Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use function attributes.
See discussion on D61634 for background. This is an enabler for fixing
handling of these options for LTO, for example.
This change should not affect behavior, as the provided function is not
yet used to build a specifically per-function TLI, but rather enables
that migration.
Most of the changes were very mechanical, e.g. passing a Function to the
legacy analysis pass's getTLI interface, or in Module level cases,
adding a callback. This is similar to the way the per-function TTI
analysis works.
There was one place where we were looking for builtins but not in the
context of a specific function. See FindCXAAtExit in
lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp. I'm somewhat concerned my workaround
could provide the wrong behavior in some corner cases. Suggestions
welcome.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: arsenm, dschuff, jvesely, nhaehnle, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, jfb, asbirlea, gchatelet, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66428
llvm-svn: 371284
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
I don't have an IR sample which is actually failing, but the issue described in the comment is theoretically possible, and should be guarded against even if there's a different root cause for the bot failures.
llvm-svn: 366241
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
What we want to know here is whether we're already using this value
for the loop condition, so make the query about that. We can extend
this to a more general "based-on" relationship, rather than a direct
icmp use later.
llvm-svn: 364715
The whole indvars pass works on loops in simplified form, so there
is always a unique latch. Convert the condition into an assertion
in needsLFTR (though we also assert this in later LFTR functions).
Additionally update the comment on getLoopTest() now that we are
dealing with multiple exits.
llvm-svn: 364713
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
I can't actually come up with a test case this triggers on without an out of tree change, but in theory, it's a bug in the recently added multiple exit LFTR support. The root issue is that an exiting block common to two loops can (in theory) have computable exit counts for both loops. Rewriting the exit of an inner loop in terms of the outer loops IV would cause the inner loop to either a) run forever, or b) terminate on the first iteration.
In practice, we appear to get lucky and not have the exit count computable for the outer loop, except when it's trivially zero. Given we bail on zero exit counts, we don't appear to ever trigger this. But I can't come up with a reason we *can't* compute an exit count for the outer loop on the common exiting block, so this may very well be triggering in some cases.
llvm-svn: 363964
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
(Recommit of r363293 which was reverted when a dependent patch was.)
As pointed out by Nikita in D62625, BackedgeTakenCount is generally used to refer to the backedge taken count of the loop. A conditional backedge taken count - one which only applies if a particular exit is taken - is called a ExitCount in SCEV code, so be consistent here.
llvm-svn: 363875
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
As pointed out by Nikita in D62625, BackedgeTakenCount is generally used to refer to the backedge taken count of the loop. A conditional backedge taken count - one which only applies if a particular exit is taken - is called a ExitCount in SCEV code, so be consistent here.
llvm-svn: 363293
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
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
This change does the plumbing to wire an ExitingBB parameter through the LFTR implementation, and reorganizes the code to work in terms of a set of individual loop exits. Most of it is fairly obvious, but there's one key complexity which makes it worthy of consideration. The actual multi-exit LFTR patch is in D62625 for context.
Specifically, it turns out the existing code uses the backedge taken count from before a IV is widened. Oddly, we can end up with a different (more expensive, but semantically equivelent) BE count for the loop when requerying after widening. For the nestedIV example from elim-extend, 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>)
This is the only test in tree which seems sensitive to this difference. The actual result of using the wider BETC on this example is that we actually produce slightly better code. :)
In review, we decided to accept that test change. This patch is structured to preserve the old behavior, but a separate change will immediate follow with the behavior change. (I wanted it separate for problem attribution purposes.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62880
llvm-svn: 362971
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
Using dominance vs a set membership check is indistinguishable from a compile time perspective, and the two queries return equivelent results. Simplify code by using the existing function.
llvm-svn: 360976
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
This cleans up all GetElementPtr creation in LLVM to explicitly pass a
value type rather than deriving it from the pointer's element-type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57173
llvm-svn: 352913
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Teresa Johnson