When LSR converts a branch on the pre-inc IV into a branch on the
post-inc IV, the nowrap flags on the addition may no longer be valid.
Previously, a poison result of the addition might have been ignored,
in which case the program was well defined. After branching on the
post-inc IV, we might be branching on poison, which is undefined behavior.
Fix this by discarding nowrap flags which are not present on the SCEV
expression. Nowrap flags on the SCEV expression are proven by SCEV
to always hold, independently of how the expression will be used.
This is essentially the same fix we applied to IndVars LFTR, which
also performs this kind of pre-inc to post-inc conversion.
I believe a similar problem can also exist for getelementptr inbounds,
but I was not able to come up with a problematic test case. The
inbounds case would have to be addressed in a differently anyway
(as SCEV does not track this property).
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46943.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95286
or claimRV calls in the IR
Background:
This patch makes changes to the front-end and middle-end that are
needed to fix a longstanding problem where llvm breaks ARC's autorelease
optimization (see the link below) by separating calls from the marker
instructions or retainRV/claimRV calls. The backend changes are in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92569.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#arc-runtime-objc-autoreleasereturnvalue
What this patch does to fix the problem:
- The front-end annotates calls with attribute "clang.arc.rv"="retain"
or "clang.arc.rv"="claim", which indicates the call is implicitly
followed by a marker instruction and a retainRV/claimRV call that
consumes the call result. This is currently done only when the target
is arm64 and the optimization level is higher than -O0.
- ARC optimizer temporarily emits retainRV/claimRV calls after the
annotated calls in the IR and removes the inserted calls after
processing the function.
- ARC contract pass emits retainRV/claimRV calls after the annotated
calls. It doesn't remove the attribute on the call since the backend
needs it to emit the marker instruction. The retainRV/claimRV calls
are emitted late in the pipeline to prevent optimization passes from
transforming the IR in a way that makes it harder for the ARC
middle-end passes to figure out the def-use relationship between the
call and the retainRV/claimRV calls (which is the cause of PR31925).
- The function inliner removes the autoreleaseRV call in the callee that
returns the result if nothing in the callee prevents it from being
paired up with the calls annotated with "clang.arc.rv"="retain/claim"
in the caller. If the call is annotated with "claim", a release call
is inserted since autoreleaseRV+claimRV is equivalent to a release. If
it cannot find an autoreleaseRV call, it tries to transfer the
attributes to a function call in the callee. This is important since
ARC optimizer can remove the autoreleaseRV call returning the callee
result, which makes it impossible to pair it up with the retainRV or
claimRV call in the caller. If that fails, it simply emits a retain
call in the IR if the call is annotated with "retain" and does nothing
if it's annotated with "claim".
- This patch teaches dead argument elimination pass not to change the
return type of a function if any of the calls to the function are
annotated with attribute "clang.arc.rv". This is necessary since the
pass can incorrectly determine nothing in the IR uses the function
return, which can happen since the front-end no longer explicitly
emits retainRV/claimRV calls in the IR, and change its return type to
'void'.
Future work:
- Use the attribute on x86-64.
- Fix the auto upgrader to convert call+retainRV/claimRV pairs into
calls annotated with the attributes.
rdar://71443534
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92808
In the cloning infrastructure, only track an MDNode mapping,
without explicitly storing the Metadata mapping, same as is done
during inlining. This makes things slightly simpler.
Similar to D92887, LoopRotation also needs duplicate the noalias scopes when rotating a `@llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl` across a block boundary.
This is based on the version from the Full Restrict paches (D68511).
The problem it fixes also showed up in Transforms/Coroutines/ex5.ll after D93040 (when enabling strict checking with -verify-noalias-scope-decl-dom).
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94306
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39282. Compared to D90104, this version is based on part of the full restrict patched (D68484) and uses the `@llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl` intrinsic to track the location where !noalias and !alias.scope scopes have been introduced. This allows us to only duplicate the scopes that are really needed.
Notes:
- it also includes changes and tests from D90104
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92887
Add an intrinsic type class to represent the
llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic, to make code
working with it a bit nicer by hiding the metadata extraction
from view.
With the addition of the `willreturn` attribute, functions that may
not return (e.g. due to an infinite loop) are well defined, if they are
not marked as `willreturn`.
This patch updates `wouldInstructionBeTriviallyDead` to not consider
calls that may not return as dead.
This patch still provides an escape hatch for intrinsics, which are
still assumed as willreturn unconditionally. It will be removed once
all intrinsics definitions have been reviewed and updated.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94106
If i change it to AssertingVH instead, a number of existing tests fail,
which means we don't consistently remove from the set when deleting blocks,
which means newly-created blocks may happen to appear in that set
if they happen to occupy the same memory chunk as did some block
that was in the set originally.
