After some stellar (& inspired) help from Reid Kleckner providing a test
case for some rather unstable undefined behavior showing up as
assertions produced by r214761, I was able to fix this issue in DAE
involving the application of both varargs removal, followed by normal
argument removal.
Indeed I introduced this same bug into ArgumentPromotion (r212128) by
copying the code from DAE, and when I fixed the bug in ArgPromo
(r213805) and commented in that patch that I didn't need to address the
same issue in DAE because it was a single pass. Turns out it's two pass,
one for the varargs and one for the normal arguments, so the same fix is
needed (at least during varargs removal). So here it is.
(the observable/net effect of this bug, even when it didn't result in
assertion failure, is that debug info would describe the DAE'd function
in the abstract, but wouldn't provide high/low_pc, variable locations,
line table, etc (it would appear as though the function had been
entirely optimized away), see the original PR14016 for details of the
general problem)
I'm not recommitting the assertion just yet, as there's been another
regression of it since I last tried. It might just be a few test cases
weren't adequately updated after Adrian or Duncan's recent schema
changes.
llvm-svn: 219210
Takes care of the assert that caused build fails.
Rather than asserting the code checks now that the definition
and use are in the same block, and does not attempt
to optimize when that is not the case.
llvm-svn: 219175
Particularly, it addresses cases where Reassociate breaks Subtracts but then fails to optimize combinations like I1 + -I2 where I1 and I2 have the same rank and are identical.
Patch by Dmitri Shtilman.
llvm-svn: 219092
For any @llvm.assume intrinsic, if there is another which dominates it and uses
the same condition, then it is redundant and can be removed. While this does
not alter the semantics of the @llvm.assume intrinsics, it makes subsequent
handling more efficient (and the resulting IR easier to read).
llvm-svn: 219067
C++14 adds new builtin signatures for 'operator delete'. This change allows
new/delete pairs to be removed in C++14 onwards, as they were in C++11 and
before.
llvm-svn: 219014
This reverts commit r218918, effectively reapplying r218914 after fixing
an Ocaml bindings test and an Asan crash. The root cause of the latter
was a tightened-up check in `DILexicalBlock::Verify()`, so I'll file a
PR to investigate who requires the loose check (and why).
Original commit message follows.
--
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 219010
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 218914
When unsafe-fp-math is enabled, we can turn sqrt(X) * sqrt(X) into X.
This can happen in the real world when calculating x ** 3/2. This occurs
in test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/n-body.c.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5584
llvm-svn: 218906
My commit rL216160 introduced a bug PR21014: IndVars widens code 'for (i = ; i < ...; i++) arr[ CONST - i]' into 'for (i = ; i < ...; i++) arr[ i - CONST]'
thus inverting index expression. This patch fixes it.
Thanks to Jörg Sonnenberger for pointing.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5576
llvm-svn: 218867
As discussed here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140609/220598.html
And again here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-September/077168.html
The sqrt of a negative number when using the llvm intrinsic is undefined.
We should return undef rather than 0.0 to match the definition in the LLVM IR lang ref.
This change should not affect any code that isn't using "no-nans-fp-math";
ie, no-nans is a requirement for generating the llvm intrinsic in place of a sqrt function call.
Unfortunately, the behavior introduced by this patch will not match current gcc, xlc, icc, and
possibly other compilers. The current clang/llvm behavior of returning 0.0 doesn't either.
We knowingly approve of this difference with the other compilers in an attempt to flag code
that is invoking undefined behavior.
A front-end warning should also try to convince the user that the program will fail:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21093
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5527
llvm-svn: 218803
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
Note: I accidentally committed a bogus older version of this patch previously.
llvm-svn: 218787
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
llvm-svn: 218778
In special cases select instructions can be eliminated by
replacing them with a cheaper bitwise operation even when the
select result is used outside its home block. The instances implemented
are patterns like
%x=icmp.eq
%y=select %x,%r, null
%z=icmp.eq|neq %y, null
br %z,true, false
==> %x=icmp.ne
%y=icmp.eq %r,null
%z=or %x,%y
br %z,true,false
The optimization is integrated into the instruction
combiner and performed only when all uses of the select result can
be replaced by the select operand proper. For this dominator information
is used and dominance is now a required analysis pass in the combiner.
