In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 286999
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
Summary:
Unfolding selects was previously done with the help of a vector
of pointers that was then sorted to be able to remove duplicates.
As this sorting depends on the memory addresses, it was
non-deterministic. A SetVector is used now so that duplicates are
removed without the need of sorting first.
Reviewers: mgrang, efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26450
llvm-svn: 286807
All existing callers were manually extracting information out of an existing
GEP instruction and passing it to getGEPExpr(). Simplify the interface by
changing it to take a GEPOperator instead.
llvm-svn: 286751
No testcase included because I can't figure out how to reduce it.
(It's easy to write a testcase where rotation clones an assume,
but that doesn't actually seem to trigger the crash in opt on
its own; maybe an issue with the laziness?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26434
llvm-svn: 286410
Summary:
Unrolled Loop Size calculations moved to a function.
Constant representing number of optimized instructions
when "back edge" becomes "fall through" replaced with
variable.
Some comments added.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21719
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 286389
Scalar Evolution asserts when not all the operands of an Add Recurrence
Expression are loop invariants. Loop Strength Reduction should only
create affine Add Recurrences, so that both the start and the step of
the expression are loop invariants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26185
llvm-svn: 286347
Summary: For functions with profile data, we are confident that loop sink will be optimal in sinking code.
Reviewers: davidxl, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26155
llvm-svn: 286325
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: rengolin, haicheng, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, jmolloy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26391
llvm-svn: 286236
Summary:
In some specific scenarios with well understood operand bundle types
(like `"deopt"`) it may be possible to go ahead and convert recursion to
iteration, but TailRecursionElimination does not have that logic today
so avoid doing the right thing for now.
I need some input on whether `"funclet"` operand bundles should also
block tail recursion elimination. If not, I'll allow TRE across calls
with `"funclet"` operand bundles and add a test case.
Reviewers: rnk, majnemer, nlewycky, ahatanak
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26270
llvm-svn: 286147
Argument evaluation order is one of the edge cases where Clang differs
from GCC, yielding different IR depending on which compiler LLVM was
built with. Make the order deterministic and tune the test to actually
verify the order instead of trying to hide it.
llvm-svn: 286126
Summary:
SmallSetVector uses DenseSet, but that means we need to reserve some
values for the empty and tombstone keys.
It seems to me we should have a general way to let us store full-range
ints inside of DenseSets, and furthermore that we probably shouldn't
silently let you add ints into DenseSets without explicitly promising
that they're in range. But that's a battle for another day; for now,
just fix this code, since we currently do something Very Bad when
compiling ffmpeg.
Fixes PR30914.
Reviewers: jeremyhu
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26323
llvm-svn: 286038
This condition is trivially always true prior to the change. The comment
at the call site makes it clear that we expect *all* of these to be '=',
'S', or 'I' so fix the code.
We have a bug I will update to track the fact that Clang doesn't warn on
this: http://llvm.org/PR13101
llvm-svn: 285930
Summary:
It was detected that the reassociate pass could enter an inifite
loop when analysing dead code. Simply skipping to analyse basic
blocks that are dead avoids such problems (and as a side effect
we avoid spending time on optimising dead code).
The solution is using the same Reverse Post Order ordering of the
basic blocks when doing the optimisations, as when building the
precalculated rank map. A nice side-effect of this solution is
that we now know that we only try to do optimisations for blocks
with ranked instructions.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30818
Reviewers: llvm-commits, davide, eli.friedman, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26154
llvm-svn: 285793
Fixes PR 30784. Discussed with Justin, who pointed out that
in the new PassManager infrastructure we can have more fine-grained
control on which analyses we want to preserve, but this is the
best we can do with the current infrastructure.
llvm-svn: 285380
Summary: LICM may hoist instructions to preheader speculatively. Before code generation, we need to sink down the hoisted instructions inside to loop if it's beneficial. This pass is a reverse of LICM: looking at instructions in preheader and sinks the instruction to basic blocks inside the loop body if basic block frequency is smaller than the preheader frequency.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, chandlerc
Subscribers: anna, modocache, mgorny, beanz, reames, dberlin, chandlerc, mcrosier, junbuml, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778
llvm-svn: 285308
When the loop exit condition is canonicalized as a != compaison, reuse the
debug location of the original (non canonical) comparison.
Before this patch, the debug location of the new icmp was obtained from the
loop latch terminator. This patch fixes the issue by correctly setting the
IRBuilder's "current debug location" to the location of the original compare.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25953
llvm-svn: 285185
When indvars widened an induction variable, the debug location for the loop
increment computation was incorrectly set equal to the debug loc of the loop
latch terminator.
This patch fixes the issue by propagating the correct location from the
original loop increment instruction to the new widened increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25872
llvm-svn: 285083
Now that MemorySSA keeps track of whether MemoryUses are optimized, use
getClobberingMemoryAccess() to check MemoryUse memory dependencies since
it should no longer be so expensive.
This is a follow-up change to https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 285080
Summary:
When using MemorySSA, re-optimize MemoryPhis when removing a store since
this may create MemoryPhis with all identical arguments.
Also, when using MemorySSA to check if two MemoryUses are reading from
the same version of the heap, use the defining access instead of calling
getClobberingAccess, since the latter can currently result in many more
AA calls. Once the MemorySSA use optimization tracking changes are
done, we can remove this limitation, which should result in more loads
being CSE'd.
