The most important goal of the patch is to break large insertFastDiv function
into separate pieces, so that later a different fast insertion logic can be
implemented using some of these pieces.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29896
llvm-svn: 296828
and also "clang-format GenericDomTreeConstruction.h, since the current
formatting makes it look like their is a bug in the loop indentation, and there
is not"
This reverts commit r296535.
There are still some open design questions which I would like to discuss. I
revert this for Daniel (who gave the OK), as he is on vacation.
llvm-svn: 296812
This re-applies r289696, which caused TSan perf regression, which has
since been addressed in separate changes (see PR for details).
See PR31382.
llvm-svn: 296759
Summary:
When InstCombine is optimizing certain select-cmp-br patterns
it replaces the result of the select in uses outside of the
basic block containing the select. This is only legal if the
path from the select to the outside use is disjoint from all
other paths out from the originating basic block.
The problem found was that InstCombiner::replacedSelectWithOperand
did not consider the case when both edges out from the br pointed
to the same label. In that case the paths aren't disjoint and the
transformation is illegal. This patch avoids the faulty rewrites
by verifying that there is a single flow to the successor where
we want to replace uses.
Reviewers: llvm-commits, spatel, majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30455
llvm-svn: 296752
When computing the smallest and largest types for selecting the maximum
vectorization factor, we currently ignore loads and stores of pointer types if
the memory access is non-consecutive. We do this because such accesses must be
scalarized regardless of vectorization factor, and thus shouldn't be considered
when determining the factor. This patch makes this check less aggressive by
also considering non-consecutive accesses that may be vectorized, such as
interleaved accesses. Because we don't know at the time of the check if an
accesses will certainly be vectorized (this is a cost model decision given a
particular VF), we consider all accesses that can potentially be vectorized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30305
llvm-svn: 296747
Now that terminators can be EH pads, this code needs to iterate over the
immediate dominators of the EH pad to find a valid insertion point.
Fix for PR32107
Patch by Robert Olliff!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30511
llvm-svn: 296698
Summary:
The SLP vectorizer should propagate IR-level optimization hints/flags
(nsw, nuw, exact, fast-math) when converting scalar horizontal
reductions instructions into vectors, just like for other vectorized
instructions.
It doe not include IR propagation for extra arguments, we need to handle
original scalar operations for extra args to propagate correct flags.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30418
llvm-svn: 296614
Summary:
We should preserve IR flags for extra args. These IR flags should be
taken from original scalar operations, not from the reduction
operations.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30447
llvm-svn: 296613
Summary:
If horizontal reduction tree starts from the binary operation that is
used in PHI node, but this PHI is not used in horizontal reduction, we
may end up with extra addition of this PHI node after vectorization.
Here is an example:
```
%phi = phi i32 [ %tmp, %end], ...
...
%tmp = add i32 %tmp1, %tmp2
end:
```
after vectorization we always have something like:
```
%phi = phi i32 [ %tmp, %end], ...
...
%red = extractelement <8 x 32> %vec.red, 0
%tmp = add i32 %red, %phi
end:
```
even if `%phi` is not used in reduction tree. Patch considers these PHI
nodes as extra arguments and considers them in the final result iff they
really used in reduction.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30409
llvm-svn: 296606
Summary:
Solves PR 31990.
The bad rewrite could replace a memcpy of one word with
store i4 -1
while it should actually be
store i8 -1
Hopefully opt and llc has improved enough so the original optimization
done by the code isn't needed anymore.
One already existing testcase is affected. It originally tested that
the memcpy was replaced with
load double
but since we now remove that rewrite it will be
load i64
instead.
Patch suggestion by Eli Friedman.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, majnemer, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30254
llvm-svn: 296585
The practice in LV is that we emit analysis remarks and then finally report
either a missed or applied remark on the final decision whether vectorization
is taking place. On this code path, we were closing with an analysis remark.
llvm-svn: 296578
for VectorizeTree() API.This API uses it for proper mask computation to be used in shufflevector IR.
The fix is to compute the mask for out of order memory accesses while building the vectorizable tree
instead of actual vectorization of vectorizable tree.
Reviewers: mkuper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30159
Change-Id: Id1e287f073fa4959713ba545fa4254db5da8b40d
llvm-svn: 296575
Summary:
Currently, our post-dom tree tries to ignore and remove the effects of
infinite loops. It fails miserably at this, because it tries to do it
ahead of time, and thus can only detect self-loops, and any other type
of infinite loop, it pretends doesn't exist at all.
This can, in a bunch of cases, lead to wrong answers and a completely
empty post-dom tree.
Wrong answer:
```
declare void foo()
define internal void @f() {
entry:
br i1 undef, label %bb35, label %bb3.i
bb3.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bb3.i
bb35.loopexit3:
br label %bb35
bb35:
ret void
}
```
We get:
```
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,7}
[2] %bb35 {1,6}
[3] %bb35.loopexit3 {2,3}
[3] %entry {4,5}
```
This is a trivial modification of the testcase for PR 6047
Note that we pretend bb3.i doesn't exist.
