Commit Graph

12 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Nikita Popov 8058196677 [InstCombine] Process newly inserted instructions in the correct order
InstCombine operates on the basic premise that the operands of the
currently processed instruction have already been simplified. It
achieves this by pushing instructions to the worklist in reverse
program order, so that instructions are popped off in program order.
The worklist management in the main combining loop also makes sure
to uphold this invariant.

However, the same is not true for all the code that is performing
manual worklist management. The largest problem (addressed in this
patch) are instructions inserted by InstCombine's IRBuilder. These
will be pushed onto the worklist in order of insertion (generally
matching program order), which means that a) the users of the
original instruction will be visited first, as they are pushed later
in the main loop and b) the newly inserted instructions will be
visited in reverse program order.

This causes a number of problems: First, folds operate on instructions
that have not had their operands simplified, which may result in
optimizations being missed (ran into this in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048#1800424, which was the original
motivation for this patch). Additionally, this increases the amount
of folds InstCombine has to perform, both within one iteration, and
by increasing the number of total iterations.

This patch addresses the issue by adding a Worklist.AddDeferred()
method, which is used for instructions inserted by IRBuilder. These
will only be added to the real worklist after the combine finished,
and in reverse order, so they will end up processed in program order.
I should note that the same should also be done to nearly all other
uses of Worklist.Add(), but I'm starting with just this occurrence,
which has by far the largest test fallout.

Most of the test changes are due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44521 or other cases where
we don't canonicalize something. These are neutral. One regression
has been addressed in D73575 and D73647. The remaining regression
in an shl+sdiv fold can't really be fixed without dropping another
transform, but does not seem particularly problematic in the first
place.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73411
2020-01-30 09:40:10 +01:00
Nikita Popov 6a74641e72 [InstCombine] Regenerate test checks; NFC 2020-01-29 18:22:07 +01:00
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Sanjay Patel beac508fc9 [InstCombine] fix auto-generated FileCheck-captured variable refs
The script at utils/update_test_checks.py has (had?) a bug when variables
start with the same sequence of letters (clearly, not all of the time).

llvm-svn: 302674
2017-05-10 14:40:04 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 6381db18fe [InstCombine] don't use DeMorgan's Law on integer constants (2nd try)
This was originally checked in here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301923

And reverted here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301924

Because there's a clang test that would fail after this. I fixed/removed the
offending CHECK lines in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301928

So let's try this again. Original commit message:

This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255.

There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.

1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing, but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern that has an extra 'not' in it: ~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)

  That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold that pattern too: (~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665

llvm-svn: 301929
2017-05-02 15:31:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel da0b4deafa revert r301923 : [InstCombine] don't use DeMorgan's Law on integer constants
There's a clang test that is wrongly using -O1 and failing after this commit.

llvm-svn: 301924
2017-05-02 14:48:23 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 096a981982 [InstCombine] don't use DeMorgan's Law on integer constants
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL 
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c) 
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in D32255.

There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can 
reinstate D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is 
   harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while 
   random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing, 
   but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have 
   excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't
   match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern 
   that has an extra 'not' in it:
   ~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)

   That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold
   that pattern too:
   (~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665

llvm-svn: 301923
2017-05-02 14:31:30 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 59d0aeaafe [InstCombine] check one-use before applying DeMorgan nor/nand folds
If we have ~(~X & Y), it only makes sense to transform it to (X | ~Y) when we do not need 
the intermediate (~X & Y) value. In that case, we would need an extra instruction to 
generate ~Y + 'or' (as shown in the test changes).

It's ok if we have multiple uses of ~X or Y, however. In those cases, we may not reduce the
instruction count or critical path, but we might improve throughput because we can generate 
~X and ~Y in parallel. Whether that actually makes perf sense or not for a target is something 
we can't answer in IR.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32703

llvm-svn: 301848
2017-05-01 22:25:42 +00:00
Sanjay Patel d2f13b62d9 [InstCombine] add multi-use variants for DeMorgan folds; NFC
llvm-svn: 301802
2017-05-01 14:52:17 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 4e312203af [InstCombine] consolidate more DeMorgan tests; NFC
llvm-svn: 301800
2017-05-01 14:10:59 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 0c6086f493 [InstCombine] consolidate tests for DeMorgan folds; NFC
I'm proposing to add tests and change behavior in D32665.

llvm-svn: 301774
2017-04-30 18:57:12 +00:00