Summary:
This patch is the second in a series of patches related to the [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123883.html | RFC - A new dominator tree updater for LLVM ]].
It converts passes (e.g. adce/jump-threading) and various functions which currently accept DDT in local.cpp and BasicBlockUtils.cpp to use the new DomTreeUpdater class.
These converted functions in utils can accept DomTreeUpdater with either UpdateStrategy and can deal with both DT and PDT held by the DomTreeUpdater.
Reviewers: brzycki, kuhar, dmgreen, grosser, davide
Reviewed By: brzycki
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48967
llvm-svn: 338814
This one requires a bit of explaination. It's not every day you simply delete code to implement an optimization. :)
The transform in question is sinking an instruction from a loop to the uses in loop exiting blocks. We know (from LCSSA) that all of the uses outside the loop must be phi nodes, and after predecessor splitting, we know all phi users must have a single operand. Since the use must be strictly dominated by the def, we know from the definition of dominance/ssa that the exit block must execute along a (non-strict) subset of paths which reach the def. As a result, duplicating a potentially faulting instruction can not *introduce* a fault that didn't previously exist in the program.
The full story is that this patch builds on "rL338671: [LICM] Factor out fault legality from canHoistOrSinkInst [NFC]" which pulled this logic out of a common helper routine. As best I can tell, this check was originally added to the helper function for hoisting legality, later an incorrect fastpath for loads/calls was added, and then the bug was fixed by duplicating the fault safety check in the hoist path. This left the redundant check in the common code to pessimize sinking for no reason. I split it out in an NFC, and am not removing the unneccessary check. I wanted there to be something easy to revert in case I missed something.
Reviewed by: Anna Thomas (in person)
llvm-svn: 338794
This method has three callers, each of which wanted distinct handling:
1) Sinking into a loop is moving an instruction known to execute before a loop into the loop. We don't need to worry about introducing a fault at all in this case.
2) Hoisting from a loop into a preheader already duplicated the check in the caller.
3) Sinking from the loop into an exit block was the only true user of the code within the routine. For the moment, this has just been lifted into the caller, but up next is examining the logic more carefully. Whitelisting of loads and calls - while consistent with the previous code - is rather suspicious. Either way, a behavior change is worthy of it's own patch.
llvm-svn: 338671
Originally, this was part of a larger refactoring I'd planned, but had to abandoned. I figured the minor improvement in readability was worthwhile.
llvm-svn: 338663
(Previously reverted in r338442)
I'm told that the breakage came from us using an x86 triple on configs
that didn't have x86 enabled. This is remedied by moving the
debugcounter test to an x86 directory (where there's also a
opt-bisect-isel.ll test for similar reasons).
I can't repro the reverse-iteration failure mentioned in the revert with
this patch, so I assume that a misconfiguration on my end is what caused
that.
Original commit message:
Add DebugCounters to DivRemPairs
For people who don't use DebugCounters, NFCI.
Patch by Zhizhou Yang!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50033
llvm-svn: 338653
Summary:
Fixing 2 issues with the DT update in trivial branch switching, though I don't have a case where DT update fails.
1. After splitting ParentBB->UnswitchedBB edge, new edges become: ParentBB->LoopExitBB->UnswitchedBB, so remove ParentBB->LoopExitBB edge.
2. AFAIU, for multiple CFG changes, DT should be updated using batch updates, vs consecutive addEdge and removeEdge calls.
Reviewers: chandlerc, kuhar
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49925
llvm-svn: 338180
r337828 resolves a PredicateInfo issue with unnamed types.
Original message:
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
llvm-svn: 337904
This patch makes debug counters keep track of the total number of times
we've called `shouldExecute` for each counter, so it's easier to build
automated tooling on top of these.
A patch to print these counts is coming soon.
Patch by Zhizhou Yang!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49560
llvm-svn: 337748
In ConstructSSAForLoadSet if an available value is actually the load that we're
doing SSA construction to eliminate, then we can omit it as SSAUpdate will add
in the value for the phi that will be replacing it anyway. This can result in
simpler IR which can allow further optimisation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44160
llvm-svn: 337686
Bug fix for PR36787. When reasoning if it's safe to hoist a load we
want to make sure that the defining memory access dominates the new
insertion point of the hoisted instruction. safeToHoistLdSt calls
firstInBB(InsertionPoint,DefiningAccess) which returns false if
InsertionPoint == DefiningAccess, and therefore it falsely thinks
it's safe to hoist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49555
llvm-svn: 337674
This version contains a fix to add values for which the state in ParamState change
to the worklist if the state in ValueState did not change. To avoid adding the
same value multiple times, mergeInValue returns true, if it added the value to
the worklist. The value is added to the worklist depending on its state in
ValueState.
