It was always zero. When we move a store from `initial` to its
own congruency class, we end up with a negative store count, which
is obviously wrong.
Also, while here, change StoreCount to be signed so that the assertions
actually fire.
Ack'ed by Daniel Berlin.
llvm-svn: 291725
classes, and updating checking to allow for equivalence through
reachability.
(Sadly, the checking here is not perfect, and can't be made perfect,
so we'll have to disable it after we are satisfied with correctness.
Right now it is just "very unlikely" to happen.)
llvm-svn: 291698
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
These are interesting again because the user may not be aware that this
is a common reason preventing LICM.
A const is removed from an instruction pointer declaration in order to
pass it to ORE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27940
llvm-svn: 291649
In some cases StructurizeCfg updates root node, but dominator info
remains unchanges, it causes crash when expensive checks are enabled.
To cope with this problem a new method was added to DominatorTreeBase
that allows adding new root nodes, it is called in StructurizeCfg to
put dominator tree in sync.
This change fixes PR27488.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28114
llvm-svn: 291530
Summary: LLVM's non-standard notion of phi nodes means we can't both try to substitute for undef in phi nodes *and* use phi nodes as leaders all the time. This changes NewGVN to use the same semantics as SimplifyPHINode to decide which phi nodes are equivalent.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28312
llvm-svn: 291308
This is fixing a bug where Loop Vectorization is widening a load but
with a lower alignment. Hoisting the load without propagating the alignment
will allow inst-combine to later deduce a higher alignment that what the pointer
actually is.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28408
llvm-svn: 291281
order to avoid jumpy line tables. Calls are left alone because they may be inlined.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28390
llvm-svn: 291258
Promotion is always legal when a store within the loop is guaranteed to execute.
However, this is not a necessary condition - for promotion to be memory model
semantics-preserving, it is enough to have a store that dominates every exit
block. This is because if the store dominates every exit block, the fact the
exit block was executed implies the original store was executed as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28147
llvm-svn: 291171
Summary:
Preheader instruction's operands will always be invariant w.r.t. the loop which its the preheader
for.
Memory aliases are handled in canSinkOrHoistInst.
Reviewers: danielcdh, davidxl
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28270
llvm-svn: 291132
performing partial redundancy elimination (PRE). Not doing so can cause jumpy line
tables and confusing (though correct) source attributions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27857
llvm-svn: 291037
Apparently my suggestion of using ternary doesn't really work
as clang complains about incompatible types on LHS and RHS. Some
GCC versions happen to accept the code but clang behaviour is
correct here.
llvm-svn: 290822
Summary:
This avoids the very fragile code for null expressions. We could also use a denseset that tracks which things have null expressions instead, but that seems pretty fragile and premature optimization.
This resolves a number of infinite loop cases, test reductions coming.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28193
llvm-svn: 290816
Summary: Previously, we tried to fix up the equivalences during symbolic evaluation. This does not work. Now, we change the equivalences during congruence finding, where it belongs. We also initialize the equivalence table to give a maximal answer.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28192
llvm-svn: 290815
CVP doesn't care about the order of blocks visited, but by using a pre-order traversal over the graph we can a) not visit unreachable blocks and b) optimize as we go so that analysis of later blocks produce slightly more precise results.
I noticed this via inspection and don't have a concrete example which points to the issue.
llvm-svn: 290760
This is similar to the allocfn case - if an alloca is not captured, then it's
necessarily thread-local.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28170
llvm-svn: 290738
Summary:
The current loop complete unroll algorithm checks if unrolling complete will reduce the runtime by a certain percentage. If yes, it will apply a fixed boosting factor to the threshold (by discounting cost). The problem for this approach is that the threshold abruptly. This patch makes the boosting factor a function of runtime reduction percentage, capped by a fixed threshold. In this way, the threshold changes continuously.
The patch also simplified the code by reducing one parameter in UP.
The patch only affects code-gen of two speccpu2006 benchmark:
445.gobmk binary size decreases 0.08%, no performance change.
