For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
In IRCE, we have a very old legacy check that works when we collect comparisons that we
treat as range checks. It ensures that the value against which the indvar is compared is
loop invariant and is also positive.
This latter condition remained there since the times when IRCE was only able to handle
signed latch comparison. As the optimization evolved, it now learned how to intersect
signed or unsigned ranges, and this logic has no reliance on the fact that the right border
of each range should be positive.
The old implementation of this non-negativity check was also naive enough and just looked
into ranges (while most of other IRCE logic tries to use power of SCEV implications), so this
check did not allow to deal with the most simple case that looks like follows:
int size; // not known non-negative
int length; //known non-negative;
i = 0;
if (size != 0) {
do {
range_check(i < size);
range_check(i < length);
++i;
} while (i < size)
}
In this case, even if from some dominating conditions IRCE could parse loop
structure, it could only remove the range check against `length` and simply
ignored the check against `size`.
In this patch we remove this obsolete check. It will allow IRCE to pick comparison
against `size` as a potential range check and then let Range Intersection logic
decide whether it is OK to eliminate it or not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45362
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 329547
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
In rL316552, we ban intersection of unsigned latch range with signed range check and vice
versa, unless the entire range check iteration space is known positive. It was a correct
functional fix that saved us from dealing with ambiguous values, but it also appeared
to be a very restrictive limitation. In particular, in the following case:
loop:
%iv = phi i32 [ 0, %preheader ], [ %iv.next, %latch]
%iv.offset = add i32 %iv, 10
%rc = icmp slt i32 %iv.offset, %len
br i1 %rc, label %latch, label %deopt
latch:
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 11
%cond = icmp i32 ult %iv.next, 100
br it %cond, label %loop, label %exit
Here, the unsigned iteration range is `[0, 100)`, and the safe range for range
check is `[-10, %len - 10)`. For unsigned iteration spaces, we use unsigned
min/max functions for range intersection. Given this, we wanted to avoid dealing
with `-10` because it is interpreted as a very big unsigned value. Semantically, range
check's safe range goes through unsigned border, so in fact it is two disjoint
ranges in IV's iteration space. Intersection of such ranges is not trivial, so we prohibited
this case saying that we are not allowed to intersect such ranges.
What semantics of this safe range actually means is that we can start from `-10` and go
up increasing the `%iv` by one until we reach `%len - 10` (for simplicity let's assume that
`%len - 10` is a reasonably big positive value).
In particular, this safe iteration space includes `0, 1, 2, ..., %len - 11`. So if we were able to return
safe iteration space `[0, %len - 10)`, we could safely intersect it with IV's iteration space. All
values in this range are non-negative, so using signed/unsigned min/max for them is unambiguous.
In this patch, we alter the algorithm of safe range calculation so that it returnes a subset of the
original safe space which is represented by one continuous range that does not go through wrap.
In order to reach this, we use modified SCEV substraction function. It can be imagined as a function
that substracts by `1` (or `-1`) as long as the further substraction does not cause a wrap in IV iteration
space. This allows us to perform IRCE in many situations when we deal with IV space and range check
of different types (in terms of signed/unsigned).
We apply this approach for both matching and not matching types of IV iteration space and the
range check. One implication of this is that now IRCE became smarter in detection of empty safe
ranges. For example, in this case:
loop:
%iv = phi i32 [ %begin, %preheader ], [ %iv.next, %latch]
%iv.offset = sub i32 %iv, 10
%rc = icmp ult i32 %iv.offset, %len
br i1 %rc, label %latch, label %deopt
latch:
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 11
%cond = icmp i32 ult %iv.next, 100
br it %cond, label %loop, label %exit
If `%len` was less than 10 but SCEV failed to trivially prove that `%begin - 10 >u %len- 10`,
we could end up executing entire loop in safe preloop while the main loop was still generated,
but never executed. Now, cutting the ranges so that if both `begin - 10` and `%len - 10` overflow,
we have a trivially empty range of `[0, 0)`. This in some cases prevents us from meaningless optimization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39954
llvm-svn: 318639
IRCE for unsigned latch conditions was temporarily disabled by rL314881. The motivating
example contained an unsigned latch condition and a signed range check. One of the safe
iteration ranges was `[1, SINT_MAX + 1]`. Its right border was incorrectly interpreted as a negative
value in `IntersectRange` function, this lead to a miscompile under which we deleted a range check
without inserting a postloop where it was needed.
This patch brings back IRCE for unsigned latch conditions. Now we treat range intersection more
carefully. If the latch condition was unsigned, we only try to consider a range check for deletion if:
1. The range check is also unsigned, or
2. Safe iteration range of the range check lies within `[0, SINT_MAX]`.
The same is done for signed latch.
Values from `[0, SINT_MAX]` are unambiguous, these values are non-negative under any interpretation,
and all values of a range intersected with such range are also non-negative.
We also use signed/unsigned min/max functions for range intersection depending on type of the
latch condition.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38581
llvm-svn: 316552
We have found some corner cases connected to range intersection where IRCE makes
a bad thing when the latch condition is unsigned. The fix for that will go as a follow up.
This patch temporarily disables IRCE for unsigned latch conditions until the issue is fixed.
The unsigned latch conditions were introduced to IRCE by rL310027.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38529
llvm-svn: 314881
Eli Friedman