Original message:
For comparisons with parameters, we can use the ParamState lattice
elements which also provide constant range information. This improves
the code for PR33253 further and gets us closer to use
ValueLatticeElement for all values.
Also, as we are using the range information in the solver directly, we
do not need tryToReplaceWithConstantRange afterwards anymore.
Reviewers: dberlin, mssimpso, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: mssimpso
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43762
llvm-svn: 337548
It's more aggressive than we need to be, and leads to strange
workarounds in other places like call return value inference. Instead,
just directly mark an edge viable.
Tests by Florian Hahn.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49408
llvm-svn: 337507
Once we resolved an undef in a function we can run Solve, which could
lead to finding a constant return value for the function, which in turn
could turn undefs into constants in other functions that call it, before
resolving undefs there.
Computationally the amount of work we are doing stays the same, just the
order we process things is slightly different and potentially there are
a few less undefs to resolve.
We are still relying on the order of functions in the IR, which means
depending on the order, we are able to resolve the optimal undef first
or not. For example, if @test1 comes before @testf, we find the constant
return value of @testf too late and we cannot use it while solving
@test1.
This on its own does not lead to more constants removed in the
test-suite, probably because currently we have to be very lucky to visit
applicable functions in the right order.
Maybe we manage to come up with a better way of resolving undefs in more
'profitable' functions first.
Reviewers: efriedma, mssimpso, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma, davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49385
llvm-svn: 337283
Summary:
By looking at the callers of getUse(), we can see that even though
IVUsers may offer uses, but they may not be interesting to
LSR. It's possible that none of them is interesting.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: jlebar, hiraditya, bixia, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49049
llvm-svn: 337072
This commit suppresses turning loops like this into "(bitwidth - ctlz(input))".
unsigned foo(unsigned input) {
unsigned num = 0;
do {
++num;
input >>= 1;
} while (input != 0);
return num;
}
The loop version returns a value of 1 for both an input of 0 and an input of 1. Converting to a naive ctlz does not preserve that.
Theoretically we could do better if we checked isKnownNonZero or we could insert a select to handle the divergence. But until we have motivating cases for that, this is the easiest solution.
llvm-svn: 336864
switch unswitching.
The core problem was that the way we handled unswitching trivial exit
edges through the default successor of a switch. For some reason
I thought the right way to do this was to add a block containing
unreachable and point the default successor at this block. In
retrospect, this has an amazing number of problems.
The first issue is the one that this pass has always worked around -- we
have to *detect* such edges and avoid unswitching them again. This
seemed pretty easy really. You juts look for an edge to a block
containing unreachable. However, this pattern is woefully unsound. So
many things can break it. The amazing thing is that I found a test case
where *simple-loop-unswitch itself* breaks this! When we do
a *non-trivial* unswitch of a switch we will end up splitting this exit
edge. The result will be a default successor that is an exit and
terminates in ... a perfectly normal branch. So the first test case that
I started trying to fix is added to the nontrivial test cases. This is
a ridiculous example that did just amazing things previously. With just
unswitch, it would create 10+ copies of this stuff stamped out. But if
you combine it *just right* with a bunch of other passes (like
simplify-cfg, loop rotate, and some LICM) you can get it to do this
infinitely. Or at least, I never got it to finish. =[
This, in turn, uncovered another related issue. When we are manipulating
these switches after doing a trivial unswitch we never correctly updated
PHI nodes to reflect our edits. As soon as I started changing how these
edges were managed, it became obvious there were more issues that
I couldn't realistically leave unaddressed, so I wrote more test cases
around PHI updates here and ensured all of that works now.
And this, in turn, required some adjustment to how we collect and manage
the exit successor when it is the default successor. That showed a clear
bug where we failed to include it in our search for the outer-most loop
reached by an unswitched exit edge. This was actually already tested and
the test case didn't work. I (wrongly) thought that was due to SCEV
failing to analyze the switch. In fact, it was just a simple bug in the
code that skipped the default successor. While changing this, I handled
it correctly and have updated the test to reflect that we now get
precise SCEV analysis of trip counts for the outer loop in one of these
cases.
llvm-svn: 336646
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
r335553 with the non-trivial unswitching of switches.
