This reverts commit r294250. It caused PR31891.
Add a test case that shows that inlinable calls retain location
information with an accurate scope.
llvm-svn: 294317
Summary:
GVNHoist performs all the optimizations that MLSM does to loads, in a
more general way, and in a faster time bound (MLSM is N^3 in most
cases, N^4 in a few edge cases).
This disables the load portion.
Note that the way ld_hoist_st_sink.ll is written makes one think that
the loads should be moved to the while.preheader block, but
1. Neither MLSM nor GVNHoist do it (they both move them to identical places).
2. MLSM couldn't possibly do it anyway, as the while.preheader block
is not the head of the diamond, while.body is. (GVNHoist could do it
if it was legal).
3. At a glance, it's not legal anyway because the in-loop load
conflict with the in-loop store, so the loads must stay in-loop.
I am happy to update the test to use update_test_checks so that
checking is tighter, just was going to do it as a followup.
Note that i can find no particular benefit to the store portion on any
real testcase/benchmark i have (even size-wise). If we really still
want it, i am happy to commit to writing a targeted store sinker, just
taking the code from the MemorySSA port of MergedLoadStoreMotion
(which is N^2 worst case, and N most of the time).
We can do what it does in a much better time bound.
We also should be both hoisting and sinking stores, not just sinking
them, anyway, since whether we should hoist or sink to merge depends
basically on luck of the draw of where the blockers are placed.
Nonetheless, i have left it alone for now.
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29079
llvm-svn: 292971
Summary:
Move GVNHoist to later in the optimization pipeline, specifically, to
the function simplification part of the pipeline. The new pipeline
location allows GVNHoist to run on a function after its callees have
been inlined but before the function has been considered for inlining
into its callers, exposing more opportunities for hoisting.
Performance results on AArch64 kryo:
Improvements:
Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench -24.952%
spec2006/bzip2 -4.071%
internal bmark -3.177%
Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p -1.754%
spec2000/perlbmk -1.328%
spec2006/h264ref -1.140%
Regressions:
internal bmark +1.818%
Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign +1.084%
Reviewers: sebpop, dberlin, hiraditya
Subscribers: aemerson, mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27722
llvm-svn: 289696
This is with an extra change to avoid calling MemoryLocation::get() on a call instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25542
llvm-svn: 284098
This CL didn't actually address the test case in PR30499, and clang
still crashes.
Also revert dependent change "Memory-SSA cleanup of clobbers interface, NFC"
Reverts r283965 and r283967.
llvm-svn: 284093
This is a refreshed version of a patch that was reverted: it fixes
the problems reported in both PR30216 and PR30499, and
contains all the test-cases from both bugs.
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Tested on x86_64-linux with check and a test-suite run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476
llvm-svn: 283965
and also the dependent r282175 "GVN-hoist: do not dereference null pointers"
It's causing compiler crashes building Harfbuzz (PR30499).
llvm-svn: 282199
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24517
llvm-svn: 282168
Without this patch, GVN-hoist would think that a branch instruction is a scalar instruction
and would try to value number it. The patch filters out all such kind of irrelevant instructions.
A bit frustrating is that there is no easy way to discard all those very infrequent instructions,
a bit like isa<TerminatorInst> that stands for a large family of instructions. I'm thinking that
checking for those very infrequent other instructions would cost us more in compilation time
than just letting those instructions getting numbered, so I'm still thinking that a simpler check:
if (isa<TerminatorInst>(I))
return false;
is better than listing all the other less frequent instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23929
llvm-svn: 282160
It is invalid to hoist stores or loads if they are not executed on all paths
from the hoisting point to the exit of the function. In the testcase, there are
paths in the loop that do not execute the stores or the loads, and so hoisting
them within the loop is unsafe.
The problem is that the current implementation of hoistingFromAllPaths is
incomplete: it walks all blocks dominated by the hoisting point, and does not
return false when the loop contains a path on which the hoisted ld/st is
not executed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23843
llvm-svn: 279732
Reid Kleckner