Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
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
This is re-land of https://reviews.llvm.org/rL327362 with a fix
and regression test.
The crash was due to it is possible that for found MDL loop,
LHS or RHS may contain an invariant unknown SCEV which
does not dominate the MDL. Please see regression
test for an example.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44553
llvm-svn: 327822
As shown in the code comment, we don't need all of 'fast',
but we do need reassoc + nsz + nnan.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43765
llvm-svn: 327796
a long time.
The key thing is that we need to create value handles for every function
that we create a `FunctionInfo` object around. Without this, when that
function is deleted we can end up creating a new function that collides
with its address and look up a stale AA result. With that AA result we
can in turn miscompile code in ways that break.
This is seriously one of the most absurd miscompiles I've seen. It only
reproduced for us recently and only when building a very large server
with both ThinLTO and PGO.
A *HUGE* shout out to Wei Mi who tracked all of this down and came up
with this patch. I'm just landing it because I happened to still by at
a computer.
He or I can work on crafting a test case to hit this (now that we know
what to target) but it'll take a while, and we've been chasing this for
a long time and need it fix Right Now.
llvm-svn: 327761
This matcher implementation appears to be slightly more efficient than
the generic constant check that it is replacing because every use was
for matching FP patterns, but the previous code would check int and
pointer type nulls too.
llvm-svn: 327627
From the LangRef definition for frem:
"The value produced is the floating-point remainder of the two operands.
This is the same output as a libm ‘fmod‘ function, but without any
possibility of setting errno. The remainder has the same sign as the
dividend. This instruction is assumed to execute in the default
floating-point environment."
llvm-svn: 327626
Methods `computeExitLimitFromCondCached` and `computeExitLimitFromCondImpl` take
true and false branches as parameters and only use them for asserts and for identifying
whether true/false branch belongs to the loop (which can be done once earlier). This fact
complicates generalization of exit limit computation logic on guards because the guards
don't have blocks to which they go in case of failure explicitly.
The motivation of this patch is that currently this part of SCEV knows nothing about guards
and only works with explicit branches. As result, it fails to prove that a loop
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
guard(i < 10);
exits after 10th iteration, while in the equivalent example
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
if (i >= 10) break;
SCEV easily proves this fact. We are going to change it in near future, and this is why
we need to make these methods operate on more abstract level.
This patch refactors this code to get rid of these parameters as meaningless and prepare
ground for teaching these methods to work with guards as well as they work with explicit
branching instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44419
llvm-svn: 327615
As shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27151
...the existing fold could miscompile when X is NaN.
The fold was also dependent on 'ninf' but that's not necessary.
From IEEE-754 (with default rounding which we can assume for these opcodes):
"When the sum of two operands with opposite signs (or the difference of two
operands with like signs) is exactly zero, the sign of that sum (or difference)
shall be +0...However, x + x = x − (−x) retains the same sign as x even when
x is zero."
llvm-svn: 327575
Summary:
It is possible for LVI to encounter instructions that are not in valid
SSA form and reference themselves. One example is the following:
%tmp4 = and i1 %tmp4, undef
Before this patch LVI would recurse until running out of stack memory
and crashed. This patch marks these self-referential instructions as
Overdefined and aborts analysis on the instruction.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33357
Reviewers: craig.topper, anna, efriedma, dberlin, sebpop, kuhar
Reviewed by: dberlin
Subscribers: uabelho, spatel, a.elovikov, fhahn, eli.friedman, mzolotukhin, spop, evandro, davide, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34135
llvm-svn: 327432
isAvailableAtLoopEntry duplicates logic of `properlyDominates` after checking invariance.
This patch replaces this logic with invocation of this method which is more profitable
because it supports caching.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43997
llvm-svn: 327373
It is a revert of rL327362 which causes build bot failures with assert like
Assertion `isAvailableAtLoopEntry(RHS, L) && "RHS is not available at Loop Entry"' failed.
llvm-svn: 327363
IsKnownPredicate is updated to implement the following algorithm
proposed by @sanjoy and @mkazantsev :
isKnownPredicate(Pred, LHS, RHS) {
Collect set S all loops on which either LHS or RHS depend.
If S is non-empty
a. Let PD be the element of S which is dominated by all other elements of S
b. Let E(LHS) be value of LHS on entry of PD.
