... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
First step after e113317958,
in these tests, DomTree is valid afterwards, so mark them as such,
so that they don't regress.
In further steps, SimplifyCFG transforms shall taught to preserve DomTree,
in as small steps as possible.
The NPM runs loop passes over loops in forward program order, rather
than the legacy loop PM's reverse program order. This seems to produce
better results as shown here.
I verified that changing the loop order to reverse program order results
in the same IR with the NPM.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92817
This reverts commit 4bd35cdc3a.
The patch was reverted during the investigation. The investigation
shown that the patch did not cause any trouble, but just exposed
the existing problem that is addressed by the previous patch
"[IndVars] Quick fix LHS/RHS bug". Returning without changes.
This reverts commit 0c9c6ddf17.
We are seeing some failures with this patch locally. Not clear
if it's causing them or just triggering a problem in another
place. Reverting while investigating.
If we decided to widen IV with zext, then unsigned comparisons
should not prevent widening (same for sext/sign comparisons).
The result of comparison in wider type does not change in this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92207
Reviewed By: nikic
When widening an IndVar that has LCSSA Phi users outside
the loop, we can safely widen it as usual and then truncate
the result outside the loop without hurting the performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91593
Reviewed By: skatkov
When bailing out in rewriteLoopExitValues() you could be left with PHI
nodes in the DeadInsts vector. Those would be not handled by the use of
RecursivelyDeleteTriviallyDeadInstructions() in IndVarSimplify. This
resulted in the IndVarSimplify pass returning an incorrect modified
status. This was caught by the expensive check introduced in D86589.
This patches changes IndVarSimplify so that it deletes those PHI nodes,
using RecursivelyDeleteDeadPHINode().
This fixes PR47486.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91153
Use more context to prove contextual facts about the last iteration. It is
only executed when the backedge is taken, so we can use `isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond`
to make this check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91535
Reviewed By: skatkov
When deciding to widen narrow use, we may need to prove some facts
about it. For proof, the context is used. Currently we take the instruction
being widened as the context.
However, we may be more precise here if we take as context the point that
dominates all users of instruction being widened.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90456
Reviewed By: skatkov
Some nested loops may share the same ExitingBB, so after we finishing FoldExit,
we need to notify OuterLoop and SCEV to drop any stored trip count.
Patched by: guopeilin
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91325
In some cases we can handle IV and iter count of different types. It's a typical situation
after IV have been widened. This patch adds support for such cases, when legal.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88528
Reviewed By: skatkov
In an effort to make code around flag determination more readable, and (possibly) prepare for a follow up change, factor out some of the flag detection logic. In the process, reduce the number of locations we mutate wrap flags by a couple.
Note that this isn't NFC. The old code tried for NSW xor (NUW || NW). This is, two different paths computed different sets of wrap flags. The new code will try for all three. The result is that some expressions end up with a few extra flags set.
If we cannot prove that the check is trivially true, but can prove that it either
fails on the 1st iteration or never fails, we can replace it with first iteration check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88527
Reviewed By: skatkov
Sometimes the an instruction we are trying to widen is used by the IV
(which means the instruction is the IV increment). Currently this may
prevent its widening. We should ignore such user because it will be
dead once the transform is done anyways.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90920
Reviewed By: fhahn
InstCombine canonicalizes 'sub nuw' instructions to 'add' without the
`nuw` flag. The typical case where we see it is decrementing induction
variables. For them, IndVars fails to prove that it's legal to widen them,
and inserts unprofitable `zext`'s.
This patch adds recognition of such pattern using SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89550
Reviewed By: fhahn, skatkov
Our range computation methods benefit from no-wrap flags. But if the ranges
were first computed before the flags were set, the cached range will be too
pessimistic.
We need to drop cached ranges whenever we sharpen AddRec's no wrap flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89847
Reviewed By: fhahn
If we know that some check will not be executed on the last iteration, we can use this
fact to eliminate its check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88210
Reviwed By: ebrevnov
This reverts commit e038b60d91.
This reverts commit a0d84d8031.
This revert was a mistake. The reason of the failures was
"Use uint64_t for branch weights instead of uint32_t"
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
This reverts commit c6ca26c0bf.
This breaks stage2 builds due to hitting this assert:
```
Assertion failed: (WeightSum <= UINT32_MAX && "Expected weights to scale down to 32 bits"), function calcMetadataWeights
```
when compiling AArch64RegisterBankInfo.cpp in LLVM.
Even if the exact exit count is unknown, we can still prove that this
exit will not be taken. If we can prove that the predicate is monotonic,
fulfilled on first & last iteration, and no overflow happened in between,
then the check can be removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87832
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Same change as 0dda633317, but for
mul expressions. We want to first fold any constant operans and
then strengthen the nowrap flags, as we can compute more precise
flags at that point.
We should first try to constant fold the add expression and only
strengthen nowrap flags afterwards. This allows us to determine
stronger flags if e.g. only two operands are left after constant
folding (and thus "guaranteed no wrap region" code applies) or the
resulting operands are non-negative and thus nsw->nuw strengthening
applies.
This reverts commit a10a64e7e3.
It broke polly/test/ScopInfo/NonAffine/non-affine-loop-condition-dependent-access_3.ll
The difference suggests that this may be a serious issue.
