This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
Even though not all it's users operate on DomTreeUpdater,
it itself internally operates on DomTreeUpdater,
so it must mean everything is fine with that,
so just do that globally.
Summary:
Currently SplitEdge does not support passing in parameter which allows you to
name the newly created BasicBlock.
This patch updates the function such that the name of the block can be passed
in, if users of this utility decide to do so.
Reviewed By: Whitney, bmahjour, asbirlea, jamieschmeiser
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94176
Allow loop nests with empty basic blocks without loops in different
levels as perfect.
Reviewers: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93665
The function FoldSingleEntryPHINodes() is changed to return if
it has changed IR or not. This return value is used by RS4GC to
set the MadeChange flag respectively.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93810
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
This patch changes MergeBlockIntoPredecessor to skip the call to
RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs, in effect partially reverting D71480 due to
some compile-time issues spotted in LoopUnroll and SimplifyCFG.
The call to RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs appears to have changed the
worst-case behavior of the merging utility. Loosely speaking, it seems
to have gone from O(#phis) to O(#insts).
It might not be possible to mitigate this by scanning a block to
determine whether there are any debug intrinsics to remove, since such a
scan costs O(#insts).
So: skip the call to RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs. There's surprisingly
little fallout from this, and most of it can be addressed by doing
RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs later. The exception is (the block-local
version of) SimplifyCFG, where it might just be too expensive to call
RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88928
Summary:
This patch resolves an issue where the metadata of a loop is not added to the
new loop latch, and not removed from the old loop latch. This issue occurs in
the SplitBlockPredecessors function, which adds a new block in a loop, and
in the case that the block passed into this function is the header of the loop,
the loop can be modified such that the latch of the loop is replaced.
This patch applies to the Loop Simplify pass since it ensures that each loop
has exit blocks which only have predecessors that are inside of the loop. In
the case that this is not true, the pass will create a new exit block for the
loop. This guarantees that the loop preheader/header will dominate the exit blocks.
Author: sidbav (Sidharth Baveja)
Reviewers: asbirlea (Alina Sbirlea), chandlerc (Chandler Carruth), Whitney (Whitney Tsang), bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour)
Reviewed By: asbirlea (Alina Sbirlea)
Subscribers: hiraditya (Aditya Kumar), llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83869
Summary: The following code from
/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollAndJam.cpp can be used by other
transformations:
while (!MergeBlocks.empty()) {
BasicBlock *BB = *MergeBlocks.begin();
BranchInst *Term = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(BB->getTerminator());
if (Term && Term->isUnconditional() &&
L->contains(Term->getSuccessor(0))) {
BasicBlock *Dest = Term->getSuccessor(0);
BasicBlock *Fold = Dest->getUniquePredecessor();
if (MergeBlockIntoPredecessor(Dest, &DTU, LI)) {
// Don't remove BB and add Fold as they are the same BB
assert(Fold == BB);
(void)Fold;
MergeBlocks.erase(Dest);
} else
MergeBlocks.erase(BB);
} else
MergeBlocks.erase(BB);
}
Hence it should be separated into its own utility function.
Authored By: sidbav
Reviewer: Whitney, Meinersbur, asbirlea, dmgreen, etiotto
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80583
An irreducible SCC is one which has multiple "header" blocks, i.e., blocks
with control-flow edges incident from outside the SCC. This pass converts an
irreducible SCC into a natural loop by introducing a single new header
block and redirecting all the edges on the original headers to this
new block.
This is a useful workaround for a limitation in the structurizer
which, which produces incorrect control flow in the presence of
irreducible regions. The AMDGPU backend provides an option to
enable this pass before the structurizer, which may eventually be
enabled by default.
Reviewed By: nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77198
This restores commit 2ada8e2525.
Originally reverted with commit 44e09b59b8.
This reverts commit 2ada8e2525.
Buildbots produced compilation errors which I was not able to quickly
reproduce locally. Need more time to investigate.