To get E(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their entry values.
Define E(RHS) in the same way.
c. Let B(LHS) be value of L on backedge of PD.
To get B(LHS), we should just take LHS and replace all AddRecs that
are attached to PD on with their backedge values.
Define B(RHS) in the same way.
d. Note that E(LHS) and E(RHS) are automatically available on entry of PD,
so we can assert on that.
e. Return true if isLoopEntryGuardedByCond(Pred, E(LHS), E(RHS)) &&
isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond(Pred, B(LHS), B(RHS))
Return true if Pred, L, R is known from ranges, splitting etc.
}
This is follow-up for https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43507
llvm-svn: 327362
Summary:
If there's a callees metadata attached to the indirect call instruction, add CallGraphEdges to the callees mentioned in the metadata when computing FunctionSummary.
* Why this is necessary:
Consider following code example:
```
(foo.c)
static int f1(int x) {...}
static int f2(int x);
static int (*fptr)(int) = f2;
static int f2(int x) {
if (x) fptr=f1; return f1(x);
}
int foo(int x) {
(*fptr)(x); // !callees metadata of !{i32 (i32)* @f1, i32 (i32)* @f2} would be attached to this call.
}
(bar.c)
int bar(int x) {
return foo(x);
}
```
At LTO time when `foo.o` is imported into `bar.o`, function `foo` might be inlined into `bar` and PGO-guided indirect call promotion will run after that. If the profile data tells that the promotion of `@f1` or `@f2` is beneficial, the optimizer will check if the "promoted" `@f1` or `@f2` (such as `@f1.llvm.0` or `@f2.llvm.0`) is available. Without this patch, importing `!callees` metadata would only add promoted declarations of `@f1` and `@f2` to the `bar.o`, but still the optimizer will assume that the function is available and perform the promotion. The result of that is link failure with `undefined reference to @f1.llvm.0`.
This patch fixes this problem by adding callees in the `!callees` metadata to CallGraphEdges so that their definition would be properly imported into.
One may ask that there already is a logic to add indirect call promotion targets to be added to CallGraphEdges. However, if profile data says "indirect call promotion is only beneficial under a certain inline context", the logic wouldn't work. In the code example above, if profile data is like
```
bar:1000000:100000
1:100000
1: foo:100000
1: 100000 f1:100000
```
, Computing FunctionSummary for `foo.o` wouldn't add `foo->f1` to CallGraphEdges. (Also, it is at least "possible" that one can provide profile data to only link step but not to compilation step).
Reviewers: tejohnson, mehdi_amini, pcc
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Subscribers: inglorion, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44399
llvm-svn: 327358
There are six separate instances of getPointerOperand() utility.
LoopVectorize.cpp has one of them,
and I don't want to create a 7th one while I'm trying to move
LoopVectorizationLegality into a separate file
(eventual objective is to move it to Analysis tree).
See http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-February/120999.html
for llvm-dev discussions
Closes D43323.
Patch by Hideki Saito <hideki.saito@intel.com>.
llvm-svn: 327173
Summary:
Building MemorySSA gathers alias information for Defs/Uses.
Store and expose this information when optimizing uses (when building MemorySSA),
and when optimizing defs or updating uses (getClobberingMemoryAccess).
Current patch does not propagate alias information through MemoryPhis.
Reviewers: gbiv, dberlin
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38569
llvm-svn: 327035
It's been quite some time the Dependence Analysis (DA) is broken,
as it uses the GEP representation to "identify" multi-dimensional arrays.
It even wrongly detects multi-dimensional arrays in single nested loops:
from test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/Coupled.ll, example @couple6
;; for (long int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
;; A[i][3*i - 6] = i;
;; *B++ = A[i][i];
DA used to detect two subscripts, which makes no sense in the LLVM IR
or in C/C++ semantics, as there are no guarantees as in Fortran of
subscripts not overlapping into a next array dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcPtrSCEV = %A
DstPtrSCEV = %A
using GEPs
subscript 0
src = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
subscript 1
src = {-6,+,3}<nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {}
Coupled = {1}
With the current patch, DA will correctly work on only one dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcSCEV = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
DstSCEV = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
subscript 0
src = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
dst = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {0}
Coupled = {}
This change removes all uses of GEP from DA, and we now only rely
on the SCEV representation.