Fixed wrapping range case & proof methods reduced to constant range
checks to save compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
It was reverted because of negative compile time impact. In this version,
less powerful proof methods are used (non-recursive reasoning only), and
scope limited to constant End values to avoid explision of complex proofs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
We can sharpen the range of a AddRec if we know that it does not
self-wrap and know the symbolic iteration count in the loop. If we can
evaluate the value of AddRec on the last iteration and prove that at least
one its intermediate value lies between start and end, then no-wrap flag
allows us to conclude that all of them also lie between start and end. So
the estimate of range can be improved to union of ranges of start and end.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89381
Reviewed By: efriedma
While we haven't encountered an earth-shattering problem with this yet,
by now it is pretty evident that trying to model the ptr->int cast
implicitly leads to having to update every single place that assumed
no such cast could be needed. That is of course the wrong approach.
Let's back this out, and re-attempt with some another approach,
possibly one originally suggested by Eli Friedman in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c20
which should hopefully spare us this pain and more.
This reverts commits 1fb6104293,
7324616660,
aaafe350bb,
e92a8e0c74.
I've kept&improved the tests though.
This relands commit 1c021c64ca which was
reverted in commit 17cec6a11a because
an assertion was being triggered, since `BuildConstantFromSCEV()`
wasn't updated to handle the case where the constant we want to truncate
is actually a pointer. I was unsuccessful in coming up with a test case
where we'd end there with constant zext/sext of a pointer,
so i didn't handle those cases there until there is a test case.
Original commit message:
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
> While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
> do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
> is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
> to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
>
> This may be important now that we track towards
> making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
> and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
> (see D88979/D88789/D88788)
>
> Reviewed By: mkazantsev
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
It caused the following assert during Chromium builds:
llvm/lib/IR/Constants.cpp:1868:
static llvm::Constant *llvm::ConstantExpr::getTrunc(llvm::Constant *, llvm::Type *, bool):
Assertion `C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Trunc operand must be integer"' failed.
See code review for a link to a reproducer.
This reverts commit 1c021c64ca.
While we indeed can't treat them as no-ops, i believe we can/should
do better than just modelling them as `unknown`. `inttoptr` story
is complicated, but for `ptrtoint`, it seems straight-forward
to model it just as a zext-or-trunc of unknown.
This may be important now that we track towards
making inttoptr/ptrtoint casts not no-op,
and towards preventing folding them into loads/etc
(see D88979/D88789/D88788)
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88806
The initial version of the patch was reverted because it missed the check that
the predicate being proved is actually guarded by this check on 1st iteration.
If it was not executed on 1st iteration (but possibly executes after that), then
it is incorrect to use reasoning about IV start to prove it.
Added the test where the miscompile was seen. Unfortunately, my attempts
to reduce it with bugpoint did not succeed; it can further be reduced when
we understand how to do it without losing the initial bug's notion.
Returning assuming the miscompiles are now gone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88208
When removing an overflow intrinsic the Changed status in SimplifyIndvar
was not set, leading to the IndVarSimplify pass returning an incorrect
status.
This was caught using the check introduced by D80916.
As pointed out in the code review, a similar bug may exist for
eliminateTrunc().
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85971
When removing exiting loop conditions, we only consider checks for
which we know the exact exit count. We could also eliminate checks for
which the condition is always true/false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87344
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, reames
As code size is the only thing we care about at minsize, query the
cost of materialising immediates when calculating the cost of a SCEV
expansion. We also modify the CostKind to TCK_CodeSize for minsize,
instead of RecipThroughput.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76434
As mentioned in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143395.html,
loop-unswitch has not been ported to the NPM. Instead people are using
simple-loop-unswitch.
Pin all tests in Transforms/LoopUnswitch to legacy PM and replace all
other uses of loop-unswitch with simple-loop-unswitch.
One test that didn't fit into the above was
2014-06-21-congruent-constant.ll which seems to only pass with
loop-unswitch. That is also pinned to legacy PM.
Now all tests containing "-loop-unswitch" anywhere in the test succeed with
NPM turned on by default.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85360
To match NewPM pass name, and also for readability.
Also rename rpo-functionattrs -> rpo-function-attrs while we're here.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84694
The block front may be a PHI node, inserting a cast instructions like
BitCast, PtrToInt, IntToPtr among PHIs is not right.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80975
Summary:
As [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45360 | PR45360 ]] reports,
with new cost-model we can sometimes end up being able to expand `udiv`/`urem` instructions.
And that exposes at least one instance of when we do that
regardless of whether or not it is safe to do.
In this particular case, it's `SimplifyIndvar::replaceIVUserWithLoopInvariant()`.
It seems to me, we simply need to check with `isSafeToExpandAt()` first.
The test isn't great. I'm not sure how to make it only run `-indvars`.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45360 | PR45360 ]].
Reviewers: mkazantsev, reames, helloqirun
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82108
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45360
This is reduced from the (runnable) test provided in the bug report.
The remainder operation is originally guarded, it never divides by zero.
Indvars should not make it execute unconditionally.
This is not a great test, running whole -O2 is fragile,
but i really don't understand why running -indvars on the IR before
that tranform happens doesn't work.
Summary:
Currently, `rewriteLoopExitValues()`'s logic is roughly as following:
> Loop over each incoming value in each PHI node.
> Query whether the SCEV for that incoming value is high-cost.
