There are multiple possible ways to represent the X - urem X, Y pattern. SCEV was not canonicalizing, and thus, depending on which you analyzed, you could get different results. The sub representation appears to produce strictly inferior results in practice, so I decided to canonicalize to the Y * X/Y version.
The motivation here is that runtime unroll produces the sub X - (and X, Y-1) pattern when Y is a power of two. SCEV is thus unable to recognize that an unrolled loop exits because we don't figure out that the new unrolled step evenly divides the trip count of the unrolled loop. After instcombine runs, we convert the the andn form which SCEV recognizes, so essentially, this is just fixing a nasty pass ordering dependency.
The ARM loop hardware interaction in the test diff is opague to me, but the comments in the review from others knowledge of the infrastructure appear to indicate these are improvements in loop recognition, not regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114018
This is one of those wonderful "in theory X doesn't matter, but in practice is does" changes. In this particular case, we shift the IVs inserted by the runtime unroller to clamp iteration count of the loops* from decrementing to incrementing.
Why does this matter? A couple of reasons:
* SCEV doesn't have a native subtract node. Instead, all subtracts (A - B) are represented as A + -1 * B and drops any flags invalidated by such. As a result, SCEV is slightly less good at reasoning about edge cases involving decrementing addrecs than incrementing ones. (You can see this in the inferred flags in some of the test cases.)
* Other parts of the optimizer produce incrementing IVs, and they're common in idiomatic source language. We do have support for reversing IVs, but in general if we produce one of each, the pair will persist surprisingly far through the optimizer before being coalesced. (You can see this looking at nearby phis in the test cases.)
Note that if the hardware prefers decrementing (i.e. zero tested) loops, LSR should convert back immediately before codegen.
* Mostly irrelevant detail: The main loop of the prolog case is handled independently and will simple use the original IV with a changed start value. We could in theory use this scheme for all iteration clamping, but that's a larger and more invasive change.
The unrolling code was previously inserting new cloned blocks at the end of the function. The result of this with typical loop structures is that the new iterations are placed far from the initial iteration.
With unrolling, the general assumption is that the a) the loop is reasonable hot, and b) the first Count-1 copies of the loop are rarely (if ever) loop exiting. As such, placing Count-1 copies out of line is a fairly poor code placement choice. We'd much rather fall through into the hot (non-exiting) path. For code with branch profiles, later layout would fix this, but this may have a positive impact on non-PGO compiled code.
However, the real motivation for this change isn't performance. Its readability and human understanding. Having to jump around long distances in an IR file to trace an unrolled loop structure is error prone and tedious.
Unrolling with more iterations than MaxTripCount is pointless, as
those iterations can never be executed. As such, we clamp ULO.Count
to MaxTripCount if it is known. This means we no longer need to
consider iterations after MaxTripCount for exit folding, and the
CompletelyUnroll flag becomes independent of ULO.TripCount.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103748
The legacy pass is called "loop-unroll", but in the new PM it's called "unroll".
Also applied to unroll-and-jam and unroll-full.
Fixes various check-llvm tests when NPM is turned on.
Reviewed By: Whitney, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82590
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
loops.
We do this by reconstructing the newly added loops after the unroll
completes to avoid threading pass manager details through all the mess
of the unrolling infrastructure.
I've enabled some extra assertions in the LPM to try and catch issues
here and enabled a bunch of unroller tests to try and make sure this is
sane.
Currently, I'm manually running loop-simplify when needed. That should
go away once it is folded into the LPM infrastructure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28848
llvm-svn: 293011
As agreed in post-commit review of r265388, I'm switching the flag to
its original value until the 90% runtime performance regression on
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort is addressed.
llvm-svn: 277524
Clean up a predicate I added in r229731, fix the relevant comment and
add a test case. The earlier version is confusing to read and was also
buggy (probably not a coincidence) till Alexey fixed it in r233881.
llvm-svn: 234701
Philip Reames