The two nested loops were confusing and also conservative in identifying
reduction variables. This patch replaces them by a worklist based approach.
llvm-svn: 181369
We were passing an i32 to ConstantInt::get where an i64 was needed and we must
also pass the sign if we pass negatives numbers. The start index passed to
getConsecutiveVector must also be signed.
Should fix PR15882.
llvm-svn: 181286
Test case by Michele Scandale!
Fixes PR10293: Load not hoisted out of loop with multiple exits.
There are few regressions with this patch, now tracked by
rdar:13817079, and a roughly equal number of improvements. The
regressions are almost certainly back luck because LoopRotate has very
little idea of whether rotation is profitable. Doing better requires a
more comprehensive solution.
This checkin is a quick fix that lacks generality (PR10293 has
a counter-example). But it trivially fixes the case in PR10293 without
interfering with other cases, and it does satify the criteria that
LoopRotate is a loop canonicalization pass that should avoid
heuristics and special cases.
I can think of two approaches that would probably be better in
the long run. Ultimately they may both make sense.
(1) LoopRotate should check that the current header would make a good
loop guard, and that the loop does not already has a sufficient
guard. The artifical SimplifiedLoopLatch check would be unnecessary,
and the design would be more general and canonical. Two difficulties:
- We need a strong guarantee that we won't endlessly rotate, so the
analysis would need to be precise in order to avoid the
SimplifiedLoopLatch precondition.
- Analysis like this are usually based on SCEV, which we don't want to
rely on.
(2) Rotate on-demand in late loop passes. This could even be done by
shoving the loop back on the queue after the optimization that needs
it. This could work well when we find LICM opportunities in
multi-branch loops. This requires some work, and it doesn't really
solve the problem of SCEV wanting a loop guard before the analysis.
llvm-svn: 181230
A * (1 - (uitofp i1 C)) -> select C, 0, A
B * (uitofp i1 C) -> select C, B, 0
select C, 0, A + select C, B, 0 -> select C, B, A
These come up in code that has been hand-optimized from a select to a linear blend,
on platforms where that may have mattered. We want to undo such changes
with the following transform:
A*(1 - uitofp i1 C) + B*(uitofp i1 C) -> select C, A, B
llvm-svn: 181216
We used to disable constant merging not only if a constant is llvm.used, but
also if an alias of a constant is llvm.used. This change fixes that.
llvm-svn: 181175
Add support for min/max reductions when "no-nans-float-math" is enabled. This
allows us to assume we have ordered floating point math and treat ordered and
unordered predicates equally.
radar://13723044
llvm-svn: 181144
This function consists of following steps:
1. Collect dependent memory accesses.
2. Analyze availability.
3. Perform fully redundancy elimination, or
4. Perform PRE, depending on the availability
Step 2, 3 and 4 are now moved to three helper routines.
llvm-svn: 181047
By supporting the vectorization of PHINodes with more than two incoming values we can increase the complexity of nested if statements.
We can now vectorize this loop:
int foo(int *A, int *B, int n) {
for (int i=0; i < n; i++) {
int x = 9;
if (A[i] > B[i]) {
if (A[i] > 19) {
x = 3;
} else if (B[i] < 4 ) {
x = 4;
} else {
x = 5;
}
}
A[i] = x;
}
}
llvm-svn: 181037
Actually it took me couple of hours trying to make sense of them and
only to find they are dead code. I guess the original author used
"allSingleSucc" to indicate if there are any critial edge emanating
from some blocks, and tried to perform code motion (actually speculation)
in the presence of these critical edges; but later on he/she changed mind
and decided to perform edge-splitting first.
llvm-svn: 180951
the things, and renames it to CBindingWrapping.h. I also moved
CBindingWrapping.h into Support/.
This new file just contains the macros for defining different wrap/unwrap
methods.
The calls to those macros, as well as any custom wrap/unwrap definitions
(like for array of Values for example), are put into corresponding C++
headers.
Doing this required some #include surgery, since some .cpp files relied
on the fact that including Wrap.h implicitly caused the inclusion of a
bunch of other things.
This also now means that the C++ headers will include their corresponding
C API headers; for example Value.h must include llvm-c/Core.h. I think
this is harmless, since the C API headers contain just external function
declarations and some C types, so I don't believe there should be any
nasty dependency issues here.
llvm-svn: 180881
This reverts commit r180802
There's ongoing discussion about whether this is the right place to make
this transformation. Reverting for now while we figure it out.
llvm-svn: 180834
Always fold a shuffle-of-shuffle into a single shuffle when there's only one
input vector in the first place. Continue to be more conservative when there's
multiple inputs.
rdar://13402653
PR15866
llvm-svn: 180802
This fixes the optimization introduced in r179748 and reverted in r179750.
