Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Alina Sbirlea d2d3244363 [LoopSimplifyCFG] Update MemorySSA after r353911.
Summary:
MemorySSA is not properly updated in LoopSimplifyCFG after recent changes. Use SplitBlock utility to resolve that and clear all updates once handleDeadExits is finished.
All updates that follow are removal of edges which are safe to handle via the removeEdge() API.
Also, deleting dead blocks is done correctly as is, i.e. delete from MemorySSA before updating the CFG and DT.

Reviewers: mkazantsev, rtereshin

Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58524

llvm-svn: 354613
2019-02-21 19:54:05 +00:00
Max Kazantsev 38cd9acbb9 [LoopSimplifyCFG] Fix inconsistency in blocks in loop markup
2nd part of D57095 with the same reason, just in another place. We never
fold branches that are not immediately in the current loop, but this check
is missing in `IsEdgeLive` As result, it may think that the edge in subloop is
dead while it's live. It's a pessimization in the current stance.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57147
Reviewed By: rupprecht	

llvm-svn: 352170
2019-01-25 05:05:02 +00:00
Max Kazantsev 56515a2c76 [LoopSimplifyCFG] Fix inconsistency in live blocks markup
When we choose whether or not we should mark block as dead, we have an
inconsistent logic in markup of live blocks.
- We take candidate IF its terminator branches on constant AND it is immediately
  in current loop;
- We mark successor live IF its terminator doesn't branch by constant OR it branches
  by constant and the successor is its always taken block.

What we are missing here is that when the terminator branches on a constant but is
not taken as a candidate because is it not immediately in the current loop, we will
mark only one (always taken) successor as live. Therefore, we do NOT do the actual
folding but may NOT mark one of the successors as live. So the result of markup is
wrong in this case, and we may then hit various asserts.

Thanks Jordan Rupprech for reporting this!

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57095
Reviewed By: rupprecht

llvm-svn: 352024
2019-01-24 05:20:29 +00:00
Max Kazantsev 11d3314241 [NFC] Add a failing test on live block markup in term folding
llvm-svn: 352023
2019-01-24 05:05:55 +00:00