> Expand the SCEV.
> Perform sanity check (`isValidRewrite()`, D51582)
> Record the info
> Afterwards, see if we can drop the loop given replacements.
> Maybe perform replacements.
The problem is that we interleave SCEV cost checking and expansion.
This is A Problem, because `isHighCostExpansion()` takes special care
to not bill for the expansions that were already expanded, and we can reuse.
While it makes sense in general - if we know that we will expand some SCEV,
all the other SCEV's costs should account for that, which might cause
some of them to become non-high-cost too, and cause chain reaction.
But that isn't what we are doing here. We expand *all* SCEV's, unconditionally.
So every next SCEV's cost will be affected by the already-performed expansions
for previous SCEV's. Even if we are not planning on keeping
some of the expansions we performed.
Worse yet, this current "bonus" depends on the exact PHI node
incoming value processing order. This is completely wrong.
As an example of an issue, see @dmajor's `pr45835.ll` - if we happen to have
a PHI node with two(!) identical high-cost incoming values for the same basic blocks,
we would decide first time around that it is high-cost, expand it,
and immediately decide that it is not high-cost because we have an expansion
that we could reuse (because we expanded it right before, temporarily),
and replace the second incoming value but not the first one;
thus resulting in a broken PHI.
What we instead should do for now, is not perform any expansions
until after we've queried all the costs.
Later, in particular after `isValidRewrite()` is an assertion (D51582)
we could improve upon that, but in a more coherent fashion.
See [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45835 | PR45835 ]]
Reviewers: dmajor, reames, mkazantsev, fhahn, efriedma
Reviewed By: dmajor, mkazantsev
Subscribers: smeenai, nikic, hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits, dmajor
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79787
This is split off from D80316, slightly tightening the definition of overloaded
hardwareloop intrinsic llvm.loop.decrement.reg specifying that both operands
its result have the same type.
As discussed in post-commit review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501
if the goal of this is to help vectorizer, then we should actually
be teaching vectorizer to do this, because right now this rewrite
is still budget-limited, which isn't what we'd want.
Additionally, while the rest of the patch series was universally profitable,
this particular patch is reportedly (https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501#1905171)
exposing cost-modeling issues on ARM.
So let's just back this particular patch out. Once there's an undo transform,
this could be considered for reintegration.
This reverts commit 44edc6fd2c.
Summary:
The widenIVUse avoids generating trunc by evaluating the use as AddRec, this
will not work when:
1) SCEV traces back to an instruction inside the loop that SCEV can not
expand, eg. add %indvar, (load %addr)
2) SCEV finds a loop variant, eg. add %indvar, %loopvariant
While SCEV fails to avoid trunc, we can still try to use instruction
combining approach to prove trunc is not required. This can be further
extended with other instruction combining checks, but for now we handle the
following case (sub can be "add" and "mul", "nsw + sext" can be "nus + zext")
```
Src:
%c = sub nsw %b, %indvar
%d = sext %c to i64
Dst:
%indvar.ext1 = sext %indvar to i64
%m = sext %b to i64
%d = sub nsw i64 %m, %indvar.ext1
```
Therefore, as long as the result of add/sub/mul is extended to wide type with
right extension and overflow wrap combination, no
trunc is required regardless of how %b is generated. This pattern is common
when calculating address in 64 bit architecture.
Note that this patch reuse almost all the code from D49151 by @az:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49151
It extends it by providing proof of why trunc is unnecessary in more general case,
it should also resolve some of the concerns from the following discussion with @reames.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20180910/585945.html
Reviewers: sanjoy, efriedma, sebpop, reames, az, javed.absar, amehsan
Reviewed By: az, amehsan
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, amehsan, reames, az
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73059
Summary:
Replacing uses of IV outside of the loop is likely generally useful,
but `rewriteLoopExitValues()` is cautious, and if it isn't told to always
perform the replacement, and there are hard uses of IV in loop,
it doesn't replace.
In [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]],
that prevents `-indvars` from replacing uses of induction variable
after the loop, which might be one of the optimization failures
preventing that code from being vectorized.
Instead, now that the cost model is fixed, i believe we should be
a little bit more optimistic, and also perform replacement
if we believe it is within our budget.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]].
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, asbirlea, fhahn, skatkov
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: nikic, hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501
Summary:
Previosly we simply always said that `SCEVMinMaxExpr` is too costly to expand.
But this isn't really true, it expands into just a comparison+swap pair.
And again much like with add/mul, there will be one less such pair
than the number of operands. And we need to count the cost of operands themselves.
This does change a number of testcases, and as far as i can tell,
all of these changes are improvements, in the sense that
we fixed up more latches to do the [in]equality comparison.
This concludes cost-modelling changes, no other SCEV expressions exist as of now.
This is a part of addressing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]].
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73744
Summary:
While this resolves the regression from D73722 in `llvm/test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/exit_value_test2.ll`,
this now regresses `llvm/test/Transforms/IndVarSimplify/elim-extend.ll` `@nestedIV` test,
we no longer can perform that expansion within default budget of `4`, but require budget of `6`.
That regression is being addressed by D73777.
The basic idea here is simple.
