getUDivExpr attempts to simplify by checking for overflow.
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond then evaluates the loop predicate which
may lead to the same getUDivExpr causing endless recursion.
Fixes PR12868: clang 3.2 segmentation fault.
llvm-svn: 157092
verifier does. This correctly handles invoke.
Thanks to Duncan, Andrew and Chris for the comments.
Thanks to Joerg for the early testing.
llvm-svn: 151469
captured. This allows the tracker to look at the specific use, which may be
especially interesting for function calls.
Use this to fix 'nocapture' deduction in FunctionAttrs. The existing one does
not iterate until a fixpoint and does not guarantee that it produces the same
result regardless of iteration order. The new implementation builds up a graph
of how arguments are passed from function to function, and uses a bottom-up walk
on the argument-SCCs to assign nocapture. This gets us nocapture more often, and
does so rather efficiently and independent of iteration order.
llvm-svn: 147327
probability wouldn't be considered "hot" in some weird loop structures
or other compounding probability patterns. This makes it much harder to
confuse, but isn't really a principled fix. I'd actually like it if we
could model a zero probability, as it would make this much easier to
reason about. Suggestions for how to do this better are welcome.
llvm-svn: 147142
I followed three heuristics for deciding whether to set 'true' or
'false':
- Everything target independent got 'true' as that is the expected
common output of the GCC builtins.
- If the target arch only has one way of implementing this operation,
set the flag in the way that exercises the most of codegen. For most
architectures this is also the likely path from a GCC builtin, with
'true' being set. It will (eventually) require lowering away that
difference, and then lowering to the architecture's operation.
- Otherwise, set the flag differently dependending on which target
operation should be tested.
Let me know if anyone has any issue with this pattern or would like
specific tests of another form. This should allow the x86 codegen to
just iteratively improve as I teach the backend how to differentiate
between the two forms, and everything else should remain exactly the
same.
llvm-svn: 146370
bots. Original commit messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
llvm-svn: 142919
classifying many edges as exiting which were in fact not. These mainly
formed edges into sub-loops. It was also not correctly classifying all
returning edges out of loops as leaving the loop. With this match most
of the loop heuristics are more rational.
Several serious regressions on loop-intesive benchmarks like perlbench's
loop tests when built with -enable-block-placement are fixed by these
updated heuristics. Unfortunately they in turn uncover some other
regressions. There are still several improvemenst that should be made to
loop heuristics including trip-count, and early back-edge management.
llvm-svn: 142917
the dragonegg and llvm-gcc self-host buildbots. Original commit
messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
llvm-svn: 142916
introduce no-return or unreachable heuristics.
The return heuristics from the Ball and Larus paper don't work well in
practice as they pessimize early return paths. The only good hitrate
return heuristics are those for:
- NULL return
- Constant return
- negative integer return
Only the last of these three can possibly require significant code for
the returning block, and even the last is fairly rare and usually also
a constant. As a consequence, even for the cold return paths, there is
little code on that return path, and so little code density to be gained
by sinking it. The places where sinking these blocks is valuable (inner
loops) will already be weighted appropriately as the edge is a loop-exit
branch.
All of this aside, early returns are nearly as common as all three of
these return categories, and should actually be predicted as taken!
Rather than muddy the waters of the static predictions, just remain
silent on returns and let the CFG itself dictate any layout or other
issues.
However, the return heuristic was flagging one very important case:
unreachable. Unfortunately it still gave a 1/4 chance of the
branch-to-unreachable occuring. It also didn't do a rigorous job of
finding those blocks which post-dominate an unreachable block.
This patch builds a more powerful analysis that should flag all branches
to blocks known to then reach unreachable. It also has better worst-case
runtime complexity by not looping through successors for each block. The
previous code would perform an N^2 walk in the event of a single entry
block branching to N successors with a switch where each successor falls
through to the next and they finally fall through to a return.
Test case added for noreturn heuristics. Also doxygen comments improved
along the way.
llvm-svn: 142793
to bring it under direct test instead of merely indirectly testing it in
the BlockFrequencyInfo pass.
The next step is to start adding tests for the various heuristics
employed, and to start fixing those heuristics once they're under test.
llvm-svn: 142778
able to constant fold load instructions where the argument is a constant.
Second, we should be able to watch multiple PHI nodes through the loop; this
patch only supports PHIs in loop headers, more can be done here.
With this patch, we now constant evaluate:
static const int arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) sum += arr[i];
return sum;
}
llvm-svn: 142731
and switches, with arbitrary numbers of successors. Still optimized for
the common case of 2 successors for a conditional branch.
Add a test case for switch metadata showing up in the BlockFrequencyInfo pass.
llvm-svn: 142493
encoding of probabilities. In the absense of metadata, it continues to
fall back on static heuristics.
This allows __builtin_expect, after lowering through llvm.expect
a branch instruction's metadata, to actually enter the branch
probability model. This is one component of resolving PR2577.
llvm-svn: 142492
layer already had support for printing the results of this analysis, but
the wiring was missing.
Now that printing the analysis works, actually bring some of this
analysis, and the BranchProbabilityInfo analysis that it wraps, under
test! I'm planning on fixing some bugs and doing other work here, so
having a nice place to add regression tests and a way to observe the
results is really useful.
llvm-svn: 142491
Andrew Trick