier check, and bitcode upgrading logic to combat testcase
bitrot after the `DIBuilder` change.
While working on the testcases, I realized that
test/Linker/subprogram-linkonce-weak-odr.ll isn't relevant anymore. Its
purpose was to check for a corner case in PR22792 where two subprogram
definitions match exactly and share the same metadata node. The new
verifier check, requiring that subprogram definitions are 'distinct',
precludes that possibility.
I updated almost all the IR with the following script:
git grep -l -E -e '= !DISubprogram\(.* isDefinition: true' |
grep -v test/Bitcode |
xargs sed -i '' -e 's/= \(!DISubprogram(.*, isDefinition: true\)/= distinct \1/'
Likely some variant of would work for out-of-tree testcases.
llvm-svn: 246327
Set debug location for terminator instruction in loop backedge block
(which is an unconditional jump to loop header). We can't copy debug
location from original backedges, as there can be several of them,
with different debug info locations. So, we follow the approach of
SplitBlockPredecessors, and copy the debug info from first non-PHI
instruction in the header (i.e. destination block).
This is yet another change for PR23837.
llvm-svn: 240999
The personality routine currently lives in the LandingPadInst.
This isn't desirable because:
- All LandingPadInsts in the same function must have the same
personality routine. This means that each LandingPadInst beyond the
first has an operand which produces no additional information.
- There is ongoing work to introduce EH IR constructs other than
LandingPadInst. Moving the personality routine off of any one
particular Instruction and onto the parent function seems a lot better
than have N different places a personality function can sneak onto an
exceptional function.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10429
llvm-svn: 239940
Test Plan: regression test suite
Reviewers: eugenis, dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10343
llvm-svn: 239438
Jinsong Ji