Note that this doesn't actually cause the top level predicate to become a non-union just yet.
The * above comes from a case in the LoopVectorizer where a predicate which is later proven no longer blocks vectorization due to a change from checking if predicates exists to whether the predicate is possibly false.
Previously we relied on the pointee type to determine what type we need
to do runtime pointer access checks.
With opaque pointers, we can access a pointer with more than one type,
so now we keep track of all the types we're accessing a pointer's
memory with.
Also some other minor getPointerElementType() removals.
Reviewed By: #opaque-pointers, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119047
Adds new optimization remarks when vectorization fails.
More specifically, new remarks are added for following 4 cases:
- Backward dependency
- Backward dependency that prevents Store-to-load forwarding
- Forward dependency that prevents Store-to-load forwarding
- Unknown dependency
It is important to note that only one of the sources
of failures (to vectorize) is reported by the remarks.
This source of failure may not be first in program order.
A regression test has been added to test the following cases:
a) Loop can be vectorized: No optimization remark is emitted
b) Loop can not be vectorized: In this case an optimization
remark will be emitted for one source of failure.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108371
0a00d64 turned an early exit here into an assertion, but the assertion
can be triggered, as PR52920 shows.
The later code is agnostic to the accessed type, so just drop the
assert. The patch also adds tests for LAA directly and
loop-load-elimination to show the behavior is sane.
In the isDependence function the code does not try hard enough
to determine the dependence between types. If the types are
different it simply gives up, whereas in fact what we really
care about are the type sizes. I've changed the code to compare
sizes instead of types.
Reviewed By: fhahn, sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108763
The supplied test case, reduced from real world code, crashes with a
'Invalid size request on a scalable vector.' error.
Since it's similar in spirit to an existing LAA test, rename the file to
generalize it to both.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114155
SCEV does not look through non-header PHIs inside the loop. Such phis
can be analyzed by adding separate accesses for each incoming pointer
value.
This results in 2 more loops vectorized in SPEC2000/186.crafty and
avoids regressions when sinking instructions before vectorizing.
Fixes PR50296, PR50288.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102266
Pass the access type to getPtrStride(), so it is not determined
from the pointer element type. Many cases still fetch the element
type at a higher level though, so this only partially addresses
the issue.
This patch removes RtCheck from RuntimeCheckingPtrGroup to make it
possible to construct RuntimeCheckingPtrGroup objects without a
RuntimePointerChecking object. This should make it easier to
re-use the code to generate runtime checks, e.g. in D102834.
RtCheck was only used to access the pointer info for a given index.
Instead, the start and end expressions can be passed directly.
For code-gen, we also need to know the address space to use. This can
also be explicitly passed at construction.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105481
This fixes the lower and upper bound calculation of a
RuntimeCheckingPtrGroup when it has more than one loop
invariant pointers. Resolves PR50686.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104148
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
Make getPointersDiff() and sortPtrAccesses() compatible with opaque
pointers by explicitly passing in the element type instead of
determining it from the pointer element type.
The SLPVectorizer result is slightly non-optimal in that unnecessary
pointer bitcasts are added.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104784
This reverts commit 1ed7f8ede5.
This change can cause loop-distribute to crash in some cases. Revert
until I have more time to wrap up a fix.
See PR50296, PR5028 and D102266.
LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled required
analysis passes. One need to use addRequiredTransitive to describe
that the nestled passes can't be freed until those analysis passes
no longer are used themselves.
There is still a bit of a mess considering the getLazyBPIAnalysisUsage
and getLazyBFIAnalysisUsage functions. Those functions are used from
both Transform, CodeGen and Analysis passes. I figure it is OK to
use addRequiredTransitive also when being used from Transform and
CodeGen passes. On the other hand, I figure we must do it when
used from other Analysis passes. So using addRequiredTransitive should
be more correct here. An alternative solution would be to add a
bool option in those functions to let the user tell if it is a
analysis pass or not. Since those lazy passes will be obsolete when
new PM has conquered the world I figure we can leave it like this
right now.
