* Generate `CallExpression` syntax node for all semantic nodes inheriting from
`CallExpr` with call-expression syntax - except `CUDAKernelCallExpr`.
* Implement all the accessors
* Arguments of `CallExpression` have their own syntax node which is based on
the `List` base API
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86544
While since D86306 we do it's sibling fold for `insertvalue`,
we should also do this for `extractvalue`'s.
And unlike that one, the results here are, quite honestly, shocking,
as it can be observed here on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed results:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | |%| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7945095 | 7942507 | -2588 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273209920 | 273069800 | -140120 | -0.05% | 0.05% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183363 | 2183398 | 35 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 541847 | 550017 | 8170 | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 2139 | 108 | -2031 | -94.95% | 94.95% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3601364 | 3635448 | 34084 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumConstProp | 27153 | 27157 | 4 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1694521 | 1765022 | 70501 | 4.16% | 4.16% |
| instcombine.NumPHIsOfExtractValues | 0 | 37546 | 37546 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 63158 | 63686 | 528 | 0.84% | 0.84% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 874304 | 871857 | -2447 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1757657 | 1758402 | 745 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 45623 | 11483 | -34140 | -74.83% | 74.83% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4983 | 580 | -4403 | -88.36% | 88.36% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 61018 | 59478 | -1540 | -2.52% | 2.52% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 35334 | 34215 | -1119 | -3.17% | 3.17% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 344428 | 331116 | -13312 | -3.86% | 3.86% |
| instcount.NumRetInst | 100773 | 100772 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1081154 | 1077166 | -3988 | -0.37% | 0.37% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101443 | 101442 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8890201 | 8833747 | -56454 | -0.64% | 0.64% |
| instsimplify.NumSimplified | 75822 | 75707 | -115 | -0.15% | 0.15% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonCode | 24203 | 24197 | -6 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 48201 | 48195 | -6 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 2785 | 4298 | 1513 | 54.33% | 54.33% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 997332 | 1018189 | 20857 | 2.09% | 2.09% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 7088 | 6464 | -624 | -8.80% | 8.80% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 15117 | 14021 | -1096 | -7.25% | 7.25% |
```
... which tells us that this new fold fires whopping 38k times,
increasing the amount of SimplifyCFG's `invoke`->`call` transforms by +54% (+1513) (again, D85787 did that last time),
decreasing total instruction count by -0.64% (-56454),
and sharply decreasing count of `insertvalue`'s (-88.36%, i.e. 9 times less)
and `extractvalue`'s (-74.83%, i.e. four times less).
This causes geomean -0.01% binary size decrease
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=size-text
and, ignoring `O0-g`, is a geomean -0.01%..-0.05% compile-time improvement
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=instructions
The other thing that tells is, is that while this is a massive win for `invoke`->`call` transform
`InstCombinerImpl::foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` fold,
which is supposed to be dealing with such aggregate reconstructions,
fires a lot less now. There are two reasons why:
1. After this fold, as it can be seen in tests, we may (will) end up with trivially redundant PHI nodes.
We don't CSE them in InstCombine presently, which means that EarlyCSE needs to run and then InstCombine rerun.
2. But then, EarlyCSE not only manages to fold such redundant PHI's,
it also sees that the extract-insert chain recreates the original aggregate,
and replaces it with the original aggregate.
The take-aways are
1. We maybe should do most trivial, same-BB PHI CSE in InstCombine
2. I need to check if what other patterns remain, and how they can be resolved.
(i.e. i wonder if `foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` might go away)
This is a reland of the original commit fcb51d8c24,
because originally i forgot to ensure that the base aggregate types match.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530
This assertion does not achieve what it meant to do originally, as it
would fire only when applied to an unregistered operation, which is a
fairly rare circumstance (it needs a dialect or context allowing
unregistered operation in the input in the first place).
Instead we relax it to only fire when it should have matched but didn't
because of the misconfiguration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86588
Update the comment stating the aim of the test - this is currently
only checking that these assembler directives doesn't cause the
assembler to fail, but the results of the testcase aren't particularly
correct yet.
Remove bits of the testcase that are even less likely to be found in
the wild (the .seh_startchained/.seh_endchained block), where the
testcase currently doesn't really generate anything interesting
anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86524
Instead of using the TypeConverter infer the value of the alloca created based
on the init value. This will allow some ambiguous types like multidimensional
vectors to be converted correctly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86582
This reverts commit fcb51d8c24.
As buildbots report, there's apparently some missing check to ensure
that the types of incoming values match the type of PHI.
Let's revert for a moment.
While since D86306 we do it's sibling fold for `insertvalue`,
we should also do this for `extractvalue`'s.