The code correctly updated most aspects of the CFG and analyses, but
missed some crucial aspects:
1) When multiple cases have the same successor, we unswitch that
a single time and replace the switch with a direct branch. The CFG
here is correct, but the target of this direct branch may have had
a PHI node with multiple entries in it.
2) When we still have to clone a successor of the switch into an
unswitched copy of the loop, we'll delete potentially multiple edges
entering this successor, not just one.
3) We also have to delete multiple edges entering the successors in the
original loop when they have to be retained.
4) When the "retained successor" *also* occurs as a case successor, we
just assert failed everywhere. This doesn't happen very easily
because its always valid to simply drop the case -- the retained
successor for switches is always the default successor. However, it
is likely possible through some contrivance of different loop passes,
unrolling, and simplifying for this to occur in practice and
certainly there is nothing "invalid" about the IR so this pass needs
to handle it.
5) In the case of #4, we also will replace these multiple edges with
a direct branch much like in #1 and need to collapse the entries in
any PHI nodes to a single enrty.
All of this stems from the delightful fact that the same successor can
show up in multiple parts of the switch terminator, and each of these
are considered a distinct edge for the purpose of PHI nodes (and
iterating the successors and predecessors) but not for unswitching
itself, the dominator tree, or many other things. For the record,
I intensely dislike this "feature" of the IR in large part because of
the complexity it causes in passes like this. We already have a ton of
logic building sets and handling duplicates, and we just had to add
a bunch more.
I've added a complex test case that covers all five of the above failure
modes. I've also added a variation on it where #4 and #5 occur in loop
exit, adding fun where we have an LCSSA PHI node with "multiple entries"
despite have dedicated exits. There were no additional issues found by
this, but it seems a useful corner case to cover with testing.
One thing that working on all of this code has made painfully clear for
me as well is how amazingly inefficient our PHI node representation is
(in terms of the in-memory data structures and the APIs used to update
them). This code has truly marvelous complexity bounds because every
time we remove an entry from a PHI node we do a linear scan to find it
and then a linear update to the data structure to remove it. We could in
theory batch all of the PHI node updates into a single linear walk of
the operands making this much more efficient, but the APIs fight hard
against this and the fact that we have to handle duplicates in the
peculiar manner we do (removing all but one in some cases) makes even
implementing that very tedious and annoying. Anyways, none of this is
new here or specific to loop unswitching. All code in LLVM that updates
PHI node operands suffers from these problems.
llvm-svn: 336536
In the 'detectCTLZIdiom' function support for loops that use LSHR instruction instead of ASHR has been added.
This supports creating ctlz from the following code.
int lzcnt(int x) {
int count = 0;
while (x > 0) {
count++;
x = x >> 1;
}
return count;
}
Patch by Olga Moldovanova
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48354
llvm-svn: 336509
after trivial unswitching.
This PR illustrates that a fundamental analysis update was not performed
with the new loop unswitch. This update is also somewhat fundamental to
the core idea of the new loop unswitch -- we actually *update* the CFG
based on the unswitching. In order to do that, we need to update the
loop nest in addition to the domtree.
For some reason, when writing trivial unswitching, I thought that the
loop nest structure cannot be changed by the transformation. But the PR
helps illustrate that it clearly can. I've expanded this to a number of
different test cases that try to cover the different cases of this. When
we unswitch, we move an exit edge of a loop out of the loop. If this
exit edge changes which loop reached by an exit is the innermost loop,
it changes the parent of the loop. Essentially, this transformation may
hoist the inner loop up the nest. I've added the simple logic to handle
this reliably in the trivial unswitching case. This just requires
updating LoopInfo and rebuilding LCSSA on the impacted loops. In the
trivial case, we don't even need to handle dedicated exits because we're
only hoisting the one loop and we just split its preheader.
I've also ported all of these tests to non-trivial unswitching and
verified that the logic already there correctly handles the loop nest
updates necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48851
llvm-svn: 336477
LoopBlockNumber is a DenseMap<BasicBlock*, int>, comparing the result of
find() will compare a pair<BasicBlock*, int>. That's of course depending
on pointer ordering which varies from run to run. Reverse iteration
doesn't find this because we're copying to a vector first.
This bug has been there since 2016 but only recently showed up on clang
selfhost with FDO and ThinLTO, which is also why I didn't manage to get
a reasonable test case for this. Add an assert that would've caught
this.
llvm-svn: 336439
unswitching loops.
Original patch trying to address this was sent in D47624, but that
didn't quite handle things correctly. There are two key principles used
to select whether and how to invalidate SCEV-cached information about
loops:
1) We must invalidate any info SCEV has cached before unswitching as we
may change (or destroy) the loop structure by the act of unswitching,
and make it hard to recover everything we want to invalidate within
SCEV.
