Commit Graph

18 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Florian Hahn 1fbdbb5595
Revert "Recommit "[SCEV] Look through single value PHIs." (take 2)"
This reverts commit 764d9aa979.

This patch exposed a few additional cases where SCEV expressions are not
properly invalidated.

See PR52024, PR52023.
2021-09-30 20:53:51 +01:00
Florian Hahn 764d9aa979
Recommit "[SCEV] Look through single value PHIs." (take 2)
This reverts commit 8fdac7cb7a.

The issue causing the revert has been fixed a while ago in 60b852092c.

Original message:

    Now that SCEVExpander can preserve LCSSA form,
    we do not have to worry about LCSSA form when
    trying to look through PHIs. SCEVExpander will take
    care of inserting LCSSA PHI nodes as required.

    This increases precision of the analysis in some cases.

    Reviewed By: mkazantsev, bmahjour

    Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71539
2021-09-28 10:32:17 +01:00
Eli Friedman 7ac1c7bead Recommit [ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.

There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.

The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.

As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base.  This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.

This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes).  The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome.  As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.

I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.

Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
2021-07-06 12:16:05 -07:00
Eli Friedman a6d081b2cb Revert "[ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers."
This reverts commit 74d6ce5d5f.

Seeing crashes on buildbots in MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
2021-07-06 11:17:13 -07:00
Eli Friedman 74d6ce5d5f [ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.

There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.

The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.

As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base.  This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.

This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes).  The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome.  As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.

I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
2021-07-06 10:54:41 -07:00
Fangrui Song 8fdac7cb7a Revert D71539 "Recommit "[SCEV] Look through single value PHIs.""
This reverts commit 11dccf8d3a.

A bootstrapped clang crashes (due to ArrayRef::front called on an empty
ArrayRef) when compiling some files.  Very strangely, this only reproduces with
modules.

```
13 0x0000564d3349e968 llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::BasicBlock*>::front() const /proc/self/cwd/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h:160:7
14 0x0000564d3349e896 llvm::LoopBase<llvm::BasicBlock, llvm::Loop>::getHeader() const /proc/self/cwd/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h:104:50
15 0x0000564d3349fd9d llvm::LoopBase<llvm::BasicBlock, llvm::Loop>::getLoopLatch() const /proc/self/cwd/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfoImpl.h:210:11
16 0x0000564d33593c8a llvm::ScalarEvolution::computeBackedgeTakenCount(llvm::Loop const*, bool) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:6933:15
17 0x0000564d33592ebc llvm::ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenInfo(llvm::Loop const*) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:0:30
18 0x0000564d33593a54 llvm::ScalarEvolution::getBackedgeTakenCount(llvm::Loop const*, llvm::ScalarEvolution::ExitCountKind) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:6487:36
19 0x0000564d32be2402 llvm::ScalarEvolution::getConstantMaxBackedgeTakenCount(llvm::Loop const*) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h:768:5
20 0x0000564d33590807 llvm::ScalarEvolution::getRangeRef(llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::ScalarEvolution::RangeSignHint) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:5495:19
21 0x0000564d320abab7 llvm::ScalarEvolution::getSignedRange(llvm::SCEV const*) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h:840:12
22 0x0000564d335a03aa llvm::ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges(llvm::CmpInst::Predicate, llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::SCEV const*) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:9239:60
23 0x0000564d33586a80 llvm::ScalarEvolution::isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning(llvm::CmpInst::Predicate, llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::SCEV const*) /proc/self/cwd/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp:10284:60
```
2020-09-21 17:21:43 -07:00
Florian Hahn 11dccf8d3a Recommit "[SCEV] Look through single value PHIs."
This commit was originally because it was suspected to cause a crash,
but a reproducer did not surface.

A crash that was exposed by this change was fixed in 1d8f2e5292.

This reverts the revert commit 0581c0b0ee.
2020-09-21 11:59:50 +01:00
Ali Tamur 0581c0b0ee Revert "[SCEV] Look through single value PHIs."
This reverts commit e441b7a7a0.