The optimization itself is iterative. The critical step is to replace the
select result with the non-constant select operand. So the select becomes
local and the combiner iteratively works out simpler code pattern and
eventually eliminates the select.
rdar://17853760
llvm-svn: 218721
Summary:
This patch adds a threshold that controls the number of bonus instructions
allowed for folding branches with common destination. The original code allows
at most one bonus instruction. With this patch, users can customize the
threshold to allow multiple bonus instructions. The default threshold is still
1, so that the code behaves the same as before when users do not specify this
threshold.
The motivation of this change is that tuning this threshold significantly (up
to 25%) improves the performance of some CUDA programs in our internal code
base. In general, branch instructions are very expensive for GPU programs.
Therefore, it is sometimes worth trading more arithmetic computation for a more
straightened control flow. Here's a reduced example:
__global__ void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int n,
const int *input, int *output) {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
sum += (((i ^ a) > b) && (((i | c ) ^ d) > e)) ? 0 : input[i];
*output = sum;
}
The select statement in the loop body translates to two branch instructions "if
((i ^ a) > b)" and "if (((i | c) ^ d) > e)" which share a common destination.
With the default threshold, SimplifyCFG is unable to fold them, because
computing the condition of the second branch "(i | c) ^ d > e" requires two
bonus instructions. With the threshold increased, SimplifyCFG can fold the two
branches so that the loop body contains only one branch, making the code
conceptually look like:
sum += (((i ^ a) > b) & (((i | c ) ^ d) > e)) ? 0 : input[i];
Increasing the threshold significantly improves the performance of this
particular example. In the configuration where both conditions are guaranteed
to be true, increasing the threshold from 1 to 2 improves the performance by
18.24%. Even in the configuration where the first condition is false and the
second condition is true, which favors shortcuts, increasing the threshold from
1 to 2 still improves the performance by 4.35%.
We are still looking for a good threshold and maybe a better cost model than
just counting the number of bonus instructions. However, according to the above
numbers, we think it is at least worth adding a threshold to enable more
experiments and tuning. Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Test Plan: Added one test case to check the threshold is in effect
Reviewers: nadav, eliben, meheff, resistor, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5529
llvm-svn: 218711
This patch improves the target-specific cost model to better handle signed
division by a power of two. The immediate result is that this enables the SLP
vectorizer to do a better job.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5469
PR20714
llvm-svn: 218607
Runtime unrolling will create a prologue to execute the extra
iterations which is can't divided by the unroll factor. It
generates an if-then-else sequence to jump into a factor -1
times unrolled loop body, like
extraiters = tripcount % loopfactor
if (extraiters == 0) jump Loop:
if (extraiters == loopfactor) jump L1
if (extraiters == loopfactor-1) jump L2
...
L1: LoopBody;
L2: LoopBody;
...
if tripcount < loopfactor jump End
Loop:
...
End:
It means if the unroll factor is 4, the loop body will be 7
times unrolled, 3 are in loop prologue, and 4 are in the loop.
This commit is to use a loop to execute the extra iterations
in prologue, like
extraiters = tripcount % loopfactor
if (extraiters == 0) jump Loop:
else jump Prol
Prol: LoopBody;
extraiters -= 1 // Omitted if unroll factor is 2.
if (extraiters != 0) jump Prol: // Omitted if unroll factor is 2.
if (tripcount < loopfactor) jump End
Loop:
...
End:
Then when unroll factor is 4, the loop body will be copied by
only 5 times, 1 in the prologue loop, 4 in the original loop.