We also pretend that bb35 post-dominates entry.
While it's true that it does not exit in a theoretical sense, it's not
really helpful to try to ignore the effect and pretend that bb35
post-dominates entry. Worse, we pretend the infinite loop does
nothing (it's usually considered a side-effect), and doesn't even
exist, even when it calls a function. Sadly, this makes it impossible
to use when you are trying to move code safely. All compilers also
create virtual or real single exit nodes (including us), and connect
infinite loops there (which this patch does). In fact, others have
worked around our behavior here, to the point of building their own
post-dom trees:
https://zneak.github.io/fcd/2016/02/17/structuring.html and pointing
out the region infrastructure is near-useless for them with postdom in
this state :(
Completely empty post-dom tree:
```
define void @spam() #0 {
bb:
br label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb1, %bb
br label %bb1
bb2: ; No predecessors!
ret void
}
```
Printing analysis 'Post-Dominator Tree Construction' for function 'foo':
=============================--------------------------------
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,1}
:(
(note that even if you ignore the effects of infinite loops, bb2
should be present as an exit node that post-dominates nothing).
This patch changes post-dom to properly handle infinite loops and does
root finding during calculation to prevent empty tress in such cases.
We match gcc's (and the canonical theoretical) behavior for infinite
loops (find the backedge, connect it to the exit block).
Testcases coming as soon as i finish running this on a ton of random graphs :)
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: bryant, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29705
llvm-svn: 296535
Summary: For SamplePGO, the profile may contain cross-module inline stacks. As we need to make sure the profile annotation happens when all the hot inline stacks are expanded, we need to pass this info to the module importer so that it can import proper functions if necessary. This patch implemented this feature by emitting cross-module targets as part of function entry metadata. In the module-summary phase, the metadata is used to build call edges that points to functions need to be imported.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, tejohnson
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Subscribers: davidxl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30053
llvm-svn: 296498
The LLVM backend cannot produce any debug info for an llvm::Function
without a DISubprogram attachment. When inlining a debug-info-carrying
function into a nodebug function, there is therefore no reason to keep
any debug info intrinsic calls or debug locations on the instructions.
This fixes a problem discovered in PR32042.
rdar://problem/30679307
llvm-svn: 296488
The Fuchsia ASan runtime reserves the low part of the address space.
Patch by Roland McGrath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30426
llvm-svn: 296405
This was suggested in D27855: have the inliner add assumptions, so we don't
lose nonnull info provided by argument attributes.
This still doesn't solve PR28430 (dyn_cast), but this gets us closer.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29999
llvm-svn: 296366
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
llvm-svn: 296345
Summary:
BranchInst, SwitchInst (with non-default case) with Undef as input is not
possible at this point. As we always default-fold terminator to one target in
ResolvedUndefsIn and set the input accordingly.
So we should only have constantint/blockaddress here.
If ConstantFoldTerminator fails, that could mean 2 things.
1. ConstantFoldTerminator is doing something unexpected, i.e. not folding on constantint
or blockaddress and not making blocks that should be dead dead.
2. This is not a terminator on constantint or blockaddress. Its on a constant or
overdefined, then this block should not be dead.
In both cases, we should assert.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30381
llvm-svn: 296281
This optimisation was crashing when there was a chain of more than one bitcast
instruction to replace, as a result of the changes in D27283.
Patch by James Price.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30347
llvm-svn: 296163
This patch merges the existing floating-point induction variable widening code
into the integer induction variable widening code, creating a single set of
functions for both kinds of inductions. The primary motivation for doing this
is to enable vector phi node creation for floating-point induction variables.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30211
llvm-svn: 296145
This one seems more obvious than D30270 that it can't make improvements because an extension always needs
all of the incoming bits. There's one specific transform in SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits of converting
a sext to a zext when the sign-bit is known zero, but that is handled explicitly in visitSext() with
ComputeSignBit().
Like D30270, there are no IR differences (other than instruction names) for the case in PR32037:
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32037
...and no regression test differences.
Zext/sext are a smaller part of the profile, but this still appears to shave off another 0.5% or so from
'opt -O2'.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30280
llvm-svn: 296129
LoopUnswitch/simplify-with-nonvalness.ll is the test case for this.
The LIC has 2 users and deleting the 1st user when it can be simplified
invalidated the iterator for the 2nd user.
llvm-svn: 296069
Summary: In case we do not know what the condition is in an unswitched loop, but we know its definitely NOT a known constant. We can perform simplifcations based on this information.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chenli, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28968
llvm-svn: 296041
While not CVP's fault, this caused miscompiles (PR31181). Reverting
until those are resolved.
(This also reverts the follow-ups r288154 and r288161 which removed the
flag.)
llvm-svn: 296030
Summary: SamplePGO uses branch_weight annotation to represent callsite hotness. When ICP promotes an indirect call to direct call, we need to make sure the direct call is annotated with branch_weight in SamplePGO mode, so that downstream function inliner can use hot callsite heuristic.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman, xur
Reviewed By: davidxl, xur
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30282
llvm-svn: 296028
In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
llvm-svn: 296003
Summary: The discriminator has been encoded, and only the base discriminator should be used during profile matching.