While the optimization was sound, it did not properly respect differences in
bit-width.
llvm-svn: 180777
This resurrects r179957, but adds code that makes sure we don't touch
atomic/volatile stores:
This transformation will transform a conditional store with a preceeding
uncondtional store to the same location:
a[i] =
may-alias with a[i] load
if (cond)
a[i] = Y
into an unconditional store.
a[i] = X
may-alias with a[i] load
tmp = cond ? Y : X;
a[i] = tmp
We assume that on average the cost of a mispredicted branch is going to be
higher than the cost of a second store to the same location, and that the
secondary benefits of creating a bigger basic block for other optimizations to
work on outway the potential case where the branch would be correctly predicted
and the cost of the executing the second store would be noticably reflected in
performance.
hmmer's execution time improves by 30% on an imac12,2 on ref data sets. With
this change we are on par with gcc's performance (gcc also performs this
transformation). There was a 1.2 % performance improvement on a ARM swift chip.
Other tests in the test-suite+external seem to be mostly uninfluenced in my
experiments:
This optimization was triggered on 41 tests such that the executable was
different before/after the patch. Only 1 out of the 40 tests (dealII) was
reproducable below 100% (by about .4%). Given that hmmer benefits so much I
believe this to be a fair trade off.
llvm-svn: 180731
Turning retains into retainRV calls disrupts the data flow analysis in
ObjCARCOpts. Thus we move it as late as we can by moving it into
ObjCARCContract.
We leave in the conversion from retainRV -> retain in ObjCARCOpt since
it enables the dataflow analysis.
rdar://10813093
llvm-svn: 180698
When Reassociator optimize "(x | C1)" ^ "(X & C2)", it may swap the two
subexpressions, however, it forgot to swap cached constants (of C1 and C2)
accordingly.
rdar://13739160
llvm-svn: 180676
Since we can't guarantee that the original dbg.declare instrinsic
is removed by LowerDbgDeclare(), we need to make sure that we are
not inserting the same dbg.value intrinsic over and over.
This removes tons of redundant DIEs when compiling optimized code.
rdar://problem/13056109
llvm-svn: 180615
This reverts commit r180222.
I think this might tie in with a different problem which will require a
different approach potentially. I am reverting this in the case I need to go
down that second path.
My apologies for the noise. = /.
llvm-svn: 180590
Due to the semantics of ARC, we must be extremely conservative with autorelease
calls inserted by the frontend since ARC gaurantees that said object will be in
the autorelease pool after that point, an optimization invariant that the
optimizer must respect.
On the other hand, we are allowed significantly more flexibility with
autoreleaseRV instructions.
Often times though this flexibility is disrupted by early transformations which
transform objc_autoreleaseRV => objc_autorelease if said instruction is no
longer being used as part of an RV pair (generally due to inlining). Since we
can not tell the difference in between an autorelease put into place by the
frontend and one created through said ``strength reduction'' we can not perform
these optimizations.
The addition of this set gets around said issues by allowing us to differentiate
in between said two cases.
rdar://problem/13697741.
llvm-svn: 180222
This patch disables memory-instruction vectorization for types that need padding
bytes, e.g., x86_fp80 has 10 bytes store size with 6 bytes padding in darwin on
x86_64. Because the load/store vectorization is performed by the bit casting to
a packed vector, which has incompatible memory layout due to the lack of padding
bytes, the present vectorizer produces inconsistent result for memory
instructions of those types.
This patch checks an equality of the AllocSize of a scalar type and allocated
size for each vector element, to ensure that there is no padding bytes and the
array can be read/written using vector operations.
Patch by Daisuke Takahashi!
Fixes PR15758.
llvm-svn: 180196
debug location. This solves a problem where range of an inlined
subroutine is emitted wrongly.
Patch by Manman Ren.
Fixes rdar://problem/12415623
llvm-svn: 180140
even if erroneously annotated with the parallel loop metadata.
Fixes Bug 15794:
"Loop Vectorizer: Crashes with the use of llvm.loop.parallel metadata"
llvm-svn: 180081
This is an edge case that can happen if we modify a chain of multiple selects.
Update all operands in that case and remove the assert. PR15805.
llvm-svn: 179982
There is the temptation to make this tranform dependent on target information as
it is not going to be beneficial on all (sub)targets. Therefore, we should
probably do this in MI Early-Ifconversion.
