Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Florian Hahn a2979c8399
[IVDescriptors] Bail out instead of asserting that order is expected.
When dealing with multiple phis that depend on each other, the order
might have been changed and may not match the expectation. If that
happens, bail out, rather than asserting.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54218
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54233
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54254
2022-03-07 19:57:26 +00:00
Florian Hahn f4368487aa
[LV] Add test from PR54227.
Test from https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54227.

The underlying issue has already been fixed in de8ac48 with a separate
test.
2022-03-07 17:01:22 +00:00
Florian Hahn de8ac485e5
[IVDescriptor] Remove SinkCandidate from SinkAfter before re-sinking.
This ensures the right order in the sink-after map is maintained. If we
re-sink an instruction, it must be sunk after all earlier instructions
have been sunk.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54223
2022-03-05 19:48:26 +00:00
Florian Hahn 5a60260efe
[IVDescriptor] Use DT to check order of Previous, OtherPrev.
Previous and OhterPrev may not be in the same block. Use DT::dominates
instead of local comesBefore. DT::dominates is already used earlier to
check the order of Previous and SinkCandidate.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54195
2022-03-04 11:07:42 +00:00
Florian Hahn 9d24933f79 Recommit f0c2a5a "[LV] Generalize conditions for sinking instrs for first order recurrences."
This version contains 2 fixes for reported issues:
1. Make sure we do not try to sink terminator instructions.
2. Make sure we bail out, if we try to sink an instruction that needs to
   stay in place for another recurrence.

Original message:
If the recurrence PHI node has a single user, we can sink any
instruction without side effects, given that all users are dominated by
the instruction computing the incoming value of the next iteration
('Previous'). We can sink instructions that may cause traps, because
that only causes the trap to occur later, but not on any new paths.

With the relaxed check, we also have to make sure that we do not have a
direct cycle (meaning PHI user == 'Previous), which indicates a
reduction relation, which potentially gets missed by
ReductionDescriptor.

As follow-ups, we can also sink stores, iff they do not alias with
other instructions we move them across and we could also support sinking
chains of instructions and multiple users of the PHI.

Fixes PR43398.

Reviewers: hsaito, dcaballe, Ayal, rengolin

Reviewed By: Ayal

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69228
2019-11-24 21:21:55 +00:00