```
Op0, Op1, Op2 ...
| | |
\--+--/ |
| |
\---+---/
```
I.e. given N operands, we will have N-1 operations,
so we have to add cost of an add (mul) for **every** Op processed,
**except** the first one, plus we need to recurse into *every* Op.
I'm guessing there's already canonicalization that ensures we won't
have `1` operand in `scMulExpr`, and no `0` in `scAddExpr`/`scMulExpr`.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73728
Summary:
If we don't believe this UDiv is actually a LShr in disguise, things are much worse.
First, we try to see if this UDiv actually originates from user code,
by looking for `S + 1`, and if found considering this UDiv to be free.
But otherwise, we always considered this UDiv to be high-cost.
However that is no longer the case with TTI-driven cost model:
our default budget is 4, which matches the default cost of UDiv,
so now we allow a single UDiv to not be counted as high-cost.
While that is the case, it is evident this is actually a regression
due to the fact that cost-modelling is incomplete - we did not account
for the `add`, `mul` costs yet. That is being addressed in D73728.
Cost-modelling for UDiv also seems pretty straight-forward:
subtract cost of the UDiv itself, and recurse into both the LHS and RHS.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73722
In builds with assertions enabled (!NDEBUG), IndVarSimplify does an
additional query to ScalarEvolution which may change future SCEV queries
since it fills the internal cache differently. The result is actually
only used with the -verify-indvars command line option. We fix the issue
by only calling SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L) if -verify-indvars is
enabled such that only -verify-indvars shows the behavior, but not debug
builds themselves. Also add a remark to the description of
-verify-indvars about this behavior.
Fixes llvm.org/PR44815
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74810
Teach SCEV about the @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, which has exactly the same
semantics as a sub expression. This allows us to query hardware-loops, which
contain this @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, so that we can calculate iteration
counts, exit values, etc. of hardwareloops.
This "int_loop_decrement_reg" intrinsic is defined as "IntrNoDuplicate". Thus,
while hardware-loops and tripcounts now become analysable by SCEV, this
prevents the usual loop transformations from applying transformations on
hardware-loops, which is what we want at this point, for which I have added
test cases for loopunrolling and IndVarSimplify and LFTR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71563
The basic idea of the transform is to convert variant loop exit conditions into invariant exit conditions by changing the iteration on which the exit is taken when we know that the trip count is unobservable. See the original patch which introduced the code for a more complete explanation.
The individual parts of this have been reviewed, the result has been fuzzed, and then further analyzed by hand, but despite all of that, I will not be suprised to see breakage here. If you see problems, please don't hesitate to revert - though please do provide a test case. The most likely class of issues are latent SCEV bugs and without a reduced test case, I'll be essentially stuck on reducing them.
(Note: A bunch of tests were opted out of the new transform to preserve coverage. That landed in a previous commit to simplify revert cycles if they turn out to be needed.)
I'm about to enable the new loop predication transform by default. It has the effect of completely destroying many read only loops - which happen to be a super common idiom in our test cases. So as to preserve test coverage of other transforms, disable the new transform where it would cause sharp test coverage regressions.
(This is semantically part of the enabling commit. It's committed separate to ease revert if the actual flag flip gets reverted.)
We can end up with two loop exits whose exit counts are equivalent, but whose textual representation is different and non-obvious. For the sub-case where we have a series of exits which dominate one another (common), eliminate any exits which would iterate *after* a previous exit on the exiting iteration.
As noted in the TODO being removed, I'd always thought this was a good idea, but I've now seen this in a real workload as well.
Interestingly, in review, Nikita pointed out there's let another oppurtunity to leverage SCEV's reasoning. If we kept track of the min of dominanting exits so far, we could discharge exits with EC >= MDE. This is less powerful than the existing transform (since later exits aren't considered), but potentially more powerful for any case where SCEV can prove a >= b, but neither a == b or a > b. I don't have an example to illustrate that oppurtunity, but won't be suprised if we find one and return to handle that case as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69009
llvm-svn: 375379
The problem is that we can have two loop exits, 'a' and 'b', where 'a' and 'b' would exit at the same iteration, 'a' precedes 'b' along some path, and 'b' is predicated while 'a' is not. In this case (see the previously submitted test case), we causing the loop to exit through 'b' whereas it should have exited through 'a'.
This only applies to loop exits where the exit counts are not provably inequal, but that isn't as much of a restriction as it appears. If we could order the exit counts, we'd have already removed one of the two exits. In theory, we might be able to prove inequality w/o ordering, but I didn't really explore that piece. Instead, I went for the obvious restriction and ensured we didn't predicate exits following non-predicateable exits.
Credit goes to Evgeny Brevnov for figuring out the problematic case. Fuzzing probably also found it (failures seen), but due to some silly infrastructure problems I hadn't gotten to the results before Evgeny hand reduced it from a benchmark (he manually enabled the transform). Once this is fixed, I'll try to filter through the fuzzer failures to see if there's anything additional lurking.
Differential Revision https://reviews.llvm.org/D68956
llvm-svn: 375038
Credit goes to Evgeny Brevnov for figuring out the problematic case.
Fuzzing probably also found it (lots of failures), but due to some silly infrastructure problems I hadn't gotten to the results before Evgeny hand reduced it from a benchmark.
llvm-svn: 374812
This patch implements a variation of a well known techniques for JIT compilers - we have an implementation in tree as LoopPredication - but with an interesting twist. This version does not assume the ability to execute a path which wasn't taken in the original program (such as a guard or widenable.condition intrinsic). The benefit is that this works for arbitrary IR from any frontend (including C/C++/Fortran). The tradeoff is that it's restricted to read only loops without implicit exits.
