We take the intersection of overflow flags while CSE'ing.
This permits us to consider two instructions with different overflow
behavior to be replaceable.
llvm-svn: 267153
EarlyCSE had inconsistent behavior with regards to flag'd instructions:
- In some cases, it would pessimize if the available instruction had
different flags by not performing CSE.
- In other cases, it would miscompile if it replaced an instruction
which had no flags with an instruction which has flags.
Fix this by being more consistent with our flag handling by utilizing
andIRFlags.
llvm-svn: 267111
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
Summary:
In the context of http://wg21.link/lwg2445 C++ uses the concept of
'stronger' ordering but doesn't define it properly. This should be fixed
in C++17 barring a small question that's still open.
The code currently plays fast and loose with the AtomicOrdering
enum. Using an enum class is one step towards tightening things. I later
also want to tighten related enums, such as clang's
AtomicOrderingKind (which should be shared with LLVM as a 'C++ ABI'
enum).
This change touches a few lines of code which can be improved later, I'd
like to keep it as NFC for now as it's already quite complex. I have
related changes for clang.
As a follow-up I'll add:
bool operator<(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator>(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator<=(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator>=(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
This is separate so that clang and LLVM changes don't need to be in sync.
Reviewers: jyknight, reames
Subscribers: jyknight, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18775
llvm-svn: 265602
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
The rules for removing trivially dead stores are a lot less complicated than loads. Since we know the later store post dominates the former and the former dominates the later, unless the former has side effects other than the actual store, we can remove it. One slightly surprising thing is that we can freely remove atomic stores, even if the later one isn't atomic. There's no guarantee the atomic one was every visible.
For the moment, we don't handle DSE of ordered atomic stores. We could extend the same chain of reasoning to them, but the catch is we'd then have to model the ordering effect without a store instruction. Since our fences are a stronger than our operation orderings, simple using a fence isn't an obvious win. This arguable calls for a refinement in our fence specification, but that's (much) later work.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15352
llvm-svn: 255914
Extend EarlyCSE with an additional style of dead store elimination. If we write back a value just read from that memory location, we can eliminate the store under the assumption that the value hasn't changed.
I'm implementing this mostly because I noticed the omission when looking at the code. It seemed strange to have InstCombine have a peephole which was more powerful than EarlyCSE. :)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15397
llvm-svn: 255739
This patch teaches the fully redundant load part of EarlyCSE how to forward from atomic and volatile loads and stores, and how to eliminate unordered atomics (only). This patch does not include dead store elimination support for unordered atomics, that will follow in the near future.
The basic idea is that we allow all loads and stores to be tracked by the AvailableLoad table. We store a bit in the table which tracks whether load/store was atomic, and then only replace atomic loads with ones which were also atomic.
No attempt is made to refine our handling of ordered loads or stores. Those are still treated as full fences. We could pretty easily extend the release fence handling to release stores, but that should be a separate patch.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15337
llvm-svn: 255054
254950 ended up being not NFC. The previous code was overriding the flags for whether an instruction read or wrote memory using the target specific flags returned via TTI. I'd missed this in my refactoring. Since I mistakenly built only x86 and didn't notice the number of unsupported tests, I didn't catch that before the original checkin.
This raises an interesting issue though. Given we have function attributes (i.e. readonly, readnone, argmemonly) which describe the aliasing of intrinsics, why does TTI have this information overriding the instruction definition at all? I see no reason for this, but decided to preserve existing behavior for the moment. The root issue might be that we don't have a "writeonly" attribute.
Original commit message:
[EarlyCSE] Simplify and invert ParseMemoryInst [NFCI]
Restructure ParseMemoryInst - which was introduced to abstract over target specific load and stores instructions - to just query the underlying instructions. In theory, this could be slightly slower than caching the results, but in practice, it's very unlikely to be measurable.
The simple query scheme makes it far easier to understand, and much easier to extend with new queries. Given I'm about to need to add new query types, doing the cleanup first seemed worthwhile.
Do we still believe the target specific intrinsic handling is worthwhile in EarlyCSE? It adds quite a bit of complexity and makes the code harder to read. Being able to delete the abstraction entirely would be wonderful.
llvm-svn: 254957
Restructure ParseMemoryInst - which was introduced to abstract over target specific load and stores instructions - to just query the underlying instructions. In theory, this could be slightly slower than caching the results, but in practice, it's very unlikely to be measurable.
The simple query scheme makes it far easier to understand, and much easier to extend with new queries. Given I'm about to need to add new query types, doing the cleanup first seemed worthwhile.
Do we still believe the target specific intrinsic handling is worthwhile in EarlyCSE? It adds quite a bit of complexity and makes the code harder to read. Being able to delete the abstraction entirely would be wonderful.
llvm-svn: 254950
When the notion of target specific memory intrinsics was introduced to EarlyCSE, the commit confused the notions of volatile and simple memory access. Since I'm about to start working on this area, cleanup the naming so that patches aren't horribly confusing. Note that the actual implementation was always bailing if the load or store wasn't simple.
Reminder:
- "volatile" - C++ volatile, can't remove any memory operations, but in principal unordered
- "ordered" - imposes ordering constraints on other nearby memory operations
- "atomic" - can't be split or sheared. In LLVM terms, all "ordered" operations are also atomic so the predicate "isAtomic" is often used.
