As a reminder, a "widenable branch" is the pattern "br i1 (and i1 X, WC()), label %taken, label %untaken" where "WC" is the widenable condition intrinsics. The semantics of such a branch (derived from the semantics of WC) is that a new condition can be added into the condition arbitrarily without violating legality.
Broaden the definition in two ways:
Allow swapped operands to the br (and X, WC()) form
Allow widenable branch w/trivial condition (i.e. true) which takes form of br i1 WC()
The former is just general robustness (e.g. for X = non-instruction this is what instcombine produces). The later is specifically important as partial unswitching of a widenable range check produces exactly this form above the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70502
This code has never been enabled. While it is tested, it's complicating some refactoring. If we decide to re-implement this, doing it in SimplifyCFG would probably make more sense anyways.
We had a subtle, but nasty bug in our definition of a widenable branch, and thus in the transforms which used that utility. Specifically, we returned true for any branch which included a widenable condition within it's condition, regardless of whether that widenable condition also had other uses.
The problem is that the result of the WC() call is defined to be one particular value. As such, all users must agree as to what that value is. If we widen a branch without also updating *all other users* of the WC in the same way, we have broken the required semantics.
Most of the textual diff is updating existing transforms not to leave dead uses hanging around. They're largely NFC as the dead instructions would be immediately deleted by other passes. The reason to make these changes is so that the transforms preserve the widenable branch form.
In practice, we don't get bitten by this only because it isn't profitable to CSE WC() calls and the lowering pass from guards uses distinct WC calls per branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69916
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch adds support of guards expressed in explicit form via
`widenable_condition` in Guard Widening pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56075
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 353932
Guard widening should not spend efforts on dealing with guards with trivial true/false conditions.
Such guards can easily be eliminated by any further cleanup pass like instcombine. However we
should not unconditionally delete them because it may be profitable to widen other conditions
into such guards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50247
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
llvm-svn: 340381
This patch teaches LICM to hoist guards from the loop if they are guaranteed to execute and
if there are no side effects that could prevent that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50501
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 340256
This is a second part of D49974 that handles widening of conditional branches that
have very likely `false` branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50040
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 339537
If there is a frequently taken branch dominated by a guard, and its condition is available
at the point of the guard, we can widen guard with condition of this branch and convert
the branch into unconditional:
guard(cond1)
if (cond2) {
// taken in 99.9% cases
// do something
} else {
// do something else
}
Converts to
guard(cond1 && cond2)
// do something
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49974
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 338988
The effect of doing so is not disrupting the LoopPassManager when mixing this pass with other loop passes. This should help locality of access substaintially and avoids the cost of computing PostDom.
The assumption here is that the full GuardWidening (which does use PostDom) is run as a canonicalization before loop opts and that this version is just catching cases exposed by other loop passes. (i.e. LoopPredication, IndVarSimplify, LoopUnswitch, etc..)
llvm-svn: 331094
The idea is to have a pass which performs the same transformation as GuardWidening, but can be run within a loop pass manager without disrupting the pass manager structure. As demonstrated by the test case, this doesn't quite get there because of issues with post dom, but it gives a good step in the right direction. the motivation is purely to reduce compile time since we can now preserve locality during the loop walk.
This patch only includes a legacy pass. A follow up will add a new style pass as well.
llvm-svn: 331060
I had used `std::remove_if` under the assumption that it moves the
predicate matching elements to the end, but actaully the elements
remaining towards the end (after the iterator returned by
`std::remove_if`) are indeterminate. Fix the bug (and make the code
more straightforward) by using a temporary SmallVector, and add a test
case demonstrating the issue.
llvm-svn: 270306
Sequences of range checks expressed using guards, like
guard((I - 2) u< L)
guard((I - 1) u< L)
guard((I + 0) u< L)
guard((I + 1) u< L)
guard((I + 2) u< L)
can sometimes be combined into a smaller sequence:
guard((I - 2) u< L AND (I + 2) u< L)
if we can prove that (I - 2) u< L AND (I + 2) u< L implies all of checks
expressed in the previous sequence.
This change teaches GuardWidening to do this kind of merging when
feasible.
llvm-svn: 270151
Summary:
Implement guard widening in LLVM. Description from GuardWidening.cpp:
The semantics of the `@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic lets LLVM
transform it so that it fails more often that it did before the
transform. This optimization is called "widening" and can be used hoist
and common runtime checks in situations like these:
```
%cmp0 = 7 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
%cmp1 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp1) [ "deopt"(...) ]
...
```
to
```
%cmp0 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
...
```
If `%cmp0` is false, `@llvm.experimental.guard` will "deoptimize" back
to a generic implementation of the same function, which will have the
correct semantics from that point onward. It is always _legal_ to
deoptimize (so replacing `%cmp0` with false is "correct"), though it may
not always be profitable to do so.
NB! This pass is a work in progress. It hasn't been tuned to be
"production ready" yet. It is known to have quadriatic running time and
will not scale to large numbers of guards
Reviewers: reames, atrick, bogner, apilipenko, nlewycky
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20143
llvm-svn: 269997
Jonathan Roelofs