This builds on SCEV, and can thus eliminate the loop varying portion of the any early exit where all exits are understandable by SCEV. A key advantage is that fixing deficiency exposed in SCEV - already found one while writing test cases - will also benefit all of full redundancy elimination (and most other loop transforms).
I haven't seen anything in the literature which quite matches this. Given that, I'm not entirely sure that keeping the name "loop predication" is helpful. Anyone have suggestions for a better name? This is analogous to partial redundancy elimination - since we remove the condition flowing around the backedge - and has some parallels to our existing transforms which try to make conditions invariant in loops.
Factoring wise, I chose to put this in IndVarSimplify since it's a generally applicable to all workloads. I could split this off into it's own pass, but we'd then probably want to add that new pass every place we use IndVars. One solid argument for splitting it off into it's own pass is that this transform is "too good". It breaks a huge number of existing IndVars test cases as they tend to be simple read only loops. At the moment, I've opted it off by default, but if we add this to IndVars and enable, we'll have to update around 20 test files to add side effects or disable this transform.
Near term plan is to fuzz this extensively while off by default, reflect and discuss on the factoring issue mentioned just above, and then enable by default. I also need to give some though to supporting widenable conditions in this framing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67408
llvm-svn: 373351
Summary:
Previously, if the threshold was 2, we were willing to speculatively
execute 2 cheap instructions in both basic blocks (thus we were willing
to speculatively execute cost = 4), but weren't willing to speculate
when one BB had 3 instructions and other one had no instructions,
even thought that would have total cost of 3.
This looks inconsistent to me.
I don't think `cmov`-like instructions will start executing
until both of it's inputs are available: https://godbolt.org/z/zgHePf
So i don't see why the existing behavior is the correct one.
Also, let's add it's own `cl::opt` for this threshold,
with default=4, so it is not stricter than the previous threshold:
will allow to fold when there are 2 BB's each with cost=2.
And since the logic has changed, it will also allow to fold when
one BB has cost=3 and other cost=1, or there is only one BB with cost=4.
This is an alternative solution to D65148:
This fix is mainly motivated by `signbit-like-value-extension.ll` test.
That pattern comes up in JPEG decoding, see e.g.
`Figure F.12 – Extending the sign bit of a decoded value in V`
of `ITU T.81` (JPEG specification).
That branch is not predictable, and it is within the innermost loop,
so the fact that that pattern ends up being stuck with a branch
instead of `select` (i.e. `CMOV` for x86) is unlikely to be beneficial.
This has great results on the final assembly (vanilla test-suite + RawSpeed): (metric pass - D67240)
| metric | old | new | delta | % |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineFunctions | 37720 | 37721 | 1 | 0.00% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineBasicBlocks | 773545 | 771181 | -2364 | -0.31% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineInstructions | 7488843 | 7486442 | -2401 | -0.03% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumUncondBR | 135770 | 135543 | -227 | -0.17% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumCondBR | 423753 | 422187 | -1566 | -0.37% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumCMOV | 24815 | 25731 | 916 | 3.69% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumVecBlend | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0.00% |
We significantly decrease basic block count, notably decrease instruction count,
significantly decrease branch count and very significantly increase `cmov` count.
Performance-wise, unsurprisingly, this has great effect on
target RawSpeed benchmark. I'm seeing 5 **major** improvements:
```
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.3064 -0.3064 226.9913 157.4452 226.9800 157.4384
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.3057 -0.3057 226.8407 157.4926 226.8282 157.4828
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev -0.4985 -0.4954 0.3051 0.1530 0.3040 0.1534
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.1747 -0.1747 80.4787 66.4227 80.4771 66.4146
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.1742 -0.1743 80.4686 66.4542 80.4690 66.4436
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.6089 +0.5797 0.0670 0.1078 0.0673 0.1062
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.1598 -0.1598 171.6996 144.2575 171.6915 144.2538
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.1598 -0.1597 171.7109 144.2755 171.7018 144.2766
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.4024 +0.3850 0.0847 0.1187 0.0848 0.1175
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.0550 -0.0551 280.3046 264.8800 280.3017 264.8559
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.0554 -0.0554 280.2628 264.7360 280.2574 264.7297
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.7005 +0.7041 0.2779 0.4725 0.2775 0.4729
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.0354 -0.0355 316.7396 305.5208 316.7342 305.4890
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.0354 -0.0356 316.6969 305.4798 316.6917 305.4324
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.0493 +0.0330 0.3562 0.3737 0.3563 0.3681
```
That being said, it's always best-effort, so there will likely
be cases where this worsens things.
Reviewers: efriedma, craig.topper, dmgreen, jmolloy, fhahn, Carrot, hfinkel, chandlerc
Reviewed By: jmolloy
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67318
llvm-svn: 372009
We were computing the loop exit value, but not ensuring the addrec belonged to the loop whose exit value we were computing. I couldn't actually trip this; the test case shows the basic setup which *might* trip this, but none of the variations I've tried actually do.
llvm-svn: 369730
We already supported rewriting loop exit values for multiple exit loops, but if any of the loop exits were not computable, we gave up on all loop exit values. This patch generalizes the existing code to handle individual computable loop exits where possible.
