Summary:
This patch starts the implementation as discuss in the following RFC: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106532.html
When optimization duplicates code that will scale down the execution count of a basic block, we will record the duplication factor as part of discriminator so that the offline process tool can find the duplication factor and collect the accurate execution frequency of the corresponding source code. Two important optimization that fall into this category is loop vectorization and loop unroll. This patch records the duplication factor for these 2 optimizations.
The recording will be guarded by a flag encode-duplication-in-discriminators, which is off by default.
Reviewers: probinson, aprantl, davidxl, hfinkel, echristo
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, anemet, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26420
llvm-svn: 294782
We previously only created a vector phi node for an induction variable if its
type matched the type of the canonical induction variable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29776
llvm-svn: 294755
Chandler mentioned at the last social that the need for BFI in the new pass manager was causing a slight hiccup for this pass. Given this code has been checked in, but off for over a year, it makes sense to just remove it for now.
Note that there's nothing wrong with the general idea - it's actually a quite good one - and once we have the infrastructure in place to implement this without the full recompuation on every loop, we absolutely should.
llvm-svn: 294715
Now that the call graph supports efficient replacement of a function and
spurious reference edges, we can port ArgumentPromotion to the new pass
manager very easily.
The old PM-specific bits are sunk into callbacks that the new PM simply
doesn't use. Unlike the old PM, the new PM simply does argument
promotion and afterward does the update to LCG reflecting the promoted
function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29580
llvm-svn: 294667
disturbing the graph or having to update edges.
This is motivated by porting argument promotion to the new pass manager.
Because of how LLVM IR Function objects work, in order to change their
signature a new object needs to be created. This is efficient and
straight forward in the IR but previously was very hard to implement in
LCG. We could easily replace the function a node in the graph
represents. The challenging part is how to handle updating the edges in
the graph.
LCG previously used an edge to a raw function to represent a node that
had not yet been scanned for calls and references. This was the core
of its laziness. However, that model causes this kind of update to be
very hard:
1) The keys to lookup an edge need to be `Function*`s that would all
need to be updated when we update the node.
2) There will be some unknown number of edges that haven't transitioned
from `Function*` edges to `Node*` edges.
All of this complexity isn't necessary. Instead, we can always build
a node around any function, always pointing edges at it and always using
it as the key to lookup an edge. To maintain the laziness, we need to
sink the *edges* of a node into a secondary object and explicitly model
transitioning a node from empty to populated by scanning the function.
This design seems much cleaner in a number of ways, but importantly
there is now exactly *one* place where the `Function*` has to be
updated!
Some other cleanups that fall out of this include having something to
model the *entry* edges more accurately. Rather than hand rolling parts
of the node in the graph itself, we have an explicit `EdgeSequence`
object that gives us exactly the functionality needed. We also have
a consistent place to define the edge iterators and can use them for
both the entry edges and the internal edges of the graph.
The API used to model the separation between a node and its edges is
intentionally very thin as most clients are expected to deal with nodes
that have populated edges. We model this exactly as an optional does
with an additional method to populate the edges when that is
a reasonable thing for a client to do. This is based on API design
suggestions from Richard Smith and David Blaikie, credit goes to them
for helping pick how to model this without it being either too explicit
or too implicit.
The patch is somewhat noisy due to shifting around iterator types and
new syntax for walking the edges of a node, but most of the
functionality change is in the `Edge`, `EdgeSequence`, and `Node` types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29577
llvm-svn: 294653
This fold already existed for vectors but only when 'C1' was a splat
constant (but 'C2' could be any constant).
There were no tests for any vector constants, so I'm adding a test
that shows non-splat constants for both operands.
llvm-svn: 294650
I intend to use the same type with the same semantics in the WholeProgramDevirt
pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29746
llvm-svn: 294629
Summary:
This patch allows JumpThreading also thread through guards.
Virtually, guard(cond) is equivalent to the following construction:
if (cond) { do something } else {deoptimize}
Yet it is not explicitly converted into IFs before lowering.
This patch enables early threading through guards in simple cases.
Currently it covers the following situation:
if (cond1) {
// code A
} else {
// code B
}
// code C
guard(cond2)
// code D
If there is implication cond1 => cond2 or !cond1 => cond2, we can transform
this construction into the following:
if (cond1) {
// code A
// code C
} else {
// code B
// code C
guard(cond2)
}
// code D
Thus, removing the guard from one of execution branches.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29620
llvm-svn: 294617
This module will contain nothing but vtable definitions and (soon)
available_externally function definitions, so there is no point in keeping
debug info in the module.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28913
llvm-svn: 294511
Making the cost model selecting between Interleave, GatherScatter or Scalar vectorization form of memory instruction.
The right decision should be done for non-consecutive memory access instrcuctions that may have more than one vectorization solution.
This patch includes the following changes:
- Cost Model calculates the cost of Load/Store vector form and choose the better option between Widening, Interleave, GatherScactter and Scalarization. Cost Model keeps the widening decision.
- Arrays of Uniform and Scalar values are moved from Legality to Cost Model.
- Cost Model collects Uniforms and Scalars per VF. The collection is based on CM decision map of Loadis/Stores vectorization form.