This reverts commit r179957. Original commit message:
"SimplifyCFG: If convert single conditional stores
This transformation will transform a conditional store with a preceeding
uncondtional store to the same location:
a[i] =
may-alias with a[i] load
if (cond)
a[i] = Y
into an unconditional store.
a[i] = X
may-alias with a[i] load
tmp = cond ? Y : X;
a[i] = tmp
We assume that on average the cost of a mispredicted branch is going to be
higher than the cost of a second store to the same location, and that the
secondary benefits of creating a bigger basic block for other optimizations to
work on outway the potential case were the branch would be correctly predicted
and the cost of the executing the second store would be noticably reflected in
performance.
hmmer's execution time improves by 30% on an imac12,2 on ref data sets. With
this change we are on par with gcc's performance (gcc also performs this
transformation). There was a 1.2 % performance improvement on a ARM swift chip.
Other tests in the test-suite+external seem to be mostly uninfluenced in my
experiments:
This optimization was triggered on 41 tests such that the executable was
different before/after the patch. Only 1 out of the 40 tests (dealII) was
reproducable below 100% (by about .4%). Given that hmmer benefits so much I
believe this to be a fair trade off.
I am going to watch performance numbers across the builtbots and will revert
this if anything unexpected comes up."
llvm-svn: 179980
This will make it clearer when we are actually resetting a sequence's progress
vs just changing state. This is an important distinction because the former case
clears any pointers that we are tracking while the later does not.
llvm-svn: 179963
This transformation will transform a conditional store with a preceeding
uncondtional store to the same location:
a[i] =
may-alias with a[i] load
if (cond)
a[i] = Y
into an unconditional store.
a[i] = X
may-alias with a[i] load
tmp = cond ? Y : X;
a[i] = tmp
We assume that on average the cost of a mispredicted branch is going to be
higher than the cost of a second store to the same location, and that the
secondary benefits of creating a bigger basic block for other optimizations to
work on outway the potential case were the branch would be correctly predicted
and the cost of the executing the second store would be noticably reflected in
performance.
hmmer's execution time improves by 30% on an imac12,2 on ref data sets. With
this change we are on par with gcc's performance (gcc also performs this
transformation). There was a 1.2 % performance improvement on a ARM swift chip.
Other tests in the test-suite+external seem to be mostly uninfluenced in my
experiments:
This optimization was triggered on 41 tests such that the executable was
different before/after the patch. Only 1 out of the 40 tests (dealII) was
reproducable below 100% (by about .4%). Given that hmmer benefits so much I
believe this to be a fair trade off.
I am going to watch performance numbers across the builtbots and will revert
this if anything unexpected comes up.
llvm-svn: 179957
The logic that actually compares the types considers pointers and integers the
same if they are of the same size. This created a strange mismatch between hash
and reality and made the test case for this fail on some platforms (yay,
test cases).
llvm-svn: 179905
Also make some static function class functions to avoid having to mention the
class namespace for enums all the time.
No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 179886
A min/max operation is represented by a select(cmp(lt/le/gt/ge, X, Y), X, Y)
sequence in LLVM. If we see such a sequence we can treat it just as any other
commutative binary instruction and reduce it.
This appears to help bzip2 by about 1.5% on an imac12,2.
radar://12960601
llvm-svn: 179773
This occurs due to an alloca representing a separate ownership from the
original pointer. Thus consider the following pseudo-IR:
objc_retain(%a)
for (...) {
objc_retain(%a)
%block <- %a
F(%block)
objc_release(%block)
}
objc_release(%a)
From the perspective of the optimizer, the %block is a separate
provenance from the original %a. Thus the optimizer pairs up the inner
retain for %a and the outer release from %a, resulting in segfaults.
This is fixed by noting that the signature of a mismatch of
retain/releases inside the for loop is a Use/CanRelease top down with an
None bottom up (since bottom up the Retain-CanRelease-Use-Release
sequence is completed by the inner objc_retain, but top down due to the
differing provenance from the objc_release said sequence is not
completed). In said case in CheckForCFGHazards, we now clear the state
of %a implying that no pairing will occur.
Additionally a test case is included.
rdar://12969722
llvm-svn: 179747
If a switch instruction has a case for every possible value of its type,
with the same successor, SimplifyCFG would replace it with an icmp ult,
but the computation of the bound overflows in that case, which inverts
the test.
Patch by Jed Davis!
llvm-svn: 179587
Two return types are not equivalent if one is a pointer and the other is an
integral. This is because we cannot bitcast a pointer to an integral value.