And if the unroll factor is 2, new loop won't be created, just
as the original solution.
llvm-svn: 218604
The annotation instructions are dropped during codegen and have no
impact on size. In some cases, the annotations were preventing the
unroller from unrolling a loop because the annotation calls were
pushing the cost over the unrolling threshold.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5335
llvm-svn: 218525
The doFinalization method checks that the LoopToAliasSetMap is
empty. LICM populates that map as it runs through the loop nest,
deleting the entries for child loops as it goes. However, if a child
loop is deleted by another pass (e.g. unrolling) then the loop will
never be deleted from the map because LICM walks the loop nest to
find entries it can delete.
The fix is to delete the loop from the map and free the alias set
when the loop is deleted from the loop nest.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5305
llvm-svn: 218387
Rather than slurping in and splatting out the whole ctor list, preserve
the existing array entries without trying to understand them. Only
remove the entries that we know we can optimize away. This way we don't
need to wire through priority and comdats or anything else we might add.
Fixes a linker issue where the .init_array or .ctors entry would point
to discarded initialization code if the comdat group from the TU with
the faulty global_ctors entry was dropped.
llvm-svn: 218337
This improves other optimizations such as LSR. A sext may be added to the
compare's other operand, but this can often be hoisted outside of the loop.
llvm-svn: 217953
Example:
define i1 @foo(i32 %a) {
%shr = ashr i32 -9, %a
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %shr, -5
ret i1 %cmp
}
Before this fix, the instruction combiner wrongly thought that %shr
could have never been equal to -5. Therefore, %cmp was always folded to 'true'.
However, when %a is equal to 1, then %cmp evaluates to 'false'. Therefore,
in this example, it is not valid to fold %cmp to 'true'.
The problem was only affecting the case where the comparison was between
negative quantities where one of the quantities was obtained from arithmetic
shift of a negative constant.
This patch fixes the problem with the wrong folding (fixes PR20945).
With this patch, the 'icmp' from the example is now simplified to a
comparison between %a and 1. This still allows us to get rid of the arithmetic
shift (%shr).
llvm-svn: 217950
Some ICmpInsts when anded/ored with another ICmpInst trivially reduces
to true or false depending on whether or not all integers or no integers
satisfy the intersected/unioned range.
This sort of trivial looking code can come about when InstCombine
performs a range reduction-type operation on sdiv and the like.
This fixes PR20916.
llvm-svn: 217750
We used to crash processing any relevant @llvm.assume on a 32-bit target
(because we'd ask SE to subtract expressions of differing types). I've copied
our 'simple.ll' test, but with the data layout from arm-linux-gnueabihf to get
some meaningful test coverage here.
llvm-svn: 217574
The routine that determines an alignment given some SCEV returns zero if the
answer is unknown. In a case where we could determine the increment of an
AddRec but not the starting alignment, we would compute the integer modulus by
zero (which is illegal and traps). Prevent this by returning early if either
the start or increment alignment is unknown (zero).
llvm-svn: 217544
"Unroll" is not the appropriate name for this variable. Clang already uses
the term "interleave" in pragmas and metadata for this.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5066
llvm-svn: 217528
From a combination of @llvm.assume calls (and perhaps through other means, such
as range metadata), it is possible that all bits of a return value might be
known. Previously, InstCombine did not check for this (which is understandable
given assumptions of constant propagation), but means that we'd miss simple
cases where assumptions are involved.
llvm-svn: 217346
This change teaches LazyValueInfo to use the @llvm.assume intrinsic. Like with
the known-bits change (r217342), this requires feeding a "context" instruction
pointer through many functions. Aside from a little refactoring to reuse the
logic that turns predicates into constant ranges in LVI, the only new code is
that which can 'merge' the range from an assumption into that otherwise
computed. There is also a small addition to JumpThreading so that it can have
LVI use assumptions in the same block as the comparison feeding a conditional
branch.
