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.
... 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.
Rather than gating on "isSwitchDense" (resulting in necessesarily
sparse lookup tables even when they were generated), always run
this quite cheap transform.
This transform is useful not just for generating tables.
LowerSwitch also wants this: read LowerSwitch.cpp:257.
Be careful to not generate worse code, by introducing a
SubThreshold heuristic.
Instead of just sorting by signed, generalize the finding of the
best base.
And now that it is run unconditionally, do not replicate its
functionality in SwitchToLookupTable (which could use a Sub
when having a hole is smaller, hence the SubThreshold
heuristic located in a single place).
This simplifies SwitchToLookupTable, and fixes
some ugly corner cases due to the use of signed numbers,
such as a table containing i16 32768 and 32769, of which
32769 would be interpreted as -32768, and now the code thinks
the table is size 65536.
(We still use unconditional subtraction when building a single-register mask,
but I think this whole block should go when the more general sparse
map is added, which doesn't leave empty holes in the table.)
And the reason test4 and test5 did not trigger was documented wrong:
it was because they were not considered sufficiently "dense".
Also, fix generation of invalid LLVM-IR: shl by bit-width.
llvm-svn: 361727
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is no-functional-change-intended.
This is repackaging the functionality of D30333 (defer switch-to-lookup-tables) and
D35411 (defer folding unconditional branches) with pass parameters rather than a named
"latesimplifycfg" pass. Now that we have individual options to control the functionality,
we could decouple when these fire (but that's an independent patch if desired).
The next planned step would be to add another option bit to disable the sinking transform
mentioned in D38566. This should also make it clear that the new pass manager needs to
be updated to limit simplifycfg in the same way as the old pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38631
llvm-svn: 316835
I noticed this inefficiency while investigating PR34603:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
This fix will likely push another bug (we don't maintain state of 'LateSimplifyCFG')
into hiding, but I'll try to clean that up with a follow-up patch anyway.
llvm-svn: 313829
The first variant contains all current transformations except
transforming switches into lookup tables. The second variant
contains all current transformations.
The switch-to-lookup-table conversion results in code that is more
difficult to analyze and optimize by other passes. Most importantly,
it can inhibit Dead Code Elimination. As such it is often beneficial to
only apply this transformation very late. A common example is inlining,
which can often result in range restrictions for the switch expression.
Changes in execution time according to LNT:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/fp-convert +3.03%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -11.20%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/perimeter/perimeter -10.43%
and a couple of smaller changes. For perimeter it also results 2.6%
a smaller binary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30333
llvm-svn: 298799
This generated IR based on the order of evaluation, which is different
between GCC and Clang. With that in mind you get bootstrap miscompares
if you compare a Clang built with GCC-built Clang vs. Clang built with
Clang-built Clang. Diagnosing that made my head hurt.
This also reverts commit r277337, which "fixed" the test case.
llvm-svn: 277820
Using RAUW was wrong here; if we have a switch transform such as:
18 -> 6 then
6 -> 0
If we use RAUW, while performing the second transform the *transformed* 6
from the first will be also replaced, so we end up with:
18 -> 0
6 -> 0
Found by clang stage2 bootstrap; testcase added.
llvm-svn: 277332
It looks like the two independent parts of the rotate operation (a lshr and shl) are being reordered on some bots. Add CHECK-DAGs to account for this.
llvm-svn: 277329
If a switch is sparse and all the cases (once sorted) are in arithmetic progression, we can extract the common factor out of the switch and create a dense switch. For example:
switch (i) {
case 5: ...
case 9: ...
case 13: ...
case 17: ...
}
can become:
if ( (i - 5) % 4 ) goto default;
switch ((i - 5) / 4) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
or even better:
switch ( ROTR(i - 5, 2) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
The division and remainder operations could be costly so we only do this if the factor is a power of two, and emit a right-rotate instead of a divide/remainder sequence. Dense switches can be lowered significantly better than sparse switches and can even be transformed into lookup tables.
llvm-svn: 277325
Roman Lebedev