NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Normal dead code elimination ignores assume intrinsics, so we fail to
delete assumes that are not meaningful (and potentially worse if they
cause conflicts with other assumptions).
The motivating example in https://llvm.org/PR47416 suggests that we
might have problems upstream from here (difference between C and C++),
but this should be a cheap way to make sure we remove more dead code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87149
Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: thopre, yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
Assume bundle can have more than one entry with the same name,
but at least AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass::extractAlignmentInfo() uses
getOperandBundle("align"), which internally assumes that it isn't the
case, and happily crashes otherwise.
Minimal reduced reproducer: run `opt -alignment-from-assumptions` on
target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
%0 = type { i64, %1*, i8*, i64, %2, i32, %3*, i8* }
%1 = type opaque
%2 = type { i8, i8, i16 }
%3 = type { i32, i32, i32, i32 }
; Function Attrs: nounwind
define i32 @f(%0* noalias nocapture readonly %arg, %0* noalias %arg1) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
bb:
call void @llvm.assume(i1 true) [ "align"(%0* %arg, i64 8), "align"(%0* %arg1, i64 8) ]
ret i32 0
}
; Function Attrs: nounwind willreturn
declare void @llvm.assume(i1) #1
attributes #0 = { nounwind "reciprocal-estimates"="none" }
attributes #1 = { nounwind willreturn }
This is what we'd have with -mllvm -enable-knowledge-retention
This reverts commit c95ffadb24.
Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
Summary:
This patch allows code-sinking in InstCombine to be performed when instruction have uses in llvm.assume.
Use are considered droppable when it is preferable to modify the User such that the use disappears rather than to prevent a transformation because of the use.
for now uses are considered droppable if they are in an llvm.assume.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, nikic, spatel, lebedev.ri, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73832
D75801 removed the last and only user of this option, so we can
drop it now. The original idea behind this was to only run expensive
transforms under -O3, but apart from the one known bits transform,
this has never really taken off. I believe nowadays the recommendation
is to put expensive transforms in AggressiveInstCombine instead,
though that isn't terribly popular either :)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76540
If ExpensiveCombines is enabled (which is the case with -O3 on the
legacy PM and always on the new PM), InstCombine tries to compute
the known bits of all instructions in the hope that all bits end up
being known, which is fairly expensive.
How effective is it? If we add some statistics on how often the
constant folding succeeds and how many KnownBits calculations are
performed and run test-suite we get:
"instcombine.NumConstPropKnownBits": 642,
"instcombine.NumConstPropKnownBitsComputed": 18744965,
In other words, we get one fold for every 30000 KnownBits calculations.
However, the truth is actually much worse: Currently, known bits are
computed before performing other folds, so there is a high chance
that cases that get folded by known bits would also have been
handled by other folds.
What happens if we compute known bits after all other folds
(hacky implementation: https://gist.github.com/nikic/751f25b3b9d9e0860db5dde934f70f46)?
"instcombine.NumConstPropKnownBits": 0,
"instcombine.NumConstPropKnownBitsComputed": 18105547,
So it turns out despite doing 18 million known bits calculations,
the known bits fold does not do anything useful on test-suite.
I was originally planning to move this into AggressiveInstCombine
so it only runs once in the pipeline, but seeing this, I think
we're better off removing it entirely.
As this is the only use of the "expensive combines" mechanism,
it may be removed afterwards, but I'll leave that to a separate patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75801
Summary: Prevent InstCombine from removing llvm.assume for which the arguement is true when they have operand bundles with usefull information.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, nikic, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76147
There are two related bugs here: First, we don't add the operand
we're replacing to the worklist, which means it may not get DCEd
(see test change). Second, usually this would just get picked up
in the next iteration, but we also do not report the instruction
as changed. This means that we do not get that extra instcombine
iteration, and more importantly, may break the pass pipeline, as
the function is not marked as changed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72864
Summary:
It is pretty common to assume that something is not zero.
Even optimizer itself sometimes emits such assumptions
(e.g. `addAssumeNonNull()` in `PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp`).
But we currently don't deal with such assumptions :)
The only way `isKnownNonZero()` handles assumptions is
by calling `computeKnownBits()` which calls `computeKnownBitsFromAssume()`.
But `x != 0` does not tell us anything about set bits,
it only says that there are *some* set bits.
So naturally, `KnownBits` does not get populated,
and we fail to make use of this assumption.
I propose to deal with this special case by special-casing it
via adding a `isKnownNonZeroFromAssume()` that returns boolean
when there is an applicable assumption.
While there, we also deal with other predicates,
mainly if the comparison is with constant.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43267 | PR43267 ]].
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71660
This is a pretty rare case, when CxtI and assume are
in the same basic block, with assume being located later.
We were already checking that assumption was guaranteed to be
executed, but we omitted CxtI itself from consideration,
and as the test (miscompile) shows, that is incorrect.
As noted in D71660 review by @nikic.
@escape() may throw here, we don't know that assumption, which is located
afterwards in the same block, is executed, therefore %load arg of
call to @escape() can not be marked as non-null.
As noted in D71660 review by @nikic.
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
There are no tests for this case, and I'm not sure how it could ever work,
so I'm just removing this option from the matcher. This should fix PR40940:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40940
llvm-svn: 355292
Because of potential UB (known bits conflicts with an llvm.assume),
we have to check rather than assert here because InstSimplify doesn't
kill the compare:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35846
llvm-svn: 322104
Also, add the corresponding match to the AssumptionCache's 'Affected Values' list.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28485
llvm-svn: 292239
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
This commit isn't using the correct context, and is transfoming calls
that are operands to loads rather than calls that are operands to an
icmp feeding into an assume. I've replied on the original review thread
with a very reduced test case and some thoughts on how to rework this.
llvm-svn: 228677
Make assume (load (call|invoke) != null) set nonNull return attribute
for the call and invoke. Also include tests.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7107
llvm-svn: 228556
We currently have two ways of informing the optimizer that the result of a load is never null: metadata and assume. This change converts the second in to the former. This avoids a need to implement optimizations using both forms.
We should probably extend this basic idea to metadata of other forms; in particular, range metadata. We view is that assumes should be considered a "last resort" for when there isn't a more canonical way to represent something.
Reviewed by: Hal
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5951
llvm-svn: 221737
From a combination of @llvm.assume calls (and perhaps through other means, such
as range metadata), it is possible that all bits of a return value might be
known. Previously, InstCombine did not check for this (which is understandable
given assumptions of constant propagation), but means that we'd miss simple
cases where assumptions are involved.
llvm-svn: 217346
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
Tyker