2) We need to invalidate all of the loops whose CFGs are mutated by the
unswitching. Notably, this isn't the *entire* loop nest, this is
every loop contained by the outermost loop reached by an exit block
relevant to the unswitch.
And we need to do this even when doing trivial unswitching.
I've added more focused tests that directly check that SCEV starts off
with imprecise information and after unswitching (and simplifying
instructions) re-querying SCEV will produce precise information. These
tests also specifically work to check that an *outer* loop's information
becomes precise.
However, the testing here is still a bit imperfect. Crafting test cases
that reliably fail to be analyzed by SCEV before unswitching and succeed
afterward proved ... very, very hard. It took me several hours and
careful work to build these, and I'm not optimistic about necessarily
coming up with more to cover more elaborate possibilities. Fortunately,
the code pattern we are testing here in the pass is really
straightforward and reliable.
Thanks to Max Kazantsev for the initial work on this as well as the
review, and to Hal Finkel for helping me talk through approaches to test
this stuff even if it didn't come to much.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47624
llvm-svn: 336183
This version contains a fix to add values for which the state in ParamState change
to the worklist if the state in ValueState did not change. To avoid adding the
same value multiple times, mergeInValue returns true, if it added the value to
the worklist. The value is added to the worklist depending on its state in
ValueState.
Original message:
For comparisons with parameters, we can use the ParamState lattice
elements which also provide constant range information. This improves
the code for PR33253 further and gets us closer to use
ValueLatticeElement for all values.
Also, as we are using the range information in the solver directly, we
do not need tryToReplaceWithConstantRange afterwards anymore.
Reviewers: dberlin, mssimpso, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: mssimpso
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43762
llvm-svn: 336098
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
and diretory.
Also cleans up all the associated naming to be consistent and removes
the public access to the pass ID which was unused in LLVM.
Also runs clang-format over parts that changed, which generally cleans
up a bunch of formatting.
This is in preparation for doing some internal cleanups to the pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47352
llvm-svn: 336028
Extends the CFGPrinter and CallPrinter with heat colors based on heuristics or
profiling information. The colors are enabled by default and can be toggled
on/off for CFGPrinter by using the option -cfg-heat-colors for both
-dot-cfg[-only] and -view-cfg[-only]. Similarly, the colors can be toggled
on/off for CallPrinter by using the option -callgraph-heat-colors for both
-dot-callgraph and -view-callgraph.
Patch by Rodrigo Caetano Rocha!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40425
llvm-svn: 335996
When rewriting an alloca partition copy the DL from the
old alloca over the the new one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48640
llvm-svn: 335904
SCCP does not change the CFG, so we can mark it as preserved.
Reviewers: dberlin, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47149
llvm-svn: 335820
Summary:
When recording uses we need to rewrite after cloning a loop we need to
check if the use is not dominated by the original def. The initial
assumption was that the cloned basic block will introduce a new path and
thus the original def will only dominate the use if they are in the same
BB, but as the reproducer from PR37745 shows it's not always the case.
This fixes PR37745.
Reviewers: haicheng, Ka-Ka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48111
llvm-svn: 335675
I'm not sure why the code here is skipping calls since
TTI does try to do something for general calls, but it
at least should allow intrinsics.
Skip intrinsics that should not be omitted as calls, which
is by far the most common case on AMDGPU.
llvm-svn: 335645
changeToUnreachable may remove PHI nodes from executable blocks we found values
for and we would fail to replace them. By changing dead blocks to unreachable after
we replaced constants in all executable blocks, we ensure such PHI nodes are replaced
by their known value before.
Fixes PR37780.
Reviewers: efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48421
llvm-svn: 335588
unswitching of switches.
This works much like trivial unswitching of switches in that it reliably
moves the switch out of the loop. Here we potentially clone the entire
loop into each successor of the switch and re-point the cases at these
clones.
Due to the complexity of actually doing nontrivial unswitching, this
patch doesn't create a dedicated routine for handling switches -- it
would duplicate far too much code. Instead, it generalizes the existing
routine to handle both branches and switches as it largely reduces to
looping in a few places instead of doing something once. This actually
improves the results in some cases with branches due to being much more
careful about how dead regions of code are managed. With branches,
because exactly one clone is created and there are exactly two edges
considered, somewhat sloppy handling of the dead regions of code was
sufficient in most cases. But with switches, there are much more
complicated patterns of dead code and so I've had to move to a more
robust model generally. We still do as much pruning of the dead code
early as possible because that allows us to avoid even cloning the code.