Intention with the patch is to fix PR49950. It at least solves the
problem for the reproducer in PR49950. However, that reproducer
need five passes in a specific order, so there are lots of various
"solutions" that could avoid the crash without actually fixing the
root cause.
This is a reapply of commit 3655f0757f, that was reverted in
33ff3c2049 due to problems with assertions in the polly
lit tests. That problem is supposed to be solved by also adjusting
ScopPass to explicitly preserve LazyBlockFrequencyInfo and
LazyBranchProbabilityInfo (it already preserved
OptimizationRemarkEmitter which depends on those lazy passes).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100958
LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled required
analysis passes. One need to use addRequiredTransitive to describe
that the nestled passes can't be freed until those analysis passes
no longer are used themselves.
There is still a bit of a mess considering the getLazyBPIAnalysisUsage
and getLazyBFIAnalysisUsage functions. Those functions are used from
both Transform, CodeGen and Analysis passes. I figure it is OK to
use addRequiredTransitive also when being used from Transform and
CodeGen passes. On the other hand, I figure we must do it when
used from other Analysis passes. So using addRequiredTransitive should
be more correct here. An alternative solution would be to add a
bool option in those functions to let the user tell if it is a
analysis pass or not. Since those lazy passes will be obsolete when
new PM has conquered the world I figure we can leave it like this
right now.
Intention with the patch is to fix PR49950. It at least solves the
problem for the reproducer in PR49950. However, that reproducer
need five passes in a specific order, so there are lots of various
"solutions" that could avoid the crash without actually fixing the
root cause.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100958
SCEV does not look through non-header PHIs inside the loop. Such phis
can be analyzed by adding separate accesses for each incoming pointer
value.
This results in 2 more loops vectorized in SPEC2000/186.crafty and
avoids regressions when sinking instructions before vectorizing.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101286
getPointersDiff would previously round down the difference between two
pointers to a multiple of the element size of the pointee, which could
result in a pointer value being decreased a little.
Alexey Bataev has graciously agreed to add a testcase for this;
submitting the bugfix now to unblock.
Added getPointersDiff function to LoopAccessAnalysis and used it instead
direct calculatoin of the distance between pointers and/or
isConsecutiveAccess function in SLP vectorizer to improve compile time
and detection of stores consecutive chains.
Part of D57059
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98967
Added getPointersDiff function to LoopAccessAnalysis and used it instead
direct calculatoin of the distance between pointers and/or
isConsecutiveAccess function in SLP vectorizer to improve compile time
and detection of stores consecutive chains.
Part of D57059
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98967
his is a preparation patch for supporting multiple exits in the loop vectorizer, by itself it should be mostly NFC. This patch moves the loop structure checks from LAA to their respective consumers (where duplicates don't already exist). Moving the checks does end up changing some of the optimization warnings and debug output slightly, but nothing that appears to be a regression.
Why do this? Well, after auditing the code, I can't actually find anything in LAA itself which relies on having all instructions within a loop execute an equal number of times. This patch simply makes this explicit so that if one consumer - say LV in the near future (hopefully) - wants to handle a broader class of loops, it can do so.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92066
Currently, we have some confusion in the codebase regarding the
meaning of LocationSize::unknown(): Some parts (including most of
BasicAA) assume that LocationSize::unknown() only allows accesses
after the base pointer. Some parts (various callers of AA) assume
that LocationSize::unknown() allows accesses both before and after
the base pointer (but within the underlying object).
This patch splits up LocationSize::unknown() into
LocationSize::afterPointer() and LocationSize::beforeOrAfterPointer()
to make this completely unambiguous. I tried my best to determine
which one is appropriate for all the existing uses.
