As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
As K has to dominate I, IIUC I's range metadata must be a subset of
K's. After Eli's recent clarification to the LangRef, loading a value
outside of the range is undefined behavior.
Therefore if I's range contains elements outside of K's range and we would load
one such value, K would cause undefined behavior.
In cases like hoisting/sinking, we still want the most generic range
over all code paths to/from the hoist/sink point. As suggested in the
patches related to D47339, I will refactor the handling of those
scenarios and try to decouple it from this function as follow up, once
we switched to a similar handling of metadata in most of
combineMetadata.
I updated some tests checking mostly the merging of metadata to keep the
metadata of to dominating load. The most interesting one is probably test8 in
test/Transforms/JumpThreading/thread-loads.ll. It contained a comment
about the alias metadata preventing us to eliminate the branch, but it
seem like the actual problem currently is that we merge the ranges of
both loads and cannot eliminate the icmp afterwards. With this patch, we
manage to eliminate the icmp, as the range of the first load excludes 8.
Reviewers: efriedma, nlopes, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51629
llvm-svn: 345456
Summary:
This change adds some verification in the IR verifier around struct path
TBAA metadata.
Other than some basic sanity checks (e.g. we get constant integers where
we expect constant integers), this checks:
- That by the time an struct access tuple `(base-type, offset)` is
"reduced" to a scalar base type, the offset is `0`. For instance, in
C++ you can't start from, say `("struct-a", 16)`, and end up with
`("int", 4)` -- by the time the base type is `"int"`, the offset
better be zero. In particular, a variant of this invariant is needed
for `llvm::getMostGenericTBAA` to be correct.
- That there are no cycles in a struct path.
- That struct type nodes have their offsets listed in an ascending
order.
- That when generating the struct access path, you eventually reach the
access type listed in the tbaa tag node.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, chandlerc, reames, mehdi_amini, manmanren
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26438
llvm-svn: 289402
First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that:
((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0
where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the
lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about
fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach
computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously,
we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something
about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and
together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with
that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for
all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above
case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and
thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result.
This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the
bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result.
This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've
added it into both because:
1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in
InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that
passes in the original instruction).
2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become
part of the iterative worklist
3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be
used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling,
and many others).
And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so
that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the
@llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would
not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the
assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and
it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening.
llvm-svn: 251146
Not doing this can lead to misoptimizations down the line, e.g. because
of range metadata on the replacing load excluding values that are valid
for the load that is being replaced.
llvm-svn: 241886
Eric Christopher