An irreducible SCC is one which has multiple "header" blocks, i.e., blocks
with control-flow edges incident from outside the SCC. This pass converts an
irreducible SCC into a natural loop by introducing a single new header
block and redirecting all the edges on the original headers to this
new block.
This is a useful workaround for a limitation in the structurizer
which, which produces incorrect control flow in the presence of
irreducible regions. The AMDGPU backend provides an option to
enable this pass before the structurizer, which may eventually be
enabled by default.
Reviewed By: nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77198
For each natural loop with multiple exit blocks, this pass creates a
new block N such that all exiting blocks now branch to N, and then
control flow is redistributed to all the original exit blocks.
The bulk of the tranformation is a new function introduced in
BasicBlockUtils that an redirect control flow from a set of incoming
blocks to a set of outgoing blocks via a common "hub".
This is a useful workaround for a limitation in the structurizer which
incorrectly orders blocks when processing a nest of loops. This pass
bypasses that issue by ensuring that each natural loop is recognized
as a separate region. Since the structurizer is a region pass, it no
longer sees a nest of loops in a single region, and instead processes
each "level" in the nesting as a separate region.
The AMDGPU backend provides a new option to enable this pass before
the structurizer, which may eventually be enabled by default.
Reviewers: madhur13490, arsenm, nhaehnle
Reviewed By: nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75865
As the test case shows if there is an ExtractValueInst in the Ret block, function dupRetToEnableTailCallOpts can't duplicate it into the block containing call. So later no tail call is generated in CodeGen.
This patch adds the ExtractValueInst handling code in function dupRetToEnableTailCallOpts and FoldReturnIntoUncondBranch, and later tail call can be generated for this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74242
Summary:
In commit d60f34c20a (llvm-svn 317128,
PR35113) MergeBlockIntoPredecessor was changed into
discarding some dbg.value intrinsics referring to
PHI values, post-splice due to loop rotation.
That elimination of dbg.value intrinsics did not
consider which dbg.value to keep depending on the
context (e.g. if the variable is changing its value
several times inside the basic block).
In the past that hasn't been such a big problem since
CodeGenPrepare::placeDbgValues has moved the dbg.value
to be next to the PHI node anyway. But after commit
00e238896c CodeGenPrepare isn't doing that
any longer, so we need to be more careful when avoiding
duplicate dbg.value intrinsics in MergeBlockIntoPredecessor.
This patch replaces the code that tried to avoid duplicate
dbg.values by using the RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs helper.
Reviewers: aprantl, jmorse, vsk
Reviewed By: aprantl, vsk
Subscribers: jholewinski, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71480
Summary:
Add a RemoveRedundantDbgInstrs to BasicBlockUtils with the
goal to remove redundant dbg intrinsics from a basic block.
This can be useful after various transforms, as it might
be simpler to do a filtering of dbg intrinsics after the
transform than during the transform.
One primary use case would be to replace a too aggressive
removal done by MergeBlockIntoPredecessor, seen at loop
rotate (not done in this patch).
The elimination algorithm currently focuses on dbg.value
intrinsics and is doing two iterations over the BB.
First we iterate backward starting at the last instruction
in the BB. Whenever a consecutive sequence of dbg.value
instructions are found we keep the last dbg.value for
each variable found (variable fragments are identified
using the {DILocalVariable, FragmentInfo, inlinedAt}
triple as given by the DebugVariable helper class).
Next we iterate forward starting at the first instruction
in the BB. Whenever we find a dbg.value describing a
DebugVariable (identified by {DILocalVariable, inlinedAt})
we save the {DIValue, DIExpression} that describes that
variables value. But if the variable already was mapped
to the same {DIValue, DIExpression} pair we instead drop
the second dbg.value.
To ease the process of making lit tests for this utility a
new pass is introduced called RedundantDbgInstElimination.
It can be executed by opt using -redundant-dbg-inst-elim.
Reviewers: aprantl, jmorse, vsk
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71478
Summary:
There are two cases where a block is merged into its predecessor and the
MergeBlockIntoPredecessor API is not used. Update the API so it can be
reused in the other cases, in order to avoid code duplication.