With this patch, we can now simplify this as expected:
int foo(int a) {
__builtin_assume(a > 5);
if (a > 3) {
bar();
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
llvm-svn: 217345
This adds a ScalarEvolution-powered transformation that updates load, store and
memory intrinsic pointer alignments based on invariant((a+q) & b == 0)
expressions. Many of the simple cases we can get with ValueTracking, but we
still need something like this for the more complicated cases (such as those
with an offset) that require some algebra. Note that gcc's
__builtin_assume_aligned's optional third argument provides exactly for this
kind of 'misalignment' offset for which this kind of logic is necessary.
The primary motivation is to fixup alignments for vector loads/stores after
vectorization (and unrolling). This pass is added to the optimization pipeline
just after the SLP vectorizer runs (which, admittedly, does not preserve SE,
although I imagine it could). Regardless, I actually don't think that the
preservation matters too much in this case: SE computes lazily, and this pass
won't issue any SE queries unless there are any assume intrinsics, so there
should be no real additional cost in the common case (SLP does preserve DT and
LoopInfo).
llvm-svn: 217344
This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits
using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few
patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this
change adds several other patterns for simple cases.
r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask
that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also
had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds:
assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we
can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v.
assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate known bits from the a to v.
assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate inverted known bits from the a to v.
assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in
b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted
known bits from the a to v.
assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those
bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate
known bits from the a to v.
assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them
to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate
them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them
to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate
them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero
assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero
assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one
assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one
assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits
assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power
of 2, transfer one more)
A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The
problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to
check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific
conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to
trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change
here.
llvm-svn: 217343
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
This adds a set of utility functions for collecting 'ephemeral' values. These
are LLVM IR values that are used only by @llvm.assume intrinsics (directly or
indirectly), and thus will be removed prior to code generation, implying that
they should be considered free for certain purposes (like inlining). The
inliner's cost analysis, and a few other passes, have been updated to account
for ephemeral values using the provided functionality.
This functionality is important for the usability of @llvm.assume, because it
limits the "non-local" side-effects of adding llvm.assume on inlining, loop
unrolling, etc. (these are hints, and do not generate code, so they should not
directly contribute to estimates of execution cost).
llvm-svn: 217335
The special case did not work when run under -reassociate and can easily
be expressed by a further generalization of an existing pattern.
llvm-svn: 217227
LinearFunctionTestReplace tries to use the *next* indvar to compare
against when possible. However, it may be the case that the calculation
for the next indvar has NUW/NSW flags and that it may only be safely
used inside the loop. Using it in a comparison to calculate the exit
condition could result in observing poison.
This fixes PR20680.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5174
llvm-svn: 217102
Fixes two latent bugs:
- There was no fence inserted before expanded seq_cst load (unsound on Power)
- There was only a fence release before seq_cst stores (again unsound, in particular on Power)
It is not even clear if this is correct on ARM swift processors (where release fences are
DMB ishst instead of DMB ish). This behaviour is currently preserved on ARM Swift
as it is not clear whether it is incorrect. I would love to get documentation stating
whether it is correct or not.
These two bugs were not triggered because Power is not (yet) using this pass, and these
behaviours happen to be (mostly?) working on ARM
(although they completely butchered the semantics of the llvm IR).
See:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075821.html
for an example of the problems that can be caused by the second of these bugs.
I couldn't see a way of fixing these in a completely target-independent way without
adding lots of unnecessary fences on ARM, hence the target-dependent parts of this
patch.
This patch implements the new target-dependent parts only for ARM (the default
of not doing anything is enough for AArch64), other architectures will use this
infrastructure in later patches.
llvm-svn: 217076
The SLP vectorizer should propagate IR-level optimization hints/flags (nsw, nuw, exact, fast-math)
when converting scalar instructions into vectors. But this isn't a simple copy - we need to take
the intersection (the logical 'and') of the sets of flags on the scalars.
The solution is further complicated because we can have non-uniform (non-SIMD) vector ops after:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4015http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=211339
The vast majority of changed files are existing tests that were not propagating IR flags, but I've
also added a new test file for focused testing of IR flag possibilities.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5172
llvm-svn: 217051
David Blaikie