This reverts commit 52aeacfbf5.
There isn't full agreement on a path forward yet, but there is agreement that
this shouldn't land as-is. See discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D105338
Also reverts unreviewed "[clang] Improve `-Wnull-dereference` diag to be more in-line with reality"
This reverts commit f4877c78c0.
And all the related changes to tests:
This reverts commit 9a0152799f.
This reverts commit 3f7c9cc274.
This reverts commit 329f8197ef.
This reverts commit aa9f58cc2c.
This reverts commit 2df37d5ddd.
This reverts commit a72a441812.
This reverts commit 4e413e1621,
which landed almost 10 months ago under premise that the original behavior
didn't match reality and was breaking users, even though it was correct as per
the LangRef. But the LangRef change still hasn't appeared, which might suggest
that the affected parties aren't really worried about this problem.
Please refer to discussion in:
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D87399 (`Revert "[InstCombine] erase instructions leading up to unreachable"`)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D53184 (`[LangRef] Clarify semantics of volatile operations.`)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D87149 (`[InstCombine] erase instructions leading up to unreachable`)
clang has `-Wnull-dereference` which will diagnose the obvious cases
of null dereference, it was adjusted in f4877c78c0,
but it will only catch the cases where the pointer is a null literal,
it will not catch the cases where an arbitrary store is expected to trap.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105338
This replaces the current ad-hoc implementation,
by syncing the code from InstCombine's implementation in `InstCombinerImpl::visitUnreachableInst()`,
with one exception that here in SimplifyCFG we are allowed to remove EH instructions.
Effectively, this now allows SimplifyCFG to remove calls (iff they won't throw and will return),
arithmetic/logic operations, etc.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105374
Mimics similar change for InstCombine:
ce192ced2b / D104602
All these uses are in blocks that aren't reachable from function's entry,
and said blocks are removed by SimplifyCFG itself,
so we can't really test this change.
Somewhat related to D105338.
While it is up for discussion whether or not volatile store traps,
so far there has been no complaints that volatile load/cmpxchg/atomicrmw also may trap.
And even if simplifycfg currently concervatively believes that to be the case,
instcombine does not: https://godbolt.org/z/5vhv4K5b8
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105343
This problem is exposed by D104598, after it tail-merges `ret` in
`@test_inline_constraint_S_label`, the verifier would start complaining
`invalid operand for inline asm constraint 'S'`.
Essentially, taking address of a block is mismodelled in IR.
It should probably be an explicit instruction, a first one in block,
that isn't identical to any other instruction of the same type,
so that it can't be hoisted.
As a follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D104129, I'm cleaning up the danling probe related code in both the compiler and llvm-profgen.
I'm seeing a 5% size win for the pseudo_probe section for SPEC2017 and 10% for Ciner. Certain benchmark such as 602.gcc has a 20% size win. No obvious difference seen on build time for SPEC2017 and Cinder.
Reviewed By: wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104477
The problematic code pattern in the test is based on:
https://llvm.org/PR50638
If the IfCond is itself the phi that we are trying to remove,
then the loop around line 2835 can end up with something like:
%cmp = select i1 %cmp, i1 false, i1 true
That can then lead to a use-after-free and assert (although
I'm still not seeing that locally in my release + asserts build).
I think this can only happen with unreachable code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104063
We are deleting `phi` nodes within the for loop, so this makes sure we
increment the iterator before we delete the instruction pointed by the
iterator.
This started to break in
a0be081646.
Reviewed By: dschuff, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103181
This change tries to fix a place missing `moveAndDanglePseudoProbes `. In FoldValueComparisonIntoPredecessors, it folds the BB into predecessors and then marked the BB unreachable. However, the original logic from the BB is still alive, deleting the probe will mislead the SampleLoader mark it as zero count sample.
Reviewed By: hoy, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102721
This required some changes to, instead of eagerly making PHI's
in the UnwindDest valid as-if the BB is already not a predecessor,
to be valid while BB is still a predecessor.
Ignore ephemeral values (only feeding llvm.assume intrinsics) when
computing the instruction count to decide if a block is small enough for
threading. This is similar to the handling of these values in the
InlineCost computation. These instructions will eventually be removed
and shouldn't count against code size (similar to the existing ignoring
of phis).
Without this change, when enabling -fwhole-program-vtables, which causes
type test / assume sequences to be inserted by clang, we can get
different threading decisions. In particular, when building with
instrumentation FDO it can affect the optimizations decisions before FDO
matching, leading to some mismatches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101494
We need to use a logical or instead of a bitwise or to preserve
poison behavior. Poison from the second condition should not
propagate if the first condition is true.
We were already handling this correctly in FoldBranchToCommonDest(),
but not in this fold. (There are still other folds with this issue.)
When passingValueIsAlwaysUndefined scans for an instruction between an
inst with a null or undef argument and its first use, it was checking
for instructions that may have side effects, which is a superset of the
instructions it intended to find (as per the comments, control flow
changing instructions that would prevent reaching the uses). Switch
to using isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor() instead.
Without this change, when enabling -fwhole-program-vtables, which causes
assumes to be inserted by clang, we can get different simplification
decisions. In particular, when building with instrumentation FDO it can
affect the optimizations decisions before FDO matching, leading to some
mismatches.
I had to modify d83507-knowledge-retention-bug.ll since this fix enables
more aggressive optimization of that code such that it no longer tested
the original bug it was meant to test. I removed the undef which still
provokes the original failure (confirmed by temporarily reverting the
fix) and also changed it to just invoke the passes of interest to narrow
the testing.
