Commit Graph

16 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Nikita Popov a4772cbaf0 Revert "[SimplifyCFG] Thread branches on same condition in more cases (PR54980)"
This reverts commit 4e545bdb35.

The newly added test is the third infinite combine loop caused by
this change. In this case, it's a combination of the branch to
common dest and jump threading folds that keeps peeling off loop
iterations.

The core problem here is that we ideally would not thread over
loop backedges, both because it is potentially non-profitable
(it may break canonical loop structure) and because it may result
in these kinds of loops. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a
dominator tree in SimplifyCFG, there is no good way to prevent
this. While we have LoopHeaders, this is an optional structure and
we don't do a good job of keeping it up to date. It would be fine
for a profitability check, but is not suitable for a correctness
check.

So for now I'm just giving up here, as I don't see a good way to
robustly prevent infinite combine loops.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56203.
2022-07-05 16:57:46 +02:00
Dawid Jurczak 009f6ce0ef [GVNSink] Make GVNSink resistant against self referencing instructions (PR36954)
Before this change GVNSink pass suffers from stack overflow while processing self referenced instruction in unreachable basic block.
According [1] and [2] it's reasonable to make pass resistant against self referencing instructions.
To fix issue we skip sinking analysis when we reach instruction coming from unreachable block.

[1] https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/843Tig9IzwA
[2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/082629.html

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113897
2022-05-10 16:06:12 +02:00
Nikita Popov 4e545bdb35 [SimplifyCFG] Thread branches on same condition in more cases (PR54980)
SimplifyCFG implements basic jump threading, if a branch is
performed on a phi node with constant operands. However,
InstCombine canonicalizes such phis to the condition value of a
previous branch, if possible. SimplifyCFG does support this as
well, but only in the very limited case where the same condition
is used in a direct predecessor -- notably, this does not include
the common diamond pattern (i.e. two consecutive if/elses on the
same condition).

This patch extends the code to look back a limited number of
blocks to find a branch on the same value, rather than only
looking at the direct predecessor.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54980.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124159
2022-04-29 09:44:05 +02:00
Nikita Popov 15fc293b11 Revert "[GVNSink] Regenerate test checks (NFC)"
This reverts commit 3b13230072.

It looks like GVNSink is currently non-deterministic, due to an
std::sort() on BasicBlock* pointers in ModelledPHI. This becomes
visible in the generated checks.
2022-04-21 10:46:34 +02:00
Nikita Popov 3b13230072 [GVNSink] Regenerate test checks (NFC) 2022-04-21 10:07:09 +02:00
Roman Lebedev 18c407bf4c
[SimplifyCFG] Teach HoistThenElseCodeToIf() to preserve DomTree 2020-12-30 00:48:10 +03:00
Roman Lebedev b43b77ff9b
[NFCI][SimlifyCFG] simplifyOnce(): also perform DomTree validation
And that exposes that a number of tests don't *actually* manage to
maintain DomTree validity, which is inline with my observations.

Once again, SimlifyCFG pass currently does not require/preserve DomTree
by default, so this is effectively NFC.
2020-12-20 00:18:32 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 164e0847a5
[SimplifyCFG] DeleteDeadBlock() already knows how to preserve DomTree
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.

Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
2020-12-18 00:37:21 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 04b729d076
[NFCI][SimplifyCFG] Guard common code hoisting with a (default-on) flag
Common code sinking is already guarded with a (with default-off!) flag,
so add a flag for hoisting, too.

D84108 will hopefully make hoisting off-by-default too.
2020-07-20 10:29:57 +03:00
Douglas Yung 18e1a59eed Fix another instance where a variable was renamed in the generated LLVM IR. [NFC] 2020-03-23 22:53:29 -07:00
Douglas Yung e79b1ab65b Make test more flexible for when the variable is renamed in the generated LLVM IR. [NFC] 2020-03-23 22:03:21 -07:00
Matt Arsenault b20a1d840f GVNSink: Allow handling addrspacecast 2020-03-23 16:50:58 -04:00
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Galina Kistanova e128958552 Changed a comparison operator for std::stable_sort to implement strict weak ordering.
This is a temporarily fix which needs additional work, as it triggers a test3 failure.
test3 is commented out till then.

llvm-svn: 304993
2017-06-08 17:27:40 +00:00
James Molloy a929063233 [GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.

This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:

[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1  ]   [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1  ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ]   [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
                 \           /
           [ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
           [ add i32 %e, 4         ]

GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.

What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.

This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.

Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805

llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 12:51:11 +00:00