There are many places where we delete blocks,
and while we could probably consistently delete from LoopHeaders
when deleting a block in transforms located in SimplifyCFG.cpp itself,
transforms located elsewhere (Local.cpp/BasicBlockUtils.cpp) also may
delete blocks, and it doesn't seem good to teach them to deal with it.
Since we at most only ever delete from LoopHeaders,
let's just delegate to WeakVH to do that automatically.
But to be honest, personally, i'm not sure that the idea
behind LoopHeaders is sound.
Insert a llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic that identifies where a noalias argument was inlined.
This patch includes some refactorings from D90104.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93040
This builds on the restricted after initial revert form of D93906, and adds back support for breaking backedges of inner loops. It turns out the original invalidation logic wasn't quite right, specifically around the handling of LCSSA.
When breaking the backedge of an inner loop, we can cause blocks which were in the outer loop only because they were also included in a sub-loop to be removed from both loops. This results in the exit block set for our original parent loop changing, and thus a need for new LCSSA phi nodes.
This case happens when the inner loop has an exit block which is also an exit block of the parent, and there's a block in the child which reaches an exit to said block without also reaching an exit to the parent loop.
(I'm describing this in terms of the immediate parent, but the problem is general for any transitive parent in the nest.)
The approach implemented here involves a potentially expensive LCSSA rebuild. Perf testing during review didn't show anything concerning, but we may end up needing to revert this if anyone encounters a practical compile time issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94378
I have previously tried doing that in
b33fbbaa34 / d38205144f,
but eventually it was pointed out that the approach taken there
was just broken wrt how the uses of bonus instructions are updated
to account for the fact that they should now use either bonus instruction
or the cloned bonus instruction. In particluar, all that manual handling
of PHI nodes in successors was just wrong.
But, the fix is actually much much simpler than my initial approach:
just tell SSAUpdate about both instances of bonus instruction,
and let it deal with all the PHI handling.
Alive2 confirms that the reproducers from the original bugs (@pr48450*)
are now handled correctly.
This effectively reverts commit 59560e8589,
effectively relanding b33fbbaa34.
NewBonusInst just took name from BonusInst, so BonusInst has no name,
so BonusInst.getName() makes no sense.
So we need to ask NewBonusInst for the name.
This is to support the memory routines vec_malloc, vec_calloc, vec_realloc, and vec_free. These routines manage memory that is 16-byte aligned. And they are only available on AIX.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94710
If the call result is unused, we should let it get DCEd rather
than replacing it. Also, don't try to replace an existing sincos
with another one (unless it's as part of combining sin and cos).
This avoids an infinite combine loop if the calls are not DCEd
as expected, which can happen with D94106 and lack of willreturn
annotation in hand-crafted IR.
I'm intentionally structuring it this way, so that the actual fold only
does the fold, and no legality/correctness checks, all of which must be
done by the caller. This allows for the fold code to be more compact
and more easily grokable.
Hoist the successor updating out of the code that deals with branch
weight updating, and hoist the 'has weights' check from the latter,
making code more consistent and easier to follow.
While we already ignore uncond branches, we could still potentially
end up with a conditional branches with identical destinations
due to the visitation order, or because we were called as an utility.
But if we have such a disguised uncond branch,
we still probably shouldn't deal with it here.
The case where BB ends with an unconditional branch,
and has a single predecessor w/ conditional branch
to BB and a single successor of BB is exactly the pattern
SpeculativelyExecuteBB() transform deals with.
(and in this case they both allow speculating only a single instruction)
Well, or FoldTwoEntryPHINode(), if the final block
has only those two predecessors.
Here, in FoldBranchToCommonDest(), only a weird subset of that
transform is supported, and it's glued on the side in a weird way.
In particular, it took me a bit to understand that the Cond
isn't actually a branch condition in that case, but just the value
we allow to speculate (otherwise it reads as a miscompile to me).
Additionally, this only supports for the speculated instruction
to be an ICmp.
So let's just unclutter FoldBranchToCommonDest(), and leave
this transform up to SpeculativelyExecuteBB(). As far as i can tell,
this shouldn't really impact optimization potential, but if it does,
improving SpeculativelyExecuteBB() will be more beneficial anyways.
Notably, this only affects a single test,
but EarlyCSE should have run beforehand in the pipeline,
and then FoldTwoEntryPHINode() would have caught it.
This reverts commit rL158392 / commit d33f4efbfd.