Similarly I needed to adjust code for UnreachableEliminate.ll to avoid
an undef which was causing the function body to get optimized away with
this fix.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101507
The profitability check is: we don't want to create more than a single PHI
per instruction sunk. We need to create the PHI unless we'll sink
all of it's would-be incoming values.
But there is a caveat there.
This profitability check doesn't converge on the first iteration!
If we first decide that we want to sink 10 instructions,
but then determine that 5'th one is unprofitable to sink,
that may result in us not sinking some instructions that
resulted in determining that some other instruction
we've determined to be profitable to sink becoming unprofitable.
So we need to iterate until we converge, as in determine
that all leftover instructions are profitable to sink.
But, the direct approach of just re-iterating seems dumb,
because in the worst case we'd find that the last instruction
is unprofitable, which would result in revisiting instructions
many many times.
Instead, i think we can get away with just two passes - forward and backward.
However then it isn't obvious what is the most performant way to update
InstructionsToSink.
While we have a known profitability issue for sinking in presence of
non-unconditional predecessors, there isn't any known issues
for having multiple such non-unconditional predecessors,
so said restriction appears to be artificial. Lift it.
We can just eagerly pre-check all the instructions that we *could*
sink that we'd actually want to sink them, clamping the number of
instructions that we'll sink to stop just before the first unprofitable one.
While doing speculative execution opt, it conservatively drops all insn's debug info in the merged `ThenBB`(see the loop at line 2384) including the dangling probe. The missing debug info of the dangling probe will cause the wrong inference computation.
So we should avoid dropping the debug info from pseudo probe, this change try to fix this by moving the to-be dangling probe to the merging target BB before the debug info is dropped.
Reviewed By: hoy, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101195
Debug intrinsics are free to hoist and should be skipped when looking
for terminator-only blocks. As a consequence, we have to delegate to the
main hoisting loop to hoist any dbg intrinsics instead of jumping to the
terminator case directly.
This fixes PR49982.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100640
Such attributes can either be unset, or set to "true" or "false" (as string).
throughout the codebase, this led to inelegant checks ranging from
if (Fn->getFnAttribute("no-jump-tables").getValueAsString() == "true")
to
if (Fn->hasAttribute("no-jump-tables") && Fn->getFnAttribute("no-jump-tables").getValueAsString() == "true")
Introduce a getValueAsBool that normalize the check, with the following
behavior:
no attributes or attribute set to "false" => return false
attribute set to "true" => return true
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99299
As a side-effect of the change to default HoistCommonInsts to false
early in the pipeline, we fail to convert conditional branch & phis to
selects early on, which prevents vectorization for loops that contain
conditional branches that effectively are selects (or if the loop gets
vectorized, it will get vectorized very inefficiently).
This patch updates SimplifyCFG to perform hoisting if the only
instruction in both BBs is an equal branch. In this case, the only
additional instructions are selects for phis, which should be cheap.
Even though we perform hoisting, the benefits of this kind of hoisting
should by far outweigh the negatives.
For example, the loop in the code below will not get vectorized on
AArch64 with the current default, but will with the patch. This is a
fundamental pattern we should definitely vectorize. Besides that, I
think the select variants should be easier to use for reasoning across
other passes as well.
https://clang.godbolt.org/z/sbjd8Wshx
```
double clamp(double v) {
if (v < 0.0)
return 0.0;
if (v > 6.0)
return 6.0;
return v;
}
void loop(double* X, double *Y) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 20000; i++) {
X[i] = clamp(Y[i]);
}
}
```
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100329
Follow up to a6d2a8d6f5. These were found by simply grepping for "::assume", and are the subset of that result which looked cleaner to me using the isa/dyn_cast patterns.
Add the subclass, update a few places which check for the intrinsic to use idiomatic dyn_cast, and update the public interface of AssumptionCache to use the new class. A follow up change will do the same for the newer assumption query/bundle mechanisms.
When converting a switch with two cases and a default into a
select, also handle the denegerate case where two cases have the
same value.
Generate this case directly as
%or = or i1 %cmp1, %cmp2
%res = select i1 %or, i32 %val, i32 %default
rather than
%sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i32 %val, i32 %default
%res = select i1 %cmp2, i32 %val, i32 %sel1
as InstCombine is going to canonicalize to the former anyway.
This is a small patch to make FoldBranchToCommonDest poison-safe by default.
After fc3f0c9c, only two syntactic changes are needed to fix unit tests.
This does not cause any assembly difference in testsuite as well (-O3, X86-64 Manjaro).
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99452
This *only* changes the cases where we *really* don't care
about the iteration order of the underlying contained,
namely when we will use the values from it to form DTU updates.
`FoldBranchToCommonDest()` has a certain budget (`-bonus-inst-threshold=`)
for bonus instruction duplication. And currently it calculates the cost
as-if it will actually duplicate into each predecessor.
But ignoring the budget, it won't always duplicate into each predecessor,
there are some correctness and profitability checks.
So when calculating the cost, we should first check into which blocks
will we *actually* duplicate, and only then use that block count
to do budgeting.
We clone bonus instructions to the end of the predecessor block,
and then use `SSAUpdater::RewriteUseAfterInsertions()`.
But that only deals with the cases where the use-to-be-rewritten
are either in different block from the def, or come after the def.
But in some loop cases, the external use may be in the beginning of
predecessor block, before the newly cloned bonus instruction.
`SSAUpdater::RewriteUseAfterInsertions()` does not deal with that.
Notably, the external use can't happen to be both in the same block
and *after* the newly-cloned instruction, because of the fold preconditions.
To properly handle these cases, when the use is in the same block,
we should instead use `SSAUpdater::RewriteUse()`.
TBN, they do the same thing for PHI users.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49510
Likely Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49689
Nico Weber