PR15185
llvm-svn: 179569
One performs: (X == 13 | X == 14) -> X-13 <u 2
The other: (A == C1 || A == C2) -> (A & ~(C1 ^ C2)) == C1
The problem is that there are certain values of C1 and C2 that
trigger both transforms but the first one blocks out the second,
this generates suboptimal code.
Reordering the transforms should be better in every case and
allows us to do interesting stuff like turn:
%shr = lshr i32 %X, 4
%and = and i32 %shr, 15
%add = add i32 %and, -14
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %add, 0
into:
%and = and i32 %X, 240
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 224
llvm-svn: 179493
This is basically the same fix in three different places. We use a set to avoid
walking the whole tree of a big ConstantExprs multiple times.
For example: (select cmp, (add big_expr 1), (add big_expr 2))
We don't want to visit big_expr twice here, it may consist of thousands of
nodes.
The testcase exercises this by creating an insanely large ConstantExprs out of
a loop. It's questionable if the optimizer should ever create those, but this
can be triggered with real C code. Fixes PR15714.
llvm-svn: 179458
When trying to collapse sequences of insertelement/extractelement
instructions into single shuffle instructions, there is one specific
case where the Instruction Combiner wrongly updates the resulting
Mask of shuffle indexes.
The problem is in function CollectShuffleElments.
If we have a sequence of insert/extract element instructions
like the one below:
%tmp1 = extractelement <4 x float> %LHS, i32 0
%tmp2 = insertelement <4 x float> %RHS, float %tmp1, i32 1
%tmp3 = extractelement <4 x float> %RHS, i32 2
%tmp4 = insertelement <4 x float> %tmp2, float %tmp3, i32 3
Where:
. %RHS will have a mask of [4,5,6,7]
. %LHS will have a mask of [0,1,2,3]
The Mask of shuffle indexes is wrongly computed to [4,1,6,7]
instead of [4,0,6,7].
When analyzing %tmp2 in order to compute the Mask for the
resulting shuffle instruction, the algorithm forgets to update
the mask index at position 1 with the index associated to the
element extracted from %LHS by instruction %tmp1.
Patch by Andrea DiBiagio!
llvm-svn: 179291
This commit adds the infrastructure for performing bottom-up SLP vectorization (and other optimizations) on parallel computations.
The infrastructure has three potential users:
1. The loop vectorizer needs to be able to vectorize AOS data structures such as (sum += A[i] + A[i+1]).
2. The BB-vectorizer needs this infrastructure for bottom-up SLP vectorization, because bottom-up vectorization is faster to compute.
3. A loop-roller needs to be able to analyze consecutive chains and roll them into a loop, in order to reduce code size. A loop roller does not need to create vector instructions, and this infrastructure separates the chain analysis from the vectorization.
This patch also includes a simple (100 LOC) bottom up SLP vectorizer that uses the infrastructure, and can vectorize this code:
void SAXPY(int *x, int *y, int a, int i) {
x[i] = a * x[i] + y[i];
x[i+1] = a * x[i+1] + y[i+1];
x[i+2] = a * x[i+2] + y[i+2];
x[i+3] = a * x[i+3] + y[i+3];
}
llvm-svn: 179117
I brazenly think this change is slightly simpler than r178793 because:
- no "state" in functor
- "OpndPtrs[i]" looks simpler than "&Opnds[OpndIndices[i]]"
While I can reproduce the probelm in Valgrind, it is rather difficult to come up
a standalone testing case. The reason is that when an iterator is invalidated,
the stale invalidated elements are not yet clobbered by nonsense data, so the
optimizer can still proceed successfully.
Thank Benjamin for fixing this bug and generously providing the test case.
llvm-svn: 179062
The fix for PR14972 in r177055 introduced a real think-o in the *store*
side, likely because I was much more focused on the load side. While we
can arbitrarily widen (or narrow) a loaded value, we can't arbitrarily
widen a value to be stored, as that changes the width of memory access!
Lock down the code path in the store rewriting which would do this to
only handle the intended circumstance.
All of the existing tests continue to pass, and I've added a test from
the PR.
llvm-svn: 178974
The normal dataflow sequence in the ARC optimizer consists of the following
states:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Use -> Release
The optimizer before this patch stored the uses that determine the lifetime of
the retainable object pointer when it bottom up hits a retain or when top down
it hits a release. This is correct for an imprecise lifetime scenario since what
we are trying to do is remove retains/releases while making sure that no
``CanRelease'' (which is usually a call) deallocates the given pointer before we
get to the ``Use'' (since that would cause a segfault).