This also surfaced another problem with nontrivial unswitching before
which is that we weren't as precise in reconstructing loops as we could
have been. This seems to have been mostly harmless, but resulted in
pointless LCSSA PHI nodes and other unnecessary cruft. With switches, we
have to get this *right*, and everything benefits from it.
While the testing may seem a bit light here because we only have two
real cases with actual switches, they do a surprisingly good job of
exercising numerous edge cases. Also, because we share the logic with
branches, most of the changes in this patch are reasonably well covered
by existing tests.
The new unswitch now has all of the same fundamental power as the old
one with the exception of the single unsound case of *partial* switch
unswitching -- that really is just loop specialization and not
unswitching at all. It doesn't fit into the canonicalization model in
any way. We can add a loop specialization pass that runs late based on
profile data if important test cases ever come up here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47683
llvm-svn: 335553
FDiv is replaced with multiplication by reciprocal and invariant
reciprocal is hoisted out of the loop, while multiplication remains
even if invariant.
Switch checks for all invariant operands and only invariant
denominator to fix the issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48447
llvm-svn: 335411
This gets rid of a bunch of weird special cases; instead, just use SCEV
rewriting for everything. In addition to being simpler, this fixes a
bug where we would use the wrong stride in certain edge cases.
The one bit I'm not quite sure about is the trip count handling,
specifically the FIXME about overflow. In general, I think we need to
widen the exit condition, but that's probably not profitable if the new
type isn't legal, so we probably need a check somewhere. That said, I
don't think I'm making the existing problem any worse.
As a followup to this, a bunch of IV-related code in root-finding could
be cleaned up; with SCEV-based rewriting, there isn't any reason to
assume a loop will have exactly one or two PHI nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45191
llvm-svn: 335400
Summary:
In LoopUnswitch when replacing a branch Parent -> Succ with a conditional
branch Parent -> True & Parent->False, the DomTree updates should insert an edge for
each of True/False if True/False are different than Succ, and delete Parent->Succ edge
if both are different. The comparison with Succ appears to be incorect,
it's comparing with Parent instead.
There is no test failing either before or after this change, but it seems to me this is
the right way to do the update.
Reviewers: chandlerc, kuhar
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48457
llvm-svn: 335369
This reverts commit r335206.
As discussed here: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL333740, a fix will come
tomorrow. In the meanwhile, revert this to fix some bots.
llvm-svn: 335272
r335150 should resolve the issues with the clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu
and clang-with-lto-ubuntu builders.
Original message:
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
llvm-svn: 335206
conditions feeding a chain of `and`s or `or`s for a branch.
Much like with full non-trivial unswitching, we rely on the pass manager
to handle iterating until all of the profitable unswitches have been
done. This is to allow other more profitable unswitches to fire on any
of the cloned, simpler versions of the loop if viable.
Threading the partial unswiching through the non-trivial unswitching
logic motivated some minor refactorings. If those are too disruptive to
make it reasonable to review this patch, I can separate them out, but
it'll be somewhat timeconsuming so I wanted to send it for initial
review as-is. Feel free to tell me whether it warrants pulling apart.
I've tried to re-use (and factor out) logic form the partial trivial
unswitching, but not as much could be shared as I had haped. Still, this
wasn't as bad as I naively expected.
Some basic testing is added, but I probably need more. Suggestions for
things you'd like to see tested more than welcome. One thing I'd like to
do is add some testing that when we schedule this with loop-instsimplify
it effectively cleans up the cruft created.
Last but not least, this uncovered a bug that has been in loop cloning
the entire time for non-trivial unswitching. Specifically, we didn't
correctly add the outer-most cloned loop to the list of cloned loops.
This meant that LCSSA wouldn't be updated for it hypothetically, and
more significantly that we would never visit it in the loop pass
manager. I noticed this while checking loop-instsimplify by hand. I'll
try to separate this bugfix out into its own patch with a more focused
test. But it is just one line, so shouldn't significantly confuse the
review here.
After this patch, the only missing "feature" in this unswitch I'm aware
of us non-trivial unswitching of switches. I'll try implementing *full*
non-trivial unswitching of switches (which is at least a sound thing to
implement), but *partial* non-trivial unswitching of switches is
something I don't see any sound and principled way to implement. I also
have no interesting test cases for the latter, so I'm not really
worried. The rest of the things that need to be ported are bug-fixes and
more narrow / targeted support for specific issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47522
llvm-svn: 335203
Summary:
Two utils methods have essentially the same functionality. This is an attempt to merge them into one.
1. lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp : MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
2. lib/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.cpp : MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Prior to the patch:
1. MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred
Updates either DomTree or DeferredDominance
Moves all instructions from Pred to BB, deletes Pred
Asserts BB has single predecessor
If address was taken, replace the block address with constant 1 (?)
2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor
Updates DomTree, LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
After the patch:
Method 2. MergeBlockIntoPredecessor is attempting to become the new default:
Updates DomTree or DeferredDominance, and LoopInfo and MemoryDependenceResults
Moves all instruction from BB to Pred, deletes BB
Returns if doesn't have a single predecessor
Returns if BB's address was taken
Uses of MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred that need to be replaced:
1. lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopSimplifyCFG.cpp
Updated in this patch. No challenges.
2. lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPrepare.cpp
Updated in this patch.
i. eliminateFallThrough is straightforward, but I added using a temporary array to avoid the iterator invalidation.
ii. eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(s) methods also now use a temporary array for blocks
Some interesting aspects:
- Since Pred is not deleted (BB is), the entry block does not need updating.
- The entry block was being updated with the deleted block in eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock. Added assert to make obvious that BB=SinglePred.
- isMergingEmptyBlockProfitable assumes BB is the one to be deleted.
- eliminateMostlyEmptyBlock(BB) does not delete BB on one path, it deletes its unique predecessor instead.
- adding some test owner as subscribers for the interesting tests modified:
test/CodeGen/X86/avx-cmp.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/nested-loop-conditions.ll
test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/si-annotate-cf.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/hoist-spill.ll
test/CodeGen/X86/2006-11-17-IllegalMove.ll
3. lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp
Not covered in this patch. It is the only use case using the DeferredDominance.
I would defer to Brian Rzycki to make this replacement.
Reviewers: chandlerc, spatel, davide, brzycki, bkramer, javed.absar
Subscribers: qcolombet, sanjoy, nemanjai, nhaehnle, jlebar, tpr, kbarton, RKSimon, wmi, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48202
llvm-svn: 335183
The idea of partial unswitching is to take a *part* of a branch's
condition that is loop invariant and just unswitching that part. This
primarily makes sense with i1 conditions of branches as opposed to
switches. When dealing with i1 conditions, we can easily extract loop
invariant inputs to a a branch and unswitch them to test them entirely
outside the loop.
As part of this, we now create much more significant cruft in the loop
body, so this relies on adding cleanup passes to the loop pipeline and
revisiting unswitched loops to do that cleanup before continuing to
process them.
This already appears to be more powerful at unswitching than the old
loop unswitch pass, and so I'd appreciate pretty careful review in case
I'm just missing some correctness checks. The `LIV-loop-condition` test
case is not unswitched by the old unswitch pass, but is with this pass.
Thanks to Sanjoy and Fedor for the review!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46706
llvm-svn: 335156
LoopSimplifyCFG, being a loop pass, needs to preserve scalar
evolution. This invalidates SE for the loops altered during
block merging.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48258
llvm-svn: 335036
This patch moves the logic to handle reduction PHI nodes to the end of
adjustLoopBranches. Reduction PHI nodes in the outer loop header can be
moved to the inner loop header and reduction PHI nodes from the inner loop
header can be moved to the outer loop header. In the latter situation,
we have to deal with 1 kind of PHI nodes:
PHI nodes that are part of inner loop-only reductions.
We can replace the PHI node with the value coming from outside
the inner loop.
Reviewers: mcrosier, efriedma, karthikthecool
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46198
llvm-svn: 335027
Summary:
We only modify CFG in a couple of places, and we can preserve DT there
with a little effort.
Reviewers: davide, vsk
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48059
llvm-svn: 334895
This patches teaches EarlyCSE to figure out that if `and i1 %x, %y` is true then both
`%x` and `%y` are true in the taken branch, and if `or i1 %x, %y` is false then both
`%x` and `%y` are false in non-taken branch. Fix for PR37635.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47574
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 334707
Currently SmallSet<PointerTy> inherits from SmallPtrSet<PointerTy>. This
patch replaces such types with SmallPtrSet, because IMO it is slightly
clearer and allows us to get rid of unnecessarily including SmallSet.h
Reviewers: dblaikie, craig.topper
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47836
llvm-svn: 334492
SmallSet forwards to SmallPtrSet for pointer types. SmallPtrSet supports iteration, but a normal SmallSet doesn't. So if it wasn't for the forwarding, this wouldn't work.