This patch causes a compile error in tensorflow opensource project. The stack trace looks like:

Point of crash:
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfoImpl.h : line 35

(gdb) ptype *this
type = const class llvm::LoopBase<llvm::BasicBlock, llvm::Loop> [with BlockT = llvm::BasicBlock, LoopT = llvm::Loop]

(gdb) p *this
$1 = {ParentLoop = 0x0, SubLoops = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0, Blocks = std::vector of length 0, capacity 1,
  DenseBlockSet = {<llvm::SmallPtrSetImpl<llvm::BasicBlock const*>> = {<llvm::SmallPtrSetImplBase> = {<llvm::DebugEpochBase> = {Epoch = 3}, SmallArray = 0x1b2bf6c8, CurArray = 0x1b2bf6c8,
        CurArraySize = 8, NumNonEmpty = 0, NumTombstones = 0}, <No data fields>}, SmallStorage = {0xfffffffffffffffe, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}}, IsInvalid = true}

(gdb) p *this->DenseBlockSet->CurArray
$2 = (const void *) 0xfffffffffffffffe

I will try to get a case from tensorflow or use creduce to get a small case.
2020-08-12 23:13:24 -07:00
Florian Hahn e441b7a7a0 [SCEV] Look through single value PHIs.
Now that SCEVExpander can preserve LCSSA form,
we do not have to worry about LCSSA form when
trying to look through PHIs. SCEVExpander will take
care of inserting LCSSA PHI nodes as required.

This increases precision of the analysis in some cases.

Reviewed By: mkazantsev, bmahjour

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71539
2020-08-12 10:03:42 +01:00
Florian Hahn be2ea29ee1 [SCEV] Add additional tests.
Increase test coverage for upcoming changes to how SCEV deals with LCSSA
phis.
2020-07-28 16:15:57 +01:00
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
David Majnemer a53b5bbb18 [LoopStrengthReduce] Don't rewrite PHIs with incoming values from CatchSwitches
Bail out if we have a PHI on an EHPad that gets a value from a
CatchSwitchInst.  Because the CatchSwitchInst cannot be split, there is
no good place to stick any instructions.

This fixes PR26373.

llvm-svn: 259702
2016-02-03 21:30:34 +00:00
David Majnemer bbfc7219ef [IR] Remove terminatepad
It turns out that terminatepad gives little benefit over a cleanuppad
which calls the termination function.  This is not sufficient to
implement fully generic filters but MSVC doesn't support them which
makes terminatepad a little over-designed.

Depends on D15478.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15479

llvm-svn: 255522
2015-12-14 18:34:23 +00:00
David Majnemer 8a1c45d6e8 [IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
  but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
  experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers.  They cannot
  be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
  This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
  It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
  funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
  control flow edges.  Because of this, we are forced to carefully
  analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
  nesting among funclets.  While we have logic to clone funclets when
  they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
  representation which forbade them upfront.

Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
  flow, just a bunch of simple operands;  catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
  the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
  the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad.  Their presence can be inferred
  implicitly using coloring information.

N.B.  The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for.  An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.

Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139

llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 05:38:55 +00:00
David Majnemer b222184223 [LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds
We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor.

This fixes PR25445.

llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 05:04:07 +00:00
David Majnemer 235acde953 [ScalarEvolutionExpander] PHI on a catchpad can be used on both edges
A PHI on a catchpad might be used by both edges out of the catchpad,
feeding back into a loop.  In this case, just use the insertion point.
Anything more clever would require new basic blocks or PHI placement.

llvm-svn: 251442
2015-10-27 19:48:28 +00:00
David Majnemer dd9a815746 [ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads
We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def.  This is
tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the
def and the use cannot hold any instructions.  Iteratively walk EH pads
until we hit a non-EH pad.

This fixes PR25326.

llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 07:36:42 +00:00