And unlike that one, the results here are, quite honestly, shocking,
as it can be observed here on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed results:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | |%| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7945095 | 7942507 | -2588 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273209920 | 273069800 | -140120 | -0.05% | 0.05% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183363 | 2183398 | 35 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 541847 | 550017 | 8170 | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 2139 | 108 | -2031 | -94.95% | 94.95% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3601364 | 3635448 | 34084 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumConstProp | 27153 | 27157 | 4 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1694521 | 1765022 | 70501 | 4.16% | 4.16% |
| instcombine.NumPHIsOfExtractValues | 0 | 37546 | 37546 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 63158 | 63686 | 528 | 0.84% | 0.84% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 874304 | 871857 | -2447 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1757657 | 1758402 | 745 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 45623 | 11483 | -34140 | -74.83% | 74.83% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4983 | 580 | -4403 | -88.36% | 88.36% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 61018 | 59478 | -1540 | -2.52% | 2.52% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 35334 | 34215 | -1119 | -3.17% | 3.17% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 344428 | 331116 | -13312 | -3.86% | 3.86% |
| instcount.NumRetInst | 100773 | 100772 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1081154 | 1077166 | -3988 | -0.37% | 0.37% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101443 | 101442 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8890201 | 8833747 | -56454 | -0.64% | 0.64% |
| instsimplify.NumSimplified | 75822 | 75707 | -115 | -0.15% | 0.15% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonCode | 24203 | 24197 | -6 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 48201 | 48195 | -6 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 2785 | 4298 | 1513 | 54.33% | 54.33% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 997332 | 1018189 | 20857 | 2.09% | 2.09% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 7088 | 6464 | -624 | -8.80% | 8.80% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 15117 | 14021 | -1096 | -7.25% | 7.25% |
```
... which tells us that this new fold fires whopping 38k times,
increasing the amount of SimplifyCFG's `invoke`->`call` transforms by +54% (+1513) (again, D85787 did that last time),
decreasing total instruction count by -0.64% (-56454),
and sharply decreasing count of `insertvalue`'s (-88.36%, i.e. 9 times less)
and `extractvalue`'s (-74.83%, i.e. four times less).
This causes geomean -0.01% binary size decrease
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=size-text
and, ignoring `O0-g`, is a geomean -0.01%..-0.05% compile-time improvement
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=instructions
The other thing that tells is, is that while this is a massive win for `invoke`->`call` transform
`InstCombinerImpl::foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` fold,
which is supposed to be dealing with such aggregate reconstructions,
fires a lot less now. There are two reasons why:
1. After this fold, as it can be seen in tests, we may (will) end up with trivially redundant PHI nodes.
We don't CSE them in InstCombine presently, which means that EarlyCSE needs to run and then InstCombine rerun.
2. But then, EarlyCSE not only manages to fold such redundant PHI's,
it also sees that the extract-insert chain recreates the original aggregate,
and replaces it with the original aggregate.
The take-aways are
1. We maybe should do most trivial, same-BB PHI CSE in InstCombine
2. I need to check if what other patterns remain, and how they can be resolved.
(i.e. i wonder if `foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` might go away)
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530
This happens when using -flto and -Wl,--plugin-opt=emit-llvm to create a linked LTO bitcode file, and the bitcode file has a strtab with size > 2^29.
All the issues relate to a pattern like this
size_t x64 = y64 + z32 * C
When z32 is >= (2^32)/C, z32 * C overflows.
Reviewed-by: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86500
Tests for frexp[f|l] now use the new capability. Not all input-output
combinations have been addressed by this change. Support for newer combinations
can be added in future as needed.
Reviewed By: lntue
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86506
A Mach-O universal binary may contain bitcode as a slice.
This diff adds proper handling of such binaries to llvm-lipo.
Test plan: make check-all
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85740
Update the "image show-unwind" command output to show if the function
being shown is listed as a user-setting or platform trap handler.
Update the individual UnwindPlan dumps to show whether the unwind plan
is registered as a trap handler.
Since we can only copy to GR32 we had to EXTRACT from GR32, but
we would first go to GR16 and then the truncate would extra again
to GR8. This adds a special case to go directly from GR32 to GR8.
This would eventually get cleaned up, but though maybe we should
avoid doing it in the first place. Our k-register handling is weird
and we could probably stand to have some more special ISD nodes
for the conversions so the i32 type would be explicit.
Before the change the diagnostic for
module unknown.submodule {}
was "error: expected module name" which is incorrect and misleading
because both "unknown" and "submodule" are valid module names.