As discussed in the review, this is a starting point for figuring out a better API. The code is a bit ugly, but getting it in lets us test as we go.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65544
llvm-svn: 368898
This is a prepatory patch for future work on support exit value rewriting in loops with a mixture of computable and non-computable exit counts. The intention is to be "mostly NFC" - i.e. not enable any interesting new transforms - but in practice, there are some small output changes.
The test differences are caused by cases wherewhere getSCEVAtScope can simplify a single entry phi without needing any knowledge of the loop.
llvm-svn: 367485
The original code failed to account for the fact that one exit can have a pointer exit count without all of them having pointer exit counts. This could cause two separate bugs:
1) We might exit the loop early, and leave optimizations undone. This is what triggered the assertion failure in the reported test case.
2) We might optimize one exit, then exit without indicating a change. This could result in an analysis invalidaton bug if no other transform is done by the rest of indvars.
Note that the pointer exit counts are a really fragile concept. They show up only when we have a pointer IV w/o a datalayout to provide their size. It's really questionable to me whether the complexity implied is worth it.
llvm-svn: 366829
Continue in the spirit of D63618, and use exit count reasoning to prove away loop exits which can not be taken since the backedge taken count of the loop as a whole is provably less than the minimal BE count required to take this particular loop exit.
As demonstrated in the newly added tests, this triggers in a number of cases where IndVars was previously unable to discharge obviously redundant exit tests. And some not so obvious ones.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63733
llvm-svn: 365920
As noted in the test change, this is not trivially NFC, but all of the changes in output are cases where the SCEVExpander form is more canonical/optimal than the hand generation.
llvm-svn: 365075
The motivation for this is two fold:
1) Make the output (and thus tests) a bit more readable to a human trying to understand the result of the transform
2) Reduce spurious diffs in a potential future change to restructure all of this logic to use SCEVExpander (which hoists by default)
llvm-svn: 365066
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41998. Usually when we
have a truncated exit count we'll truncate the IV when comparing
against the limit, in which case exit count overflow in post-inc
form doesn't matter. However, for pointer IVs we don't do that, so
we have to be careful about incrementing the IV in the wide type.
I'm fixing this by removing the IVCount variable (which was
ExitCount or ExitCount+1) and replacing it with a UsePostInc flag,
and then moving the actual limit adjustment to the individual cases
(which are: pointer IV where we add to the wide type, integer IV
where we add to the narrow type, and constant integer IV where we
add to the wide type).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63686
llvm-svn: 364709
In rL364135, I taught IndVars to fold exiting branches in loops with a zero backedge taken count (i.e. loops that only run one iteration). This extends that to eliminate the dead comparison left around.
llvm-svn: 364155
This turned out to be surprisingly effective. I was originally doing this just for completeness sake, but it seems like there are a lot of cases where SCEV's exit count reasoning is stronger than it's isKnownPredicate reasoning.
Once this is in, I'm thinking about trying to build on the same infrastructure to eliminate provably untaken checks. There may be something generally interesting here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63618
llvm-svn: 364135
Thought of this case while working on something else. We appear to get it right in all of the variations I tried, but that's by accident. So, add a test which would catch the potential bug.
llvm-svn: 363953
Teach IndVarSimply's LinearFunctionTestReplace transform to handle multiple exit loops. LFTR does two key things 1) it rewrites (all) exit tests in terms of a common IV potentially eliminating one in the process and 2) it moves any offset/indexing/f(i) style logic out of the loop.
This turns out to actually be pretty easy to implement. SCEV already has all the information we need to know what the backedge taken count is for each individual exit. (We use that when computing the BE taken count for the loop as a whole.) We basically just need to iterate through the exiting blocks and apply the existing logic with the exit specific BE taken count. (The previously landed NFC makes this super obvious.)
I chose to go ahead and apply this to all loop exits instead of only latch exits as originally proposed. After reviewing other passes, the only case I could find where LFTR form was harmful was LoopPredication. I've fixed the latch case, and guards aren't LFTRed anyways. We'll have some more work to do on the way towards widenable_conditions, but that's easily deferred.
I do want to note that I added one bit after the review. When running tests, I saw a new failure (no idea why didn't see previously) which pointed out LFTR can rewrite a constant condition back to a loop varying one. This was theoretically possible with a single exit, but the zero case covered it in practice. With multiple exits, we saw this happening in practice for the eliminate-comparison.ll test case because we'd compute a ExitCount for one of the exits which was guaranteed to never actually be reached. Since LFTR ran after simplifyAndExtend, we'd immediately turn around and undo the simplication work we'd just done. The solution seemed obvious, so I didn't bother with another round of review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62625
llvm-svn: 363883
This patch really contains two pieces:
Teach SCEV how to fold a phi in the header of a loop to the value on the backedge when a) the backedge is known to execute at least once, and b) the value is safe to use globally within the scope dominated by the original phi.
Teach IndVarSimplify's rewriteLoopExitValues to allow loop invariant expressions which already exist (and thus don't need new computation inserted) even in loops where we can't optimize away other uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63224
llvm-svn: 363619
Recommit r363289 with a bug fix for crash identified in pr42279. Issue was that a loop exit test does not have to be an icmp, leading to a null dereference crash when new logic was exercised for that case. Test case previously committed in r363601.