In https://llvm.org/PR48810 , we are crashing while trying to
propagate attributes from mempcpy (returns void*) to memcpy
(returns nothing - void).
We can avoid the crash by removing known incompatible
attributes for the void return type.
I'm not sure if this goes far enough (should we just drop all
attributes since this isn't the same function?). We also need
to audit other transforms in LibCallSimplifier to make sure
there are no other cases that have the same problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95088
This is related to D94982. We want to call these APIs from the Analysis
component, so we can't leave them under Transforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95079
Branch/assume conditions in PredicateInfo are currently handled in
a rather ad-hoc manner, with some arbitrary limitations. For example,
an `and` of two `icmp`s will be handled, but an `and` of an `icmp`
and some other condition will not. That also includes the case where
more than two conditions and and'ed together.
This patch makes the handling more general by looking through and/ors
up to a limit and considering all kinds of conditions (though operands
will only be taken for cmps of course).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94447
When using 2 InlinePass instances in the same CGSCC - one for other
mandatory inlinings, the other for the heuristic-driven ones - the order
in which the ImportedFunctionStats would be output-ed would depend on
the destruction order of the inline passes, which is not deterministic.
This patch moves the ImportedFunctionStats responsibility to the
InlineAdvisor to address this problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94982
Loop peeling assumes that the loop's latch is a conditional branch. Add
a check to canPeel that explicitly checks for this, and testcases that
otherwise fail an assertion when trying to peel a loop whose back-edge
is a switch case or the non-unwind edge of an invoke.
Reviewed By: skatkov, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94995
D84108 exposed a bad interaction between inlining and loop-rotation
during regular LTO, which is causing notable regressions in at least
CINT2006/473.astar.
The problem boils down to: we now rotate a loop just before the vectorizer
which requires duplicating a function call in the preheader when compiling
the individual files ('prepare for LTO'). But this then prevents further
inlining of the function during LTO.
This patch tries to resolve this issue by making LoopRotate more
conservative with respect to rotating loops that have inline-able calls
during the 'prepare for LTO' stage.
I think this change intuitively improves the current situation in
general. Loop-rotate tries hard to avoid creating headers that are 'too
big'. At the moment, it assumes all inlining already happened and the
cost of duplicating a call is equal to just doing the call. But with LTO,
inlining also happens during full LTO and it is possible that a previously
duplicated call is actually a huge function which gets inlined
during LTO.
From the perspective of LV, not much should change overall. Most loops
calling user-provided functions won't get vectorized to start with
(unless we can infer that the function does not touch memory, has no
other side effects). If we do not inline the 'inline-able' call during
the LTO stage, we merely delayed loop-rotation & vectorization. If we
inline during LTO, chances should be very high that the inlined code is
itself vectorizable or the user call was not vectorizable to start with.
There could of course be scenarios where we inline a sufficiently large
function with code not profitable to vectorize, which would have be
vectorized earlier (by scalarzing the call). But even in that case,
there probably is no big performance impact, because it should be mostly
down to the cost-model to reject vectorization in that case. And then
the version with scalarized calls should also not be beneficial. In a way,
LV should have strictly more information after inlining and make more
accurate decisions (barring cost-model issues).
There is of course plenty of room for things to go wrong unexpectedly,
so we need to keep a close look at actual performance and address any
follow-up issues.
I took a look at the impact on statistics for
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006. There are a few benchmarks with fewer
loops rotated, but no change to the number of loops vectorized.
Reviewed By: sanwou01
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94232
This patch teaches SimplifyCFG::SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain to understand select form of
(x == C1 || x == C2 || ...) / (x != C1 && x != C2 && ...) and optimize them into switch if possible.
D93065 has more context about the transition, including links to the list of optimizations being updated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93943
This patch adds the default value of 1 to drop_begin.
In the llvm codebase, 70% of calls to drop_begin have 1 as the second
argument. The interface similar to with std::next should improve
readability.
This patch converts a couple of calls to drop_begin as examples.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94858
This patch marks some library functions as willreturn. On the first pass, I
excluded most functions that interact with streams/the filesystem.
Along with willreturn, it also adds nounwind to a set of math functions.
There probably are a few additional attributes we can add for those, but
that should be done separately.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94684
When removing catchpad's from catchswitch, if that removes a successor,
we need to record that in DomTreeUpdater.
This fixes PostDomTree preservation failure in an existing test.
This appears to be the single issue that i see in my current test coverage.
DestBB might or might not already be a successor of SelectBB,
and it wasn't we need to ensure that we record the fact in DomTree.
The testcase used to crash in lazy domtree updater mode + non-per-function
domtree validity checks disabled.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
Nikita Popov