The test changes in cs-cs.ll in particular illustrate a previously
clearly incorrect AA result: We were effectively assuming that
argmemonly functions were only allowed to access their arguments
after the passed pointer, but not before it. I'm pretty sure that
this was not intentional, and it's certainly not specified by
LangRef that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91649
The TypeSize warning would occur because RuntimePointerChecking::insert
was not scalable vector aware. The fix is to use
ScalarEvolution::getSizeOfExpr to grab the size of types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90171
MaxSafeRegisterWidth is a misnomer since it actually returns the maximum
safe vector width. Register suggests it relates directly to a physical
register where it could be a vector spanning one or more physical
registers.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91727
Some older code - and code copied from older code - still directly tested against the singelton result of SE::getCouldNotCompute. Using the isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute> form is both shorter, and more readable.
Currently LAA uses getScalarSizeInBits to compute the size of an element
when computing the end bound of an access.
This does not work as expected for pointers to pointers, because
getScalarSizeInBits will return 0 for pointer types.
By using DataLayout to get the size of the element we can also correctly
handle pointer element types.
Note the changes to the existing test, which seems to also use the wrong
offset for the end.
Fixes PR47751.
Reviewed By: anemet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88953
Currently we skip alias sets with only reads or a single write and no
reads, but still add the pointers to the list of pointers in RtCheck.
This can lead to cases where we try to access a pointer that does not
exist when grouping checks. In most cases, the way we access
PositionMap masked that, as the value would default to index 0.
But in the example in PR46854 it causes a crash.
This patch updates the logic to avoid adding pointers for alias sets
that do not need any checks. It makes things slightly more verbose, by
first checking the numbers of reads/writes and bailing out early if we don't
need checks for the alias set.
I think this makes the logic a bit simpler to follow.
Reviewed By: anemet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84608
If a loop is in a function marked OptSize, Loop Access Analysis should refrain
from generating runtime checks for unit strides that will version the loop.
If a loop is in a function marked OptSize and its vectorization is enabled, it
should be vectorized w/o any versioning.
Fixes PR46228.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81345
Alternative approach to D80570.
canCheckPtrAtRT already contains checks the figure out for which alias
sets runtime checks are needed. But it currently sets CanDoRT to false
for alias sets for which we cannot do RT checks but also do not need
any.
If we know that we do not need RT checks based on the number of
reads/writes in the alias set, we can skip processing the AS.
This patch also adds an assertion to ensure that DepCands does not
contain more than one write from the alias set.
Reviewers: Ayal, anemet, hfinkel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80622
If it turns out that we can do runtime checks, but there are no
runtime-checks to generate, set RtCheck.Need to false.
This can happen if we can prove statically that the pointers passed in
to canCheckPtrAtRT do not alias. This should not change any results, but
allows us to skip some work and assert that runtime checks are
generated, if LAA indicates that runtime checks are required.
Reviewers: anemet, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79969
Note: This is a recommit of 259abfc7cb,
with some suggested renaming.
If it turns out that we can do runtime checks, but there are no
runtime-checks to generate, set RtCheck.Need to false.
This can happen if we can prove statically that the pointers passed in
to canCheckPtrAtRT do not alias. This should not change any results, but
allows us to skip some work and assert that runtime checks are
generated, if LAA indicates that runtime checks are required.
Reviewers: anemet, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79969
SCEVExpander modifies the underlying function so it is more suitable in
Transforms/Utils, rather than Analysis. This allows using other
transform utils in SCEVExpander.
This patch was originally committed as b8a3c34eee, but broke the
modules build, as LoopAccessAnalysis was using the Expander.
The code-gen part of LAA was moved to lib/Transforms recently, so this
patch can be landed again.
Reviewers: sanjoy.google, efriedma, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy.google
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71537
Currently LAA's uses of ScalarEvolutionExpander blocks moving the
expander from Analysis to Transforms. Conceptually the expander does not
fit into Analysis (it is only used for code generation) and
runtime-check generation also seems to be better suited as a
transformation utility.
Reviewers: Ayal, anemet
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78460
Philip Reames