The patch does not turn on -da-delinearize by default, and so the DA analysis
will be more conservative in the case of multi-dimensional memory accesses in
nested loops.
I disabled some interchange tests, as the DA is not able to disambiguate
the dependence anymore. To make DA stronger, we may need to
compute a bound on the number of iterations based on the access functions
and array dimensions.
The patch cleans up all the CHECKs in test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/*.ll to
avoid checking for snippets of LLVM IR: this form of checking is very hard to
maintain. Instead, we now check for output of the pass that are more meaningful
than dozens of lines of LLVM IR. Some tests now require -debug messages and thus
only enabled with asserts.
Patch written by Sebastian Pop and Aditya Kumar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35430
llvm-svn: 326837
Most of the folds based on SelectPatternResult belong in InstSimplify rather than
InstCombine, so the helper code should be available to other passes/analysis.
llvm-svn: 326812
The 'hasOneUse' check is a giveaway that something's not right.
We never need to check that in InstSimplify because we don't
create new instructions here.
These are all handled as icmp simplifies which then trigger
existing select simplifies, so there's no need to duplicate
a composite fold of the two.
llvm-svn: 326750
This is NFC for the moment (and independent of any potential NaN semantic
controversy). Besides making the code in InstSimplify easier to read, the
motivation is to eventually allow undef elements in vector constants to
match too. A proposal to add the base logic for that is in D43792.
llvm-svn: 326600
The range of SCEVUnknown Phi which merges values `X1, X2, ..., XN`
can be evaluated as `U(Range(X1), Range(X2), ..., Range(XN))`.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43810
llvm-svn: 326418
Removes verifyDomTree, using assert(verify()) everywhere instead, and
changes verify a little to always run IsSameAsFreshTree first in order
to print good output when we find errors. Also adds verifyAnalysis for
PostDomTrees, which will allow checking of PostDomTrees it the same way
we check DomTrees and MachineDomTrees.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41298
llvm-svn: 326315
This is similar to what's done in computeKnownBits and computeSignBits. Don't do anything fancy just collect information valid for any element.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43789
llvm-svn: 326237
It appears that there were many cases where we were directly (through
templates) calling the dtor of MemoryAccess, which is conceptually an
abstract class.
This hasn't been a problem, since the data members of all of the
subclasses of MemoryAccess have been POD. I'm planning on changing that.
:)
llvm-svn: 326175
Set default value for IgnoreOtherLoops of SCEVInitRewriter::rewrite to true
to be consistent with SCEVPostIncRewriter which does not have this parameter
but behaves as it would be true.
This is follow up for rL326067.
llvm-svn: 326174
The patch introduces the new function in ScalarEvolution to get
all loops used in specified SCEV.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43504
llvm-svn: 326072
The patch introduces the SCEVPostIncRewriter rewriter which
is similar to SCEVInitRewriter but rewrites AddRec with post increment
value of this AddRec.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43499
llvm-svn: 326071
The patch introduces an additional parameter IgnoreOtherLoops to SCEVInitRewriter.
if it is equal to true then rewriter will not invalidate result in case
SCEV depends on other loops then specified during creation.
The patch does not change the default behavior.
This is a preparation for re-writing isKnownPredicate utility as
described in https://reviews.llvm.org/D42417.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43498
llvm-svn: 326067
If we have a loop like this:
int n = 0;
while (...) {
if (++n >= MAX) {
n = 0;
}
}
then the body of the 'if' statement will only be executed once every MAX
iterations. Detect this by looking for branches in loops where taking the branch
makes the branch condition evaluate to 'not taken' in the next iteration of the
loop, and reduce the probability of such branches.
This slightly improves EEMBC benchmarks on cortex-m4/cortex-m33 due to making
better choices in if-conversion, but has no effect on any other cpu/benchmark
that I could detect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35804
llvm-svn: 325925
Summary:
The current integer representation of relative block frequency prevents
representing relative block frequencies below 1. This change uses a 8 of
the 29 bits to represent the decimal part by using a fixed scale of -8.
Reviewers: tejohnson, davidxl
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, inglorion, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43520
llvm-svn: 325823
David Blaikie