We already have a better error message when a parent module is a
submodule itself and is missing. Make the error for a missing top-level
module more like the one for a submodule.
rdar://problem/64424407
Reviewed By: bruno
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84458
The IsExtractedElement already called getOperand(0) so Extract
here is the source vector. We shouldn't call getOperand(0). This
worked for the original test cases because the result was a
bitcast so the getOperand(0) accidently peeked through the bitcast
which is what we wanted.
In the failing case here, the operand turns out to be undef so
the getOperand(0) asserts because undef has no operands.
Fixes https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=25184
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86428
KMOVWkr produces VK16, there's no reason to copy it to VK16 again.
Test changes are presumably because we were scheduling based on
the COPY that is no longer there.
Remove `SetObjectModificationTime` which is not currently used, and assigns to the wrong member.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86493
We only need the C++ type and the corresponding TF Enum. The other
parameter was used for the output spec json file, but we can just
standardize on the C++ type name there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86549
There are two ways .llvmbc can be produced:
* clang -c -fembed-bitcode=all (which also produces .llvmcmd)
* LTO backend: ld.lld -mllvm -lto-embed-bitcode or -plugin-opt=-lto-embed-bitcode
.llvmbc and .llvmcmd have the SHF_ALLOC flag, so they can be dropped by
--gc-sections.
This patch sets SectionKind::Metadata to drop the SHF_ALLOC flag. This
is conceptually correct: the two sections are not part of the process
image, so SHF_ALLOC is not appropriate.
`test/LTO/X86/embed-bitcode.ll`: changed `llvm-objcopy -O binary --only-section` to
`llvm-objcopy --dump-section`. `-O binary` does not dump non-SHF_ALLOC sections.
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86374
In this patch, we pack all small first-private arguments, allocate and transfer them all at once to reduce the number of data transfer which is very expensive.
Let's take the test case as example.
```
int main() {
int data1[3] = {1}, data2[3] = {2}, data3[3] = {3};
int sum[16] = {0};
#pragma omp target teams distribute parallel for map(tofrom: sum) firstprivate(data1, data2, data3)
for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < 3; ++j) {
sum[i] += data1[j];
sum[i] += data2[j];
sum[i] += data3[j];
}
}
}
```
Here `data1`, `data2`, and `data3` are three first-private arguments of the target region. In the previous `libomptarget`, it called data allocation and data transfer three times, each of which allocated and transferred 12 bytes. With this patch, it only calls allocation and transfer once. The size is `(12+4)*3=48` where 12 is the size of each array and 4 is the padding to keep the address aligned with 8. It is implemented in this way:
1. First collect all information for those *first*-private arguments. _private_ arguments are not the case because private arguments don't need to be mapped to target device. It just needs a data allocation. With the patch for memory manager, the data allocation could be very cheap, especially for the small size. For each qualified argument, push a place holder pointer `nullptr` to the `vector` for kernel arguments, and we will update them later.
2. After we have all information, create a buffer that can accommodate all arguments plus their paddings. Copy the arguments to the buffer at the right place, i.e. aligned address.
3. Allocate a target memory with the same size as the host buffer, transfer the host buffer to target device, and finally update all place holder pointers in the arguments `vector`.
The reason we only consider small arguments is, the data transfer is asynchronous. Therefore, for the large argument, we could continue to do things on the host side meanwhile, hopefully, the data is also being transferred. The "small" is defined by that the argument size is less than a predefined value. Currently it is 1024. I'm not sure whether it is a good one, and that is an open question. Another question is, do we need to make it configurable via an environment variable?
Reviewed By: ye-luo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86307
This patch adds the z/OS target and defines macros as a stepping stone
towards enabling a native build on z/OS.
Reviewed By: hubert.reinterpretcast
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85324
This patch helps getGuaranteedNonPoisonOp find multiple non-poison operands.
Instead of special-casing llvm.assume, I think it is also a viable option to
add noundef to Intrinsics.td. If it makes sense, I'll make a patch for that.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86477
For some reason the ctor homing case was before the template
specialization case, and could have returned false too early.
I moved the code out into a separate function to avoid this.
This reverts commit 05777ab941.
We're not changing IR while running a single MemDep query, so it's
safe to cache alias analysis results using BatchAA. This adds BatchAA
usage to getSimplePointerDependencyFrom(), which is non-intrusive --
covering larger parts (like a whole processNonLocalLoad query) is
also possible, but requires threading BatchAA through a bunch of APIs.
For the ThinLTO configuration, this is a 1% geomean improvement on CTMark.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85583
Provides fast, generic way of setting a mask up to a certain
point. Potential use cases that may benefit are create_mask
and transfer_read/write operations in the vector dialect.
Reviewed By: bkramer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86501
including printing them.
Reviewers: andreadb, lebedev.ri
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86390
Introduces a new base class "InstructionView" that such views derive from.
Other views still use the "View" base class.
Eduardo Caldas