Currently, `-indvars` runs first, and then immediately after `-loop-idiom` does.
I'm not really sure if `-loop-idiom` requires `-indvars` to run beforehand,
but i'm *very* sure that `-indvars` requires `-loop-idiom` to run afterwards,
as it can be seen in the phase-ordering test.
LoopIdiom runs on two types of loops: countable ones, and uncountable ones.
For uncountable ones, IndVars obviously didn't make any change to them,
since they are uncountable, so for them the order should be irrelevant.
For countable ones, well, they should have been countable before IndVars
for IndVars to make any change to them, and since SCEV is used on them,
it shouldn't matter if IndVars have already canonicalized them.
So i don't really see why we'd want the current ordering.
Should this cause issues, it will give us a reproducer test case
that shows flaws in this logic, and we then could adjust accordingly.
While this is quite likely beneficial in-the-wild already,
it's a required part for the full motivational pattern
behind `left-shift-until-bittest` loop idiom (D91038).
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91800
This patch adds a new pass to add !annotation metadata for entries in
@llvm.global.anotations, which is generated using
__attribute__((annotate("_name"))) on functions in Clang.
This has been discussed on llvm-dev as part of
RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html
Reviewed By: thegameg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91195
This patch adds a new !annotation metadata kind which can be used to
attach annotation strings to instructions.
It also adds a new pass that emits summary remarks per function with the
counts for each annotation kind.
The intended uses cases for this new metadata is annotating
'interesting' instructions and the remarks should provide additional
insight into transformations applied to a program.
To motivate this, consider these specific questions we would like to get answered:
* How many stores added for automatic variable initialization remain after optimizations? Where are they?
* How many runtime checks inserted by a frontend could be eliminated? Where are the ones that did not get eliminated?
Discussed on llvm-dev as part of 'RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks'
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html)
Reviewed By: thegameg, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91188
This broke Chromium's PGO build, it seems because hot-cold-splitting got turned
on unintentionally. See comment on the code review for repro etc.
> This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
> the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
> `-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
> correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
>
> To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
> functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
> removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
> behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
>
> Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
> Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
> Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 273c299d5d.
After investigation by @asbirlea, the issue that caused the
revert appears to be an issue in the original source, rather
than a problem with the compiler.
This patch enables MemorySSA DSE again.
This reverts commit 915310bf14.
This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
`-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
There appears to be a mis-compile with MemorySSA-backed DSE in
combination with llvm.lifetime.end. It currently appears like
DSE is doing the right thing and the llvm.lifetime.end markers
are incorrect. The reverted patch uncovers the mis-compile.
This patch temporarily switches back to the legacy DSE
implementation, while we investigate.
This reverts commit 9d172c8e9c.
This switches to using DSE + MemorySSA by default again, after
fixing the issues reported after the first commit.
Notable fixes fc82006331, a0017c2bc2.
This reverts commit 3a59628f3c.
The tests have been updated and I plan to move them from the MSSA
directory up.
Some end-to-end tests needed small adjustments. One difference to the
legacy DSE is that legacy DSE also deletes trivially dead instructions
that are unrelated to memory operations. Because MemorySSA-backed DSE
just walks the MemorySSA, we only visit/check memory instructions. But
removing unrelated dead instructions is not really DSE's job and other
passes will clean up.
One noteworthy change is in llvm/test/Transforms/Coroutines/ArgAddr.ll,
but I think this comes down to legacy DSE not handling instructions that
may throw correctly in that case. To cover this with MemorySSA-backed
DSE, we need an update to llvm.coro.begin to treat it's return value to
belong to the same underlying object as the passed pointer.
There are some minor cases MemorySSA-backed DSE currently misses, e.g. related
to atomic operations, but I think those can be implemented after the switch.
This has been discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-August/144417.html
For the MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 the number of eliminated stores
goes from ~17500 (legayc DSE) to ~26300 (MemorySSA-backed). More numbers
and details in the thread on llvm-dev.
Impact on CTMark:
```
Legacy Pass Manager
exec instrs size-text
O3 + 0.60% - 0.27%
ReleaseThinLTO + 1.00% - 0.42%
ReleaseLTO-g. + 0.77% - 0.33%
RelThinLTO (link only) + 0.87% - 0.42%
RelLO-g (link only) + 0.78% - 0.33%
```
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=3f22e96d95c71ded906c67067d75278efb0a2525&to=ae8be4642533ff03803967ee9d7017c0d73b0ee0&stat=instructions
```
New Pass Manager
exec instrs. size-text
O3 + 0.95% - 0.25%
ReleaseThinLTO + 1.34% - 0.41%
ReleaseLTO-g. + 1.71% - 0.35%
RelThinLTO (link only) + 0.96% - 0.41%
RelLO-g (link only) + 2.21% - 0.35%
```
http://195.201.131.214:8000/compare.php?from=3f22e96d95c71ded906c67067d75278efb0a2525&to=ae8be4642533ff03803967ee9d7017c0d73b0ee0&stat=instructions
Reviewed By: asbirlea, xbolva00, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87163
This is a followup to 1ccfb52a61, which made a number of changes
including the apparently innocuous reordering of required passes in
MemCpyOptimizer. This however altered the creation order of BasicAA vs
Phi Values analysis, meaning BasicAA did not pick up PhiValues as a
cached result. Instead if we require MemoryDependence first it will
require PhiValuesAnalysis allowing BasicAA to use it for better results.
I don't claim this is an excellent design, but it fixes a nasty little
regressions where a query later in JumpThreading was getting worse
results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87027
Summary:
Analyses are preserved in MemCpyOptimizer.
Get analyses before running the pass and store the pointers, instead of
using lambdas and getting them every time on demand.
Reviewers: lenary, deadalnix, mehdi_amini, nikic, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74494
EarlyCSE was added with D75145, but the motivating test is
not regressed by removing the extra pass now. That might be
because VectorCombine altered the way it processes instructions,
or it might be from (re)moving VectorCombine in the pipeline.
The extra round of EarlyCSE appears to cost approximately
0.26% in compile-time as discussed in D80236, so we need some
evidence to justify its inclusion here, but we do not have
that (yet).
I suspect that between SLP and VectorCombine, we are creating
patterns that InstCombine and/or codegen are not prepared for,
but we will need to reduce those examples and include them as
PhaseOrdering and/or test-suite benchmarks.
As noted in D80236, moving the pass in the pipeline exposed this
shortcoming. Extra work to recalculate the alias results showed
up as a compile-time slowdown.
There are 2 known problem patterns shown in the test diffs here:
vector horizontal ops (an x86 specialization) and vector reductions.
SLP has greater ability to match and fold those than vector-combine,
so let SLP have first chance at that.
This is a quick fix while we continue to improve vector-combine and
possibly canonicalize to reduction intrinsics.
In the longer term, we should improve matching of these patterns
because if they were created in the "bad" forms shown here, then we
would miss optimizing them.
I'm not sure what is happening with alias analysis on the addsub test.
The old pass manager now shows an extra line for that, and we see an
improvement that comes from SLP vectorizing a store. I don't know
what's missing with the new pass manager to make that happen.
Strangely, I can't reproduce the behavior if I compile from C++ with
clang and invoke the new PM with "-fexperimental-new-pass-manager".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80236
Promote alloca to vector before SROA and loop unroll. If we manage
to eliminate allocas before unroll we may choose to unroll less.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80386
Roman Lebedev