Summary:
Current peeling implementation bails out in case of loop nests.
The patch introduces a field in TargetTransformInfo structure that
certain targets can use to relax the constraints if it's
profitable (disabled by default).
Also additional option is added to enable peeling manually for
experimenting and testing purposes.
Reviewers: fhahn, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: RKSimon, xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
This reverts commit 3f3017e because there's a failure on peel-loop-nests.ll
with LLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Summary:
Current peeling implementation bails out in case of loop nests.
The patch introduces a field in TargetTransformInfo structure that
certain targets can use to relax the constraints if it's
profitable (disabled by default).
Also additional option is added to enable peeling manually for
experimenting and testing purposes.
Reviewers: fhahn, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Summary:
I believe this bisects to https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983
(`[LoopUnroll] Only peel if a predicate becomes known in the loop body.`)
While that revision did contain tests that showed arguably-subpar peeling
for [in]equality predicates that [not] happen in the middle of the loop,
it also disabled peeling for the *first* loop iteration,
because latch would be canonicalized to [in]equality comparison..
That was intentional as per https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983#1059583.
I'm not 100% sure that i'm using correct checks here,
but this fix appears to be going in the right direction..
Let me know if i'm missing some checks here..
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43840 | PR43840 ]].
Reviewers: fhahn, mkazantsev, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, fhahn
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69617
Current peeling cost model can decide to peel off not all iterations
but only some of them to eliminate conditions on phi. At the same time
if any peeling happens the door for further unroll/peel optimizations on that
loop closes because the part of the code thinks that if peeling happened
it is profile based peeling and all iterations are peeled off.
To resolve this inconsistency the patch provides the flag which states whether
the full peeling basing on profile is enabled or not and peeling cost model
is able to modify this field like it does not PeelCount.
In a separate patch I will introduce an option to allow/disallow peeling basing
on profile.
To avoid infinite loop peeling the patch tracks the total number of peeled iteration
through llvm.loop.peeled.count loop metadata.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64972
llvm-svn: 367647
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
If a predicate does not become known after peeling, peeling is unlikely
to be beneficial.
Reviewers: mcrosier, efriedma, mkazantsev, junbuml
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983
llvm-svn: 330250
Loop peeling also has an impact on the induction variables, so we should
benefit from induction variable simplification after peeling too.
Reviewers: sanjoy, bogner, mzolotukhin, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43878
llvm-svn: 328301
If the loop body contains conditions of the form IndVar < #constant, we
can remove the checks by peeling off #constant iterations.
This improves codegen for PR34364.
Reviewers: mkuper, mkazantsev, efriedma
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43876
llvm-svn: 327671
Arkady Shlykov