- "simple" - a load which is none of the above. These are normal loads and what most of the optimizer works with.
llvm-svn: 254805
Summary:
Some target intrinsics can access multiple elements, using the pointer as a
base address (e.g. AArch64 ld4). When trying to CSE such instructions,
it must be checked the available value comes from a compatible instruction
because the pointer is not enough to discriminate whether the value is
correct.
Reviewers: ssijaric
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13475
llvm-svn: 249523
GlobalsAA must by definition be preserved in function passes, but the passmanager doesn't know that. Make each pass explicitly preserve GlobalsAA.
llvm-svn: 247263
A release fence acts as a publication barrier for stores within the current thread to become visible to other threads which might observe the release fence. It does not require the current thread to observe stores performed on other threads. As a result, we can allow store-load and load-store forwarding across a release fence.
We do need to make sure that stores before the fence can't be eliminated even if there's another store to the same location after the fence. In theory, we could reorder the second store above the fence and *then* eliminate the former, but we can't do this if the stores are on opposite sides of the fence.
Note: While more aggressive then what's there, this patch is still implementing a really conservative ordering. In particular, I'm not trying to exploit undefined behavior via races, or the fact that the LangRef says only 'atomic' accesses are ordered w.r.t. fences.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11434
llvm-svn: 246134
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
This patch extends EarlyCSE to take advantage of the information that a controlling branch gives us about the value of a Value within this and dominated basic blocks. If the current block has a single predecessor with a controlling branch, we can infer what the branch condition must have been to execute this block. The actual change to support this is downright simple because EarlyCSE's existing scoped hash table logic deals with most of the complexity around merging.
The patch actually implements two optimizations.
1) The first is analogous to JumpThreading in that it enables EarlyCSE's CSE handling to fold branches which are exactly redundant due to a previous branch to branches on constants. (It doesn't actually replace the branch or change the CFG.) This is pretty clearly a win since it enables substantial CFG simplification before we start trying to inline.
2) The second is analogous to CVP in that it exploits the knowledge gained to replace dominated *uses* of the original value. EarlyCSE does not otherwise reason about specific uses, so this is the more arguable one. It does enable further simplication and constant folding within the rest of the visit by EarlyCSE.
In both cases, the added code only handles the easy dominance based case of each optimization. The general case is deferred to the existing passes.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9763
llvm-svn: 238071
Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231740
Summary:
DataLayout keeps the string used for its creation.
As a side effect it is no longer needed in the Module.
This is "almost" NFC, the string is no longer
canonicalized, you can't rely on two "equals" DataLayout
having the same string returned by getStringRepresentation().
Get rid of DataLayoutPass: the DataLayout is in the Module
The DataLayout is "per-module", let's enforce this by not
duplicating it more than necessary.
One more step toward non-optionality of the DataLayout in the
module.
Make DataLayout Non-Optional in the Module
Module->getDataLayout() will never returns nullptr anymore.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: resistor, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7992
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231270
getTTI method used to get an actual TTI object.
No functionality changed. This just threads the argument and ensures
code like the inliner can correctly look up the callee's TTI rather than
using a fixed one.
The next change will use this to implement per-function subtarget usage
by TTI. The changes after that should eliminate the need for FTTI as that
will have become the default.
llvm-svn: 227730
I've added RUN lines both to the basic test for EarlyCSE and the
target-specific test, as this serves as a nice test that the TTI layer
in the new pass manager is in fact working well.
llvm-svn: 227725
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
object that manages a single run of this pass.
This was already essentially how it worked. Within the run function, it
would point members at *stack local* allocations that were only live for
a single run. Instead, it seems much cleaner to have a utility object
whose lifetime is clearly bounded by the run of the pass over the
function and can use member variables in a more direct way.
This also makes it easy to plumb the analyses used into it from the pass
and will make it re-usable with the new pass manager.
No functionality changed here, its just a refactoring.
llvm-svn: 227162
The pass is really just a means of accessing a cached instance of the
TargetLibraryInfo object, and this way we can re-use that object for the
new pass manager as its result.
Lots of delta, but nothing interesting happening here. This is the
common pattern that is developing to allow analyses to live in both the
old and new pass manager -- a wrapper pass in the old pass manager
emulates the separation intrinsic to the new pass manager between the
result and pass for analyses.
llvm-svn: 226157
While the term "Target" is in the name, it doesn't really have to do
with the LLVM Target library -- this isn't an abstraction which LLVM
targets generally need to implement or extend. It has much more to do
with modeling the various runtime libraries on different OSes and with
different runtime environments. The "target" in this sense is the more
general sense of a target of cross compilation.
This is in preparation for porting this analysis to the new pass
manager.
No functionality changed, and updates inbound for Clang and Polly.
llvm-svn: 226078
a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
llvm-svn: 225131
EarlyCSE is giving up on the current instruction immediately when it recognizes that the current instruction makes a previous store trivially dead. There's no reason to do this. Once the previous store has been deleted, it's perfectly legal to remember the value of the current store (for value forwarding) and the fact the store occurred (it could be dead too!).
Reviewed by: Hal
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6301
llvm-svn: 222241
EarlyCSE uses a simple generation scheme for handling memory-based
dependencies, and calls to @llvm.assume (which are marked as writing to memory
to ensure the preservation of control dependencies) disturb that scheme
unnecessarily. Skipping calls to @llvm.assume is legal, and the alternative
(adding AA calls in EarlyCSE) is likely undesirable (we have GVN for that).
Fixes PR21448.
llvm-svn: 221175
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
David Majnemer