Reviewers: dblaikie, davidxl
Reviewed By: dblaikie, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30218
llvm-svn: 295999
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295972
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295956
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295949
Implement isLegalToVectorizeLoadChain for AMDGPU to avoid
producing private address spaces accesses that will need to be
split up later. This was doing the wrong thing in the case
where the queried chain was an even number of elements.
A possible <4 x i32> store was being split into
store <2 x i32>
store i32
store i32
rather than
store <2 x i32>
store <2 x i32>
when legal.
llvm-svn: 295933
Notably, no regression tests change when we remove these calls, and these are expensive calls.
The motivation comes from the general acknowledgement that the compiler is getting slower:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109188.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/108279.html
And specifically the test case attached to PR32037:
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Profiling the middle-end (opt) part of the compile:
$ ./opt -O2 row_common.bc -o /dev/null
...visitAdd and visitSub are near the top of the instcombine list, and the calls to SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits()
are high within each of those. Those calls account for 1%+ of the opt time in either debug or release profiles. And
that's the rough win I see from this patch when testing opt built release from r295864 on an iMac with Haswell 4GHz
(model 4790K).
It seems unlikely that we'd be able to eliminate add/sub or change their operands given that add/sub normally affect
all bits, and the PR32037 example shows no IR difference after this change using -O2.
Also worth noting - the code comment in visitAdd:
// This handles stuff like (X & 254)+1 -> (X&254)|1
...isn't true. That transform is handled later with a call to haveNoCommonBitsSet().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30270
llvm-svn: 295898
Summary:
Depends on D29606 and D29682
Makes us pass GVN's edge.ll (we also will pass a few other testcases
they just need cleaning up).
Thoughts on the Predicate* hiearchy of classes especially welcome :)
(it's not clear to me how best to organize it, and currently, the getBlock* seems ... uglier than maybe wasting a field somewhere or something).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29747
llvm-svn: 295889
Add updater to passes that now need it.
Move around code in MemorySSA to expose needed functions.
Summary: Mostly cleanup
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30221
llvm-svn: 295887
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295868
Prevent memory objects of different address spaces to be part of
the same load/store groups when analysing interleaved accesses.
This is fixing pr31900.
Reviewers: HaoLiu, mssimpso, mkuper
Reviewed By: mssimpso, mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits, efriedma, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29717
This reverts r295042 (re-applies r295038) with an additional fix for the
buildbot problem.
llvm-svn: 295858
This enables peeling of loops with low dynamic iteration count by default,
when profile information is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27734
llvm-svn: 295796
This is part of trying to clean up our handling of min/max patterns in IR.
By converting these to canonical form, we're more likely to recognize them
because there are various places in InstCombine that don't use
matchSelectPattern or m_SMax and friends.
The backend fixups referenced in the now deleted TODO comment were added with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291392https://reviews.llvm.org/rL289738
If there's any codegen fallout from this change, we should be able to address
it in DAGCombiner or target-specific lowering.
llvm-svn: 295758
Summary:
This is a fix for assertion failure in
`getInverseMinMaxSelectPattern` when ABS is passed in as a select pattern.
We should not be invoking the simplification rule for
ABS(MIN(~ x,y))) or ABS(MAX(~x,y)) combinations.
Added a test case which would cause an assertion failure without the patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30051
llvm-svn: 295719
The new method introduced under "-lsr-exp-narrow" option (currenlty set to true).
Summary:
The method is based on registers number mathematical expectation and should be
generally closer to optimal solution.
Please see details in comments to
"LSRInstance::NarrowSearchSpaceByDeletingCostlyFormulas()" function
(in lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D29862
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 295704
Summary:
This lets one add aliasing stores to the updater.
(i'm next going to move the creation/etc functions to the updater)
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30154
llvm-svn: 295677
Summary: This begins using the predicateinfo pass in NewGVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29682
llvm-svn: 295583
Changing to 'or' (rather than 'xor' when no wrapping flags are set)
allows icmp simplifies to happen as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
llvm-svn: 295574
This avoids creating a DILocation just to represent a line number,
since creating Metadata is expensive. Creating a DiagnosticLocation
directly is much cheaper.
llvm-svn: 295531
A future change will cause this byte offset to be inttoptr'd and then exported
via an absolute symbol. On the importing end we will expect the symbol to be
in range [0,2^32) so that it will fit into a 32-bit relocation. The problem
is that on 64-bit architectures if the offset is negative it will not be in
the correct range once we inttoptr it.
This change causes us to use a 32-bit integer so that it can be inttoptr'd
(which zero extends) into the correct range.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30016
llvm-svn: 295487
We previously only created a vector phi node for an induction variable if its
step had a constant integer type. However, the step actually only needs to be
loop-invariant. We only handle inductions having loop-invariant steps, so this
patch should enable vector phi node creation for all integer induction
variables that will be vectorized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29956
llvm-svn: 295456
Nikolai Bozhenov