- Vectorization of memory instruction is performed according to the CM decision.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27919
llvm-svn: 294503
Summary:
After the DFS order change for LVI, i have a few testcases that now
take forever.
The TL;DR - This is mainly due to the overdefined cache, but that
requires predicateinfo to fix[1]
In order to maximize reuse of the LVI cache for now, change the order
we iterate in.
This reduces my testcase from 5 minutes to 4 seconds.
I have verified cases like gmic do not get slower.
I am playing with whether the order should be postorder or idf.
[1] In practice, overdefined anywhere should be overdefined
everywhere, so this cache should be global. That also fixes this bug.
The problem, however, is that LVI relies on this cache being filled in
per-block because it wants different values in different blocks due to
precisely the naming issue that predicateinfo fixes. With
predicateinfo, making the cache global works fine on individual
passes, and also resolves this issue.
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, djasper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29679
llvm-svn: 294398
Currently IRCE relies on the loops it transforms to be (semantically) of
the form:
for (i = START; i < END; i++)
...
or
for (i = START; i > END; i--)
...
However, we were not verifying the presence of the START < END entry
check (i.e. check before the first iteration). We were only verifying
that the backedge was guarded by (i + 1) < END.
Usually this would work "fine" since (especially in Java) most loops do
actually have the START < END check, but of course that is not
guaranteed.
llvm-svn: 294375
Summary:
This patch adds a utility to build extended SSA (see "ABCD: eliminating
array bounds checks on demand"), and an intrinsic to support it. This
is then used to get functionality equivalent to propagateEquality in
GVN, in NewGVN (without having to replace instructions as we go). It
would work similarly in SCCP or other passes. This has been talked
about a few times, so i built a real implementation and tried to
productionize it.
Copies are inserted for operands used in assumes and conditional
branches that are based on comparisons (see below for more)
Every use affected by the predicate is renamed to the appropriate
intrinsic result.
E.g.
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 50
br i1 %cmp, label %true, label %false
true:
ret i32 %x
false:
ret i32 1
will become
%cmp = icmp eq i32, %x, 50
br i1 %cmp, label %true, label %false
true:
; Has predicate info
; branch predicate info { TrueEdge: 1 Comparison: %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 50 }
%x.0 = call @llvm.ssa_copy.i32(i32 %x)
ret i32 %x.0
false:
ret i23 1
(you can use -print-predicateinfo to get an annotated-with-predicateinfo dump)
This enables us to easily determine what operations are affected by a
given predicate, and how operations affected by a chain of
predicates.
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29519
Update for review comments
Fix a bug Nuno noticed where we are giving information about and/or on edges where the info is not useful and easy to use wrong
Update for review comments
llvm-svn: 294351
This reverts commit r294250. It caused PR31891.
Add a test case that shows that inlinable calls retain location
information with an accurate scope.
llvm-svn: 294317
Summary: Checking CS.getCalledFunction() == nullptr does not necessary indicate indirect call. We also need to check if CS.getCalledValue() is not a constant.
Reviewers: davidxl
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29570
llvm-svn: 294260
This breaks when one of the extra values is also a scalar that
participates in the same vectorization tree which we'll end up
reducing.
llvm-svn: 294245
Summary: When type casting of the return value is needed, promoteIndirectCall will return the type casting instruction instead of the direct call. This patch changed to return the direct call instruction instead.
Reviewers: davidxl
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29569
llvm-svn: 294205
This patch is based on the llvm-dev discussion here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109631.html
Folding to i1 should always be desirable because that's better for value tracking
and we have special folds for i1 types.
I checked for other users of shouldChangeType() where this might have an effect,
but we already handle the i1 case differently than other types in all of those cases.
Side note: the default datalayout includes i1, so it seems we only find this gap in
shouldChangeType + phi folding for the case when there is (1) an explicit datalayout
without i1, (2) casting to i1 from a legal type, and (3) a phi with exactly 2 incoming
casted operands (as Björn mentioned).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29336
llvm-svn: 294066
The code comments didn't match the code logic, and we didn't actually distinguish the fake unary (not/neg/fneg)
operators from arguments. Adding another level to the weighting scheme provides more structure and can help
simplify the pattern matching in InstCombine and other places.
I fixed regressions that would have shown up from this change in:
rL290067
rL290127
But that doesn't mean there are no pattern-matching logic holes left; some combines may just be missing regression tests.
Should fix:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27933
llvm-svn: 294049
Currently these flags are always the inverse of each other, so there is
no need to keep them separate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29471
llvm-svn: 294016
The importer was previously using ModuleLinker in a sort of "IRMover mode". Use
IRMover directly instead in order to remove a level of indirection.
I will remove all importing support from ModuleLinker in a separate
change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29468
llvm-svn: 294014
Currently LLVM supports vectorization of horizontal reduction
instructions with initial value set to 0. Patch supports vectorization
of reduction with non-zero initial values. Also it supports a
vectorization of instructions with some extra arguments, like:
float f(float x[], int a, int b) {
float p = a % b;
p += x[0] + 3;
for (int i = 1; i < 32; i++)
p += x[i];
return p;
}
Patch allows vectorization of this kind of horizontal reductions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28961
llvm-svn: 293994
Dehao Chen