Reviewers: dberlin
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 284984
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: reames, bkramer, mcrosier, gberry, haicheng, jmolloy, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25477
llvm-svn: 284971
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
There's no agreement about this patch. I personally find the
PRE machinery of the current GVN hard enough to reason about
that I'm not sure I'll try to land this again, instead of working
on the rewrite).
llvm-svn: 284796
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
llvm-svn: 284629
In theory this could be generalized to move anything where
we prove the operands are available, but that would require
rewriting PRE. As NewGVN will hopefully come soon, and we're
trying to rewrite PRE in terms of NewGVN+MemorySSA, it's probably
not worth spending too much time on it. Fix provided by
Daniel Berlin!
llvm-svn: 284311
- Removed unused class members.
- Made class internal data private.
- Made class scoped data function scoped where it's possible.
- Replace naked new/delete with unique_ptr.
- Made resources guaranteed to be freed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25464
llvm-svn: 284290
This is with an extra change to avoid calling MemoryLocation::get() on a call instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25542
llvm-svn: 284098
This CL didn't actually address the test case in PR30499, and clang
still crashes.
Also revert dependent change "Memory-SSA cleanup of clobbers interface, NFC"
Reverts r283965 and r283967.
llvm-svn: 284093
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
An arithmetic shift can be safely changed to a logical shift if the first
operand is known positive. This allows ComputeKnownBits (and similar analysis)
to determine the sign bit of the shifted value in some cases. In turn, this
allows InstCombine to canonicalize a signed comparison (a > 0) into an equality
check (a != 0).
PR30577
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25119
llvm-svn: 284013
This implements the cleanup that Danny asked to commit separately from the
previous fix to GVN-hoist in https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476#inline-219818
Tested with ninja check on x86_64-linux.
llvm-svn: 283967
This is a refreshed version of a patch that was reverted: it fixes
the problems reported in both PR30216 and PR30499, and
contains all the test-cases from both bugs.
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Tested on x86_64-linux with check and a test-suite run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476
llvm-svn: 283965
For each block check that it doesn't have any uses outside of it's innermost loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25364
llvm-svn: 283877
The core of the change is supposed to be NFC, however it also fixes
what I believe was an undefined behavior when calling:
va_start(ValueArgs, Desc);
with Desc being a StringRef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25342
llvm-svn: 283671
Summary: LoopSink pass uses some common function in LICM. This patch refactor the LICM code to make it usable by LoopSink pass (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778).
Reviewers: davidxl, danielcdh, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24168
llvm-svn: 283134
Splitting the edge is nontrivial because of the landing pad, and we would
currently assert trying to do it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24680
llvm-svn: 283129
Summary: Debug info should *not* affect optimization decisions. This patch updates loop unroller cost model to make it not affected by debug info.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: haicheng, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25098
llvm-svn: 282894
Summary:
The patch fixes regression caused by two earlier patches D18777 and D18867.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D24280
From: Li Huang
llvm-svn: 282650
This commit enables more unrolling for SystemZ by implementing the
SystemZTargetTransformInfo::getUnrollingPreferences() method.
It has been found that it is better to only unroll moderately, so the
DefaultUnrollRuntimeCount has been moved into UnrollingPreferences in order
to set this to a lower value for SystemZ (4).
Reviewers: Evgeny Stupachenko, Ulrich Weigand.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24451
llvm-svn: 282570
Assumptions on UndefValue and ConstantPointerNull aren't relevant to
other users. Ignore them entirely to avoid wasting cycles walking
through their (possibly extremely extensive (cross-module)) use-lists.
It wasn't clear how to add a specific test for this, and it'll be
covered anyway by an eventual patch that asserts when trying to access
the use-list of an instance of ConstantData.
llvm-svn: 282334
and also the dependent r282175 "GVN-hoist: do not dereference null pointers"
It's causing compiler crashes building Harfbuzz (PR30499).
llvm-svn: 282199
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24517
llvm-svn: 282168
Without this patch, GVN-hoist would think that a branch instruction is a scalar instruction
and would try to value number it. The patch filters out all such kind of irrelevant instructions.
A bit frustrating is that there is no easy way to discard all those very infrequent instructions,
a bit like isa<TerminatorInst> that stands for a large family of instructions. I'm thinking that
checking for those very infrequent other instructions would cost us more in compilation time
than just letting those instructions getting numbered, so I'm still thinking that a simpler check:
if (isa<TerminatorInst>(I))
return false;
is better than listing all the other less frequent instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23929
llvm-svn: 282160
Currently, we give up on loop interchange if we encounter a flow dependency
anywhere in the loop list. Worse yet, we don't even track output dependencies.
This patch updates the dependency matrix computation to track flow and output
dependencies in the same way we track anti dependencies.
This improves an internal workload by 2.2x.
Note the loop interchange pass is off by default and it can be enabled with
'-mllvm -enable-loopinterchange'
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24564
llvm-svn: 282101
Summary:
This is an NFC refactoring change as a precursor to the actual fix for rematerializing in
presence of phi.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24399
Pasted from review:
findRematerializableChainToBasePointer changed to return the root of the
chain. instead of true or false.
move the PHI matching logic into the caller by inspecting the root return value.
This includes an assertion that the alternate root is in the liveset for the
call.
Tested with current RS4GC tests.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24780
llvm-svn: 282023
SROA doesn't preserve the llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata when it
transforms loads/stores. This patch fixes a couple occurences of this
issue.
(Partially addresses PR28981).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23549
llvm-svn: 281960
Refactor replaceDominatedUsesWith to have a flag to control whether to replace uses in BB itself.
Summary: This is in preparation for LoopSink pass which calls replaceDominatedUsesWith to update after sinking.
llvm-svn: 280949
Wei Mi