Original commit comment follows:
This contains fixes for two cases where we might invalidate inbounds and leave it stale in the IR (a miscompile). Case 1 is when switching to an IV with no dynamically live uses, and case 2 is when doing pre-to-post conversion on the same pointer type IV.
The basic scheme used is to prove that using the given IV (pre or post increment forms) would have to already trigger UB on the path to the test we're modifying. As such, our potential UB triggering use does not change the semantics of the original program.
As was pointed out in the review thread by Nikita, this is defending against a separate issue from the hasConcreteDef case. This is about poison, that's about undef. Unfortunately, the two are different, see Nikita's comment for a fuller explanation, he explains it well.
(Note: I'm going to address Nikita's last style comment in a separate commit just to minimize chance of subtle bugs being introduced due to typos.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62939
llvm-svn: 363613
If we can detect that saturating math that depends on an IV cannot
overflow, replace it with simple math. This is similar to the CVP
optimization from D62703, just based on a different underlying
analysis (SCEV vs LVI) that catches different cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62792
llvm-svn: 363489
InsertBinop now accepts NoWrapFlags, so pass them through when
expanding a simple add expression.
This is the first re-commit of the functional changes from rL362687,
which was previously reverted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 363364
This contains fixes for two cases where we might invalidate inbounds and leave it stale in the IR (a miscompile). Case 1 is when switching to an IV with no dynamically live uses, and case 2 is when doing pre-to-post conversion on the same pointer type IV.
The basic scheme used is to prove that using the given IV (pre or post increment forms) would have to already trigger UB on the path to the test we're modifying. As such, our potential UB triggering use does not change the semantics of the original program.
As was pointed out in the review thread by Nikita, this is defending against a separate issue from the hasConcreteDef case. This is about poison, that's about undef. Unfortunately, the two are different, see Nikita's comment for a fuller explanation, he explains it well.
(Note: I'm going to address Nikita's last style comment in a separate commit just to minimize chance of subtle bugs being introduced due to typos.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62939
llvm-svn: 363289
The issue addressed in r363180 is more broadly relevant. For the moment, we don't actually get any of these cases because we a) restrict SCEV formation due to SCEExpander needing to preserve LCSSA, and b) don't iterate between loops.
llvm-svn: 363192
SCEV does not propagate arguments through one-input Phis so as to make it easy for the SCEV expander (and related code) to preserve LCSSA. It's not entirely clear this restriction is neccessary, but for the moment it exists. For this reason, we don't analyze single-entry phi inputs. However it is possible that when an this input leaves the loop through LCSSA Phi, it is a provable constant. Missing that results in an order of optimization issue in loop exit value rewriting where we miss some oppurtunities based on order in which we visit sibling loops.
This patch teaches computeSCEVAtScope about this case. We can generalize it later, but so far we can only replace LCSSA Phis with their constant loop-exiting values. We should probably also add similiar logic directly in the SCEV construction path itself.
Patch by: mkazantsev (with revised commit message by me)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58113
llvm-svn: 363180
We were only matching RHS being a loop invariant value, not the inverse. Since there's nothing which appears to canonicalize loop invariant values to RHS, this means we missed cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63112
llvm-svn: 363108
As pointed out by Nikita in review, undef and poison need to be handled separately. Since we're no longer expecting any test improvements - just fixes for miscompiles - update the tests to bypass the existing undef check.
llvm-svn: 363002
There are two interesting sub-cases here. 1) Switching IVs is legal, but only in pre-increment form. and 2) Switching IVs is legal, and so is post-increment form.
llvm-svn: 362993
Flesh out a collection of tests for switching to a dead IV within LFTR, both for the current miscompile, and for some cases which we should be able to handle via simple reasoning.
llvm-svn: 362976
This was discussed as part of D62880. The basic thought is that computing BE taken count after widening should produce (on average) an equally good backedge taken count as the one before widening. Since there's only one test in the suite which is impacted by this change, and it's essentially equivelent codegen, that seems to be a reasonable assertion. This change was separated from r362971 so that if this turns out to be problematic, the triggering piece is obvious and easily revertable.
For the nestedIV example from elim-extend.ll, we end up with the following BE counts:
BEFORE: (-2 + (-1 * %innercount) + %limit)
AFTER: (-1 + (sext i32 (-1 + %limit) to i64) + (-1 * (sext i32 %innercount to i64))<nsw>)
Note that before is an i32 type, and the after is an i64. Truncating the i64 produces the i32.
llvm-svn: 362975
If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer
these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 362687
Oddly, I had to change a value name from "tmp0" to "bc0" to get the autogened test to pass. I'm putting this down to an oddity of update_test_checks or FileCheck, but don't understand it.
llvm-svn: 362532
(Recommit after fixing a keymash in the run line. Sorry for breakage.)
This is preparation for D62625 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62625>
llvm-svn: 362426
Fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31181 and partial fix
for LFTR poison handling issues in general.
When LFTR moves a condition from pre-inc to post-inc, it may now
depend on value that is poison due to nowrap flags. To avoid this,
we clear any nowrap flag that SCEV cannot prove for the post-inc
addrec.
Additionally, LFTR may switch to a different IV that is dynamically
dead and as such may be arbitrarily poison. This patch will correct
nowrap flags in some but not all cases where this happens. This is
related to the adoption of IR nowrap flags for the pre-inc addrec.