These places were found by hiding the begin/end methods in the SmallSet forwarding
llvm-svn: 334343
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
Summary:
I noticed this issue because we didn't put the primary cloned loop into
the `NonChildClonedLoops` vector and so never iterated on it. Once
I fixed that, it made it clear why I had to do a really complicated and
unnecesasry dance when updating the loops to remain in canonical form --
I was unwittingly working around the fact that the primary cloned loop
wasn't in the expected list of cloned loops. Doh!
Now that we include it in this vector, we don't need to return it and we
can consolidate the update logic as we correctly have a single place
where it can be handled.
I've just added a test for the iteration order aspect as every time
I changed the update logic partially or incorrectly here, an existing
test failed and caught it so that seems well covered (which is also
evidenced by the extensive working around of this missing update).
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy
Subscribers: mcrosier, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47647
llvm-svn: 333811
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45330
llvm-svn: 333740
Summary:
Loop idiom recognize tries to convert loops like
```
int foo(int x) {
int cnt = 0;
while (x) {
x >>= 1;
++cnt;
}
return cnt;
}
```
into calls to ctlz, but if x is initially negative this loop should be infinite.
It happens that the cases that motivated this change have an absolute value of x before the loop. So this patch restricts the transform to cases where we know x is positive. Note: We are relying on the absolute value of INT_MIN to be undefined so we can assume that the result is always positive.
Fixes PR37479
Reviewers: spatel, hfinkel, efriedma, javed.absar
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47348
llvm-svn: 333702
Looks like we intended to compare this->Members with Other->Members
here, but ended up comparing this->Members with this->Members. Oops. :)
Since CongruenceClass::Members is a SmallPtrSet anyway, we can probably
skip building std::sets if we're willing to write a bit more code.
This appears to be no functional change (for sufficiently lax values of
"no"): this equality check was only being called inside of an assert.
So, worst case, we'll catch more bugs in the form of assertion failures.
Thanks to d0k for noting this!
llvm-svn: 333601
loop-cleanup passes at the beginning of the loop pass pipeline, and
re-enqueue loops after even trivial unswitching.
This will allow us to much more consistently avoid simplifying code
while doing trivial unswitching. I've also added a test case that
specifically shows effective iteration using this technique.
I've unconditionally updated the new PM as that is always using the
SimpleLoopUnswitch pass, and I've made the pipeline changes for the old
PM conditional on using this new unswitch pass. I added a bunch of
comments to the loop pass pipeline in the old PM to make it more clear
what is going on when reviewing.
Hopefully this will unblock doing *partial* unswitching instead of just
full unswitching.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47408
llvm-svn: 333493
be both simpler and substantially more efficient.
Rather than use a hand-rolled iteration technique that isn't quite the
same as RPO, use the pre-built RPO loop body traversal utility.
Once visiting the loop body in RPO, we can assert that we visit defs
before uses reliably. When this is the case, the only need to iterate is
when simplifying a def that is used by a PHI node along a back-edge.
With this patch, the first pass over the loop body is just a complete
simplification of every instruction across the loop body. When we
encounter a use of a simplified instruction that stems from a PHI node
in the loop body that has already been visited (due to some cyclic CFG,
potentially the loop itself, or a nested loop, or unstructured control
flow), we recall that specific PHI node for the second iteration.
Nothing else needs to be preserved from iteration to iteration.
On the second and later iterations, only instructions known to have
simplified inputs are considered, each time starting from a set of PHIs
that had simplified inputs along the backedges.
Dead instructions are collected along the way, but deleted in a batch at
the end of each iteration making the iterations themselves substantially
simpler. This uses a new batch API for recursively deleting dead
instructions.
This alsa changes the routine to visit subloops. Because simplification
is fundamentally transitive, we may need to visit the entire loop body,
including subloops, to handle knock-on simplification.
I've added a basic test file that helps demonstrate that all of these
changes work. It includes both straight-forward loops with
simplifications as well as interesting PHI-structures, CFG-structures,
and a nested loop case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47407
llvm-svn: 333461
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
Reverting this to see if this is causing the failures of the
clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu bot.
[IPSCCP] Use PredicateInfo to propagate facts from cmp instructions.
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45330
llvm-svn: 333323
This patch updates IPSCCP to use PredicateInfo to propagate
facts to true branches predicated by EQ and to false branches
predicated by NE.
As a follow up, we should be able to extend it to also propagate additional
facts about nonnull.
