As FIXME said, they really should be checking for a single user,
not use, so let's do that. It is not *that* unusual to have
the same value as incoming value in a PHI node, not unlike
how a PHI may have the same incoming basic block more than once.
There isn't a nice way to do that, Value::users() isn't uniqified,
and Value only tracks it's uses, not Users, so the check is
potentially costly since it does indeed potentially involes
traversing the entire use list of a value.
Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
During runtime unrolling on loops with multiple exits, we update the
exit blocks with the correct phi values from both original and remainder
loop.
In this process, we lookup the VMap for the mapped incoming phi values,
but did not update the VMap if a default entry was generated in the VMap
during the lookup. This default value is generated when constants or
values outside the current loop are looked up.
This patch fixes the assertion failure when null entries are present in
the VMap because of this lookup. Added a testcase that showcases the
problem.
llvm-svn: 313358
The loop structure for the outer loop does not contain the epilog
preheader when we try to unroll inner loop with multiple exits and
epilog code is generated. For now, we just bail out in such cases.
Added a test case that shows the problem. Without this bailout, we would
trip on assert saying LCSSA form is incorrect for outer loop.
llvm-svn: 307676
When unrolling under multiple exits which is under off-by-default option,
the assert that checks for VMap entry in loop exit values is too strong.
(assert if VMap entry did not exist, the value should be a
constant). However, values derived from
constants or from values outside loop, does not have a VMap entry too.
Removed the assert and added a testcase showcasing the property for
non-constant values.
llvm-svn: 307542
With the NFC refactoring in rL307417 (git SHA 987dd01), all the logic
is in place to support multiple exit/exiting blocks when prolog
remainder is generated.
This patch removed the assert that multiple exit blocks unrolling is only
supported when epilog remainder is generated.
Also, added test runs and checks with PROLOG prefix in
runtime-loop-multiple-exits.ll test cases.
llvm-svn: 307435
Currently, we do not support multiple exiting blocks to the
latch exit block. However, this bailout wasn't triggered when we had a
unique exit block (which is the latch exit), with multiple exiting
blocks to that unique exit.
Moved the bailout so that it's triggered in both cases and added
testcase.
llvm-svn: 307291
Summary:
Runtime unrolling is done for loops with a single exit block and a
single exiting block (and this exiting block should be the latch block).
This patch adds logic to support unrolling in the presence of multiple exit
blocks (which also means multiple exiting blocks).
Currently this is under an off-by-default option and is supported when
epilog code is generated. Support in presence of prolog code will be in
a future patch (we just need to add more tests, and update comments).
This patch is essentially an implementation patch. I have not added any
heuristic (in terms of branches added or code size) to decide when
this should be enabled.
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames, evstupac
Reviewed by: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33001
llvm-svn: 306846
Roman Lebedev