(See some of the switch_to_different_iv tests, where flags are not
dropped or insufficiently dropped.)
Finally, there are likely similar issues with the handling of GEP
inbounds, but we don't have a test case for this yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60935
llvm-svn: 362292
One case where overflow happens in the first loop iteration, and
two cases where we switch to a dynamically dead IV with post/pre
increment, respectively.
llvm-svn: 361189
These are all of the ones involving the same data layout string. Remainder take a bit more consideration, but at least everything can be auto-updated now.
llvm-svn: 360961
Summary:
Currently we express umin as `~umax(~x, ~y)`. However, this becomes
a problem for operands in non-integral pointer spaces, because `~x`
is not something we can compute for `x` non-integral. However, since
comparisons are generally still allowed, we are actually able to
express `umin(x, y)` directly as long as we don't try to express is
as a umax. Support this by adding an explicit umin/smin representation
to SCEV. We do this by factoring the existing getUMax/getSMax functions
into a new function that does all four. The previous two functions were
largely identical.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50167
llvm-svn: 360159
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
A SCEV is not low-cost just because you can divide it by a power of 2. We need to also
check what we are dividing to make sure it too is not a high-code expansion. This helps
to not expand the exit value of certain loops, helping not to bloat the code.
The change in no-iv-rewrite.ll is reverting back to what it was testing before rL194116,
and looks a lot like the other tests in replace-loop-exit-folds.ll.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58435
llvm-svn: 355393
In some cases, MaxBECount can be less precise than ExactBECount for AND
and OR (the AND case was PR26207). In the OR test case, both ExactBECounts are
undef, but MaxBECount are different, so we hit the assertion below. This
patch uses the same solution the AND case already uses.
Assertion failed:
((isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(ExactNotTaken) || !isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(MaxNotTaken))
&& "Exact is not allowed to be less precise than Max"), function ExitLimit
This patch also consolidates test cases for both AND and OR in a single
test case.
Fixes https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13245
Reviewers: sanjoy, efriedma, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58853
llvm-svn: 355259
Logic in `getInsertPointForUses` doesn't account for a corner case when `Def`
only comes to a Phi user from unreachable blocks. In this case, the incoming
value may be arbitrary (and not even available in the input block) and break
the loop-related invariants that are asserted below.
In fact, if we encounter this situation, no IR modification is needed. This
Phi will be simplified away with nearest cleanup.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58045
Reviewed By: spatel
llvm-svn: 353816
The patch has been reverted because it ended up prohibiting propagation
of a constant to exit value. For such values, we should skip all checks
related to hard uses because propagating a constant is always profitable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53691
llvm-svn: 346397
This reverts commit 2f425e9c7946b9d74e64ebbfa33c1caa36914402.
It seems that the check that we still should do the transform if we
know the result is constant is missing in this code. So the logic that
has been deleted by this change is still sometimes accidentally useful.
I revert the change to see what can be done about it. The motivating
case is the following:
@Y = global [400 x i16] zeroinitializer, align 1
define i16 @foo() {
entry:
br label %for.body
for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.body
%i = phi i16 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.body ]
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [400 x i16], [400 x i16]* @Y, i16 0, i16 %i
store i16 0, i16* %arrayidx, align 1
%inc = add nuw nsw i16 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp ult i16 %inc, 400
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
for.end: ; preds = %for.body
%inc.lcssa = phi i16 [ %inc, %for.body ]
ret i16 %inc.lcssa
}
We should be able to figure out that the result is constant, but the patch
breaks it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
llvm-svn: 346198
When rewriting loop exit values, IndVars considers this transform not profitable if
the loop instruction has a loop user which it believes cannot be optimized away.
In current implementation only calls that immediately use the instruction are considered
as such.
This patch extends the definition of "hard" users to any side-effecting instructions
(which usually cannot be optimized away from the loop) and also allows handling
of not just immediate users, but use chains.
Differentlai Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51584
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345814
For some unclear reason rewriteLoopExitValues considers recalculation
after the loop profitable if it has some "soft uses" outside the loop (i.e. any
use other than call and return), even if we have proved that it has a user inside
the loop which we think will not be optimized away.
There is no existing unit test that would explain this. This patch provides an
example when rematerialisation of exit value is not profitable but it passes
this check due to presence of a "soft use" outside the loop.
It makes no sense to recalculate value on exit if we are going to compute it
due to some irremovable within the loop. This patch disallows applying this
transform in the described situation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51581
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 345708
There is a transform that may replace `lshr (x+1), 1` with `lshr x, 1` in case
if it can prove that the result will be the same. However the initial instruction
might have an `exact` flag set, and it now should be dropped unless we prove
that it may hold. Incorrectly set `exact` attribute may then produce poison.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53061
Reviewed By: sanjoy
llvm-svn: 344223
A piece of logic in rewriteLoopExitValues has a weird check on number of
users which allowed an unprofitable transform in case if an instruction has
more than 6 users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51404
Reviewed By: etherzhhb
llvm-svn: 342444
Currently, `sinkUnusedInvariants` does not set Changed flag even if it makes
changes in the IR. There is no clear evidence that it can cause a crash, but it
looks highly suspicious and likely invalid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51777
Reviewed By: skatkov
llvm-svn: 341777
Yevgeny Rouban