464.h264ref binary size increases 0.24%, no performance change.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26989
llvm-svn: 290737
"Changed" doesn't actually change within the loop, so there's
no reason to keep track of it - we always return false during
analysis and true after the transformation is made.
llvm-svn: 290735
This moves the exit block and insertion point computation to be eager,
instead of after seeing the first scalar we can promote.
The cost is relatively small (the computation happens anyway, see discussion
on D28147), and the code is easier to follow, and can bail out earlier
if there's a catchswitch present.
llvm-svn: 290729
We would check whether we have a prehader *or* dedicated exit blocks,
and go into the promotion loop. Then, for each alias set we'd check
if we have a preheader *and* dedicated exit blocks, and bail if not.
Instead, bail immediately if we don't have both.
llvm-svn: 290728
We want to recompute LCSSA only when we actually promoted a value.
This means we only need to look at changes made by promotion when
deciding whether to recompute it or not, not at regular sinking/hoisting.
(This was what the code was documented as doing, just not what it did)
Hopefully NFC.
llvm-svn: 290726
Summary:
The optimal iteration order for this problem is RPO order. We want to
process as many preds of a backedge as we can before we process the
backedge.
At the same time, as we add predicate handling, we want to be able to
touch instructions that are dominated by a given block by
ranges (because a change in value numbering a predicate possibly
affects all users we dominate that are using that predicate).
If we don't do it this way, we can't do value inference over
backedges (the paper covers this in depth).
The newgvn branch currently overshoots the last part, and guarantees
that it will touch *at least* the right set of instructions, but it
does touch more. This is because the bitvector instruction ranges are
currently generated in RPO order (so we take the max and the min of
the ranges of dominated blocks, which means there are some in the
middle we didn't have to touch that we did).
We can do better by sorting the dominator tree, and then just using
dominator tree order.
As a preliminary, the dominator tree has some RPO guarantees, but not
enough. It guarantees that for a given node, your idom must come
before you in the RPO ordering. It guarantees no relative RPO ordering
for siblings. We add siblings in whatever order they appear in the module.
So that is what we fix.
We sort the children array of the domtree into RPO order, and then use
the dominator tree for ordering, instead of RPO, since the dominator
tree is now a valid RPO ordering.
Note: This would help any other pass that iterates a forward problem
in dominator tree order. Most of them are single pass. It will still
maximize whatever result they compute. We could also build the
dominator tree in this order, but our incremental updates would still
put it out of sort order, and recomputing the sort order is almost as
hard as general incremental updates of the domtree.
Also note that the sorting does not affect any tests, etc. Nothing
depends on domtree order, including the verifier, the equals
functions for domtree nodes, etc.
How much could this matter, you ask?
Here are the current numbers.
This is generated by running NewGVN over all files in LLVM.
Note that once we propagate equalities, the differences go up by an
order of magnitude or two (IE instead of 29, the max ends up in the
thousands, since the worst case we add a factor of N, where N is the
number of branch predicates). So while it doesn't look that stark for
the default ordering, it gets *much much* worse. There are also
programs in the wild where the difference is already pretty stark
(2 iterations vs hundreds).
RPO ordering:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
Default dominator tree ordering:
755081 Number of iterations is 1
116234 Number of iterations is 2
603 Number of iterations is 3
27 Number of iterations is 4
2 Number of iterations is 5
1 Number of iterations is 7
Dominator tree sorted:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
<yay!>
Really bad ordering (sort domtree siblings in postorder. not quite the
worst possible, but yeah):
754008 Number of iterations is 1
21 Number of iterations is 10
8 Number of iterations is 11
6 Number of iterations is 12
5 Number of iterations is 13
2 Number of iterations is 14
2 Number of iterations is 15
3 Number of iterations is 16
1 Number of iterations is 17
2 Number of iterations is 18
96642 Number of iterations is 2
1 Number of iterations is 20
2 Number of iterations is 21
1 Number of iterations is 22
1 Number of iterations is 29
17266 Number of iterations is 3
2598 Number of iterations is 4
798 Number of iterations is 5
273 Number of iterations is 6
186 Number of iterations is 7
80 Number of iterations is 8
42 Number of iterations is 9
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28129
llvm-svn: 290699
Davide Italiano