This is an alternative implementation of LoopSafetyInfo that uses the implicit
control flow tracking to give precise answers on queries "whether or not this
block contains throwing instructions". This rules out false-positive answers on
LoopSafetyInfo's queries.
This patch only introduces the new implementation. It is not currently used in
any pass. The enabling patches will go separately, through review.
The plan is to completely replace all uses of LoopSafetyInfo with
ICFLoopSafetyInfo in the future, but to avoid introducing functional problems,
we will do it pass by pass.
llvm-svn: 344601
The description of `isGuaranteedToExecute` does not correspond to its implementation.
According to description, it should return `true` if an instruction is executed under the
assumption that its loop is *entered*. However there is a sophisticated alrogithm inside
that tries to prove that the instruction is executed if the loop is *exited*, which is not the
same thing for infinite loops. There is an attempt to protect from dealing with infinite loops
by prohibiting loops without exit blocks, however an infinite loop can have exit blocks.
As result of that, MustExecute can falsely consider some blocks that are never entered as
mustexec, and LICM can hoist dangerous instructions out of them basing on this fact.
This may introduce UB to programs which did not contain it initially.
This patch removes the problematic algorithm and replaced it with a one which tries to
prove what is required in description.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50558
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 339984
Summary:
Look past debug intrinsics when querying whether an instruction is the
first instruction in the header block. The commit includes a reproducer
for a case where LICM would not hoist an instruction, due to the presence
of the intrinsic.
A caveat with this commit is that the check will not work properly if
the instruction at hand is a debug intrinsic. I assume that no one
depends on isGuaranteedToExecute() to return true for debug intrinsics
for these cases (and that this might be an indication of another debug
invariant issue), so I thought that it was not worth adding that extra
bit of complexity.
Reviewers: reames, anna
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47197
llvm-svn: 333274
CanProveNotTakenFirstIteration utility does not handle the case when
condition of the branch is a constant. Add its handling.
Reviewers: reames, anna, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46996
llvm-svn: 332695
Summary:
- Add wasm personality function
- Re-categorize the existing `isFuncletEHPersonality()` function into
two different functions: `isFuncletEHPersonality()` and
`isScopedEHPersonality(). This becomes necessary as wasm EH uses scoped
EH instructions (catchswitch, catchpad/ret, and cleanuppad/ret) but not
outlined funclets.
- Changed some callsites of `isFuncletEHPersonality()` to
`isScopedEHPersonality()` if they are related to scoped EH IR-level
stuff.
Reviewers: majnemer, dschuff, rnk
Subscribers: jfb, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, JDevlieghere, sunfish, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45559
llvm-svn: 332667
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
We currently have a hard to solve analysis problem around the order of instructions within a potentially throwing block. We can't cheaply determine whether a given instruction is before the first potential throw in the block. While we're working on that in the background, special case the first instruction within the header.
why this particular special case? Well, headers are guaranteed to execute if the loop does, and it turns out we tend to produce this form in practice.
In a follow on patch, I tend to extend LICM with an alternate approach which works for any instruction in the header before the first throw, but this is the best I can come up with other users of the analysis (such as store promotion.)
Note: I can't show the difference in the analysis result since we're ORing in the expensive instruction walk used by SCEV. Using the full walk is not suitable for a general solution.
llvm-svn: 331079
Most basic possible test for the logic used by LICM.
Also contains a speculative build fix for compiles which complain about a definition of a stuct K; followed by a declaration as class K;
llvm-svn: 328058
As suggested in the original review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524), use an annotation style printer instead.
Note: The switch from -analyze to -disable-output in tests was driven by the fact that seems to be the idiomatic style used in annoation passes. I tried to keep both working, but the old style pass API for printers really doesn't make this easy. It invokes (runOnFunction, print(Module)) repeatedly. I decided the extra state wasn't worth it given the old pass manager is going away soonish anyway.
llvm-svn: 328015
Many of our loop passes make use of so called "must execute" or "guaranteed to execute" facts to prove the legality of code motion. The basic notion is that we know (by assumption) an instruction didn't fault at it's original location, so if the location we move it to is strictly post dominated by the original, then we can't have introduced a new fault.
At the moment, the testing for this logic is somewhat adhoc and done mostly through LICM. Since I'm working on that code, I want to improve the testing. This patch is the first step in that direction. It doesn't actually test the variant used by the loop passes - I need to move that to the Analysis library first - but instead exercises an alternate implementation used by SCEV. (I plan on merging both implementations.)
Note: I'll be replacing the printing logic within this with an annotation based version in the near future. Anna suggested this in review, and it seems like a strictly better format.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524
llvm-svn: 328004
Max Kazantsev