Cleanup motivated by D68659.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy.google, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68670
llvm-svn: 375050
Summary:
The rule for the moveAllAfterMergeBlocks API si for all instructions
from `From` to have been moved to `To`, while keeping the CFG edges (and
block terminators) unchanged.
Update all the callsites for moveAllAfterMergeBlocks to follow this.
Pending follow-up: since the same behavior is needed everytime, merge
all callsites into one. The common denominator may be the call to
`MergeBlockIntoPredecessor`.
Resolves PR43569.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68659
llvm-svn: 374177
Reverts the change in r371084, but keeps the test.
After r371565, debuginfo cannot be modelled in MemorySSA, even with a
non-standard AA pipeline.
llvm-svn: 371573
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
> llvm-svn: 363046
llvm-svn: 363786
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 363046
Summary:
The cleanup in D62751 introduced a compile-time regression due to the way DT updates are performed.
Add all insert edges then all delete edges in DTU to match the previous compile time.
Compile time on the test provided by @mstorsjo before and after this patch on my machine:
113.046s vs 35.649s
Repro: clang -target x86_64-w64-mingw32 -c -O3 glew-preproc.c; on https://martin.st/temp/glew-preproc.c.
Reviewers: kuhar, NutshellySima, mstorsjo
Subscribers: jlebar, mstorsjo, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62981
llvm-svn: 362839
Summary:
Following the cleanup in D48202, method foldBlockIntoPredecessor has the
same behavior. Replace its uses with MergeBlockIntoPredecessor.
Remove foldBlockIntoPredecessor.
Reviewers: chandlerc, dmgreen
Subscribers: jlebar, javed.absar, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62751
llvm-svn: 362538
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 360162
Summary:
Extract the functionality of eliminating unreachable basic blocks
within a function, previously encapsulated within the
-unreachableblockelim pass, and make it available as a function within
BlockUtils.h. No functional change intended other than making the logic
reusable.
Exposing this logic makes it easier to implement
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59068, which fixes coroutines bug
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40979.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, wmi, davidxl, silvas, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59069
llvm-svn: 355846
Summary:
It is mentioned in the document of DTU that "It is illegal to submit any update that has already been submitted, i.e., you are supposed not to insert an existent edge or delete a nonexistent edge." It is dangerous to violet this rule because DomTree and PostDomTree occasionally crash on this scenario.
This patch fixes `MergeBlockIntoPredecessor`, making it conformant to this precondition.
Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, chandlerc
Reviewed By: brzycki
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58444
llvm-svn: 355105
Summary:
This patch separates two semantics of `applyUpdates`:
1. User provides an accurate CFG diff and the dominator tree is updated according to the difference of `the number of edge insertions` and `the number of edge deletions` to infer the status of an edge before and after the update.
2. User provides a sequence of hints. Updates mentioned in this sequence might never happened and even duplicated.
Logic changes:
Previously, removing invalid updates is considered a side-effect of deduplication and is not guaranteed to be reliable. To handle the second semantic, `applyUpdates` does validity checking before deduplication, which can cause updates that have already been applied to be submitted again. Then, different calls to `applyUpdates` might cause unintended consequences, for example,
```
DTU(Lazy) and Edge A->B exists.
1. DTU.applyUpdates({{Delete, A, B}, {Insert, A, B}}) // User expects these 2 updates result in a no-op, but {Insert, A, B} is queued
2. Remove A->B
3. DTU.applyUpdates({{Delete, A, B}}) // DTU cancels this update with {Insert, A, B} mentioned above together (Unintended)
```
But by restricting the precondition that updates of an edge need to be strictly ordered as how CFG changes were made, we can infer the initial status of this edge to resolve this issue.
Interface changes:
The second semantic of `applyUpdates` is separated to `applyUpdatesPermissive`.
These changes enable DTU(Lazy) to use the first semantic if needed, which is quite useful in `transforms/utils`.
Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser
Reviewed By: brzycki
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170
llvm-svn: 354669
Roman Lebedev