If we are considering the precise lifetime scenario though, this is not
correct. In such a situation, we *DO* care about the previous sequence, but
additionally, we wish to track the uses resulting from the following incomplete
sequences:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Release (TopDown)
Retain <- Use <- Release (BottomUp)
*NOTE* This patch looks large but the most of it consists of updating
test cases. Additionally this fix exposed an additional bug. I removed
the test case that expressed said bug and will recommit it with the fix
in a little bit.
llvm-svn: 178921
This optimization is unstable at this moment; it
1) block us on a very important application
2) PR15200
3) test6 and test7 in test/Transforms/ScalarRepl/dynamic-vector-gep.ll
(the CHECK command compare the output against wrong result)
I personally believe this optimization should not have any impact on the
autovectorized code, as auto-vectorizer is supposed to put gather/scatter
in a "right" way. Although in theory downstream optimizaters might reveal
some gather/scatter optimization opportunities, the chance is quite slim.
For the hand-crafted vectorizing code, in term of redundancy elimination,
load-CSE, copy-propagation and DSE can collectively achieve the same result,
but in much simpler way. On the other hand, these optimizers are able to
improve the code in a incremental way; in contrast, SROA is sort of all-or-none
approach. However, SROA might slighly win in stack size, as it tries to figure
out a stretch of memory tightenly cover the area accessed by the dynamic index.
rdar://13174884
PR15200
llvm-svn: 178912
Pass down the fact that an operand is going to be a vector of constants.
This should bring the performance of MultiSource/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p on x86
back. It had degraded to scalar performance due to my pervious shift cost change
that made all shifts expensive on x86.
radar://13576547
llvm-svn: 178809
OpndPtrs stored pointers into the Opnd vector that became invalid when the
vector grows. Store indices instead. Sadly I only have a large testcase that
only triggers under valgrind, so I didn't include it.
llvm-svn: 178793
Cleaned up trailing whitespace and added extra slashes in front of a
function level comment so that it follow the convention of having 3
slashes.
llvm-svn: 178712
The semantics of ARC implies that a pointer passed into an objc_autorelease
must live until some point (potentially down the stack) where an
autorelease pool is popped. On the other hand, an
objc_autoreleaseReturnValue just signifies that the object must live
until the end of the given function at least.
Thus objc_autorelease is stronger than objc_autoreleaseReturnValue in
terms of the semantics of ARC* implying that performing the given
strength reduction without any knowledge of how this relates to
the autorelease pool pop that is further up the stack violates the
semantics of ARC.
*Even though objc_autoreleaseReturnValue if you know that no RV
optimization will occur is more computationally expensive.
llvm-svn: 178612
The iterator could be invalidated when it's recursively deleting a whole bunch
of constant expressions in a constant initializer.
Note: This was only reproducible if `opt' was run on a `.bc' file. If `opt' was
run on a `.ll' file, it wouldn't crash. This is why the test first pushes the
`.ll' file through `llvm-as' before feeding it to `opt'.
PR15440
llvm-svn: 178531
clang.arc.used is an interesting call for ARC since ObjCARCContract
needs to run to remove said intrinsic to avoid a linker error (since the
call does not exist).
llvm-svn: 178369
Since we handle optimizable objc_retainBlocks through strength reduction
in OptimizableIndividualCalls, we know that all code after that point
will only see non-optimizable objc_retainBlock calls. IsForwarding is
only called by functions after that point, so it is ok to just classify
objc_retainBlock as non-forwarding.
<rdar://problem/13249661>.
llvm-svn: 178285
If an objc_retainBlock has the copy_on_escape metadata attached to it
AND if the block pointer argument only escapes down the stack, we are
allowed to strength reduce the objc_retainBlock to to an objc_retain and
thus optimize it.
Current there is logic in the ARC data flow analysis to handle
this case which is complicated and involved making distinctions in
between objc_retainBlock and objc_retain in certain places and
considering them the same in others.
This patch simplifies said code by:
1. Performing the strength reduction in the initial ARC peephole
analysis (ObjCARCOpts::OptimizeIndividualCalls).
2. Changes the ARC dataflow analysis (which runs after the peephole
analysis) to consider all objc_retainBlock calls to not be optimizable
(since if the call was optimizable, we would have strength reduced it
already).
This patch leaves in the infrastructure in the ARC dataflow analysis to
handle this case, which due to 2 will just be dead code. I am doing this
on purpose to separate the removal of the old code from the testing of
the new code.
<rdar://problem/13249661>.
llvm-svn: 178284
Arnold Schwaighofer