Reviewers: davide, mssimpso, dberlin, efriedma
Reviewed By: davide, dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45330
llvm-svn: 333268
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
Summary:
In LICM, CFG could be changed in splitPredecessorsOfLoopExit(), which update
only DT and LoopInfo. Therefore, we should preserve only DT and LoopInfo specifically,
instead of all analyses that depend on the CFG (setPreservesCFG()).
This change should fix PR37323.
Reviewers: uabelho, davide, dberlin, Ka-Ka
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, bjope, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46775
llvm-svn: 333198
Summary:
If NaryReassociate succeed it will, when replacing the old instruction
with the new instruction, also recursively delete trivially
dead instructions from the old instruction. However, if the input to the
NaryReassociate pass contain dead code it is not save to recursively
delete trivially deadinstructions as it might lead to deleting the newly
created instruction.
This patch will fix the problem by using WeakVH to detect this
rare case, when the newly created instruction is dead, and it will then
restart the basic block iteration from the beginning.
This fixes pr37539
Reviewers: tra, meheff, grosser, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47139
llvm-svn: 333155
Summary:
StructurizeCFG::orderNodes basically uses a reverse post-order (RPO) traversal of the region list to get the order.
The only problem with it is that sometimes backedges for outer loops will be visited before backedges for inner loops.
To solve this problem, a loop depth based approach has been used to make sure all blocks in this loop has been visited
before moving on to outer loop.
However, we found a problem for a SubRegion which is a loop itself:
--> BB1 --> BB2 --> BB3 -->
In this case, BB2 is a SubRegion (loop), and thus its loopdepth is different than that of BB1 and BB3. This fact will lead
BB2 to be placed in the wrong order.
In this work, we treat the SubRegion as a special case and use its exit block to determine the loop and its depth
to guard the sorting.
Reviewers:
arsenm, jlebar
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46912
llvm-svn: 333111
Loop unswitching makes substantial changes to a loop that can also affect cached
SCEV info in its outer loops as well, but it only cares to invalidate SCEV cache for the
innermost loop in case of full unswitching and does not invalidate anything at all in
case of trivial unswitching. As result, we may end up with incorrect data in cache.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46045
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
llvm-svn: 333072
This patch fixes two bugs:
* test1: Previously assume(a >= 5) concluded that a == 5. That's only
valid for assume(a == 5)...
* test2: If operands were swapped, additional users were added to the
wrong cmp operand. This resulted in an "unsettled iteration"
assertion failure.
Patch by Nikita Popov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46974
llvm-svn: 333007
Change matchSelectPattern to return X and -X for ABS/NABS in a well defined order. Adjust EarlyCSE to account for this. Ensure the SPF result is some kind of min/max and not abs/nabs in one place in InstCombine that made me nervous.
Prevously we returned the two operands of the compare part of the abs pattern. The RHS is always going to be a 0i, 1 or -1 constant. This isn't a very meaningful thing to return for any one. There's also some freedom in the abs pattern as to what happens when the value is equal to 0. This freedom led to early cse failing to match when different constants were used in otherwise equivalent operations. By returning the input and its negation in a defined order we can ensure an exact match. This also makes sure both patterns use the exact same subtract instruction for the negation. I believe CSE should evebntually make this happen and properly merge the nsw/nuw flags. But I'm not familiar with CSE and what order it does things in so it seemed like it might be good to really enforce that they were the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47037
llvm-svn: 332865
We were previously using a DT in CVP through SimplifyQuery, but not requiring it in
the new pass manager. Hence it would crash if DT was not already available. This now
gets DT directly and plumbs it through to where it is used (instead of using it
through SQ).
llvm-svn: 332836
In the patch rL329547, we have lifted the over-restrictive limitation on collected range
checks, allowing to work with range checks with the end of their range not being
provably non-negative. However it appeared that the non-negativity of this value was
assumed in the utility function `ClampedSubtract`. In particular, its reasoning is based
on the fact that `0 <= SINT_MAX - X`, which is not true if `X` is negative.
The function `ClampedSubtract` is only called twice, once with `X = 0` (which is OK)
and the second time with `X = IRC.getEnd()`, where we may now see the problem if
the end is actually a negative value. In this case, we may sometimes miscompile.
This patch is the conservative fix of the miscompile problem. Rather than rejecting
non-provably non-negative `getEnd()` values, we will check it for non-negativity in
runtime. For this, we use function `smax(smin(X, 0), -1) + 1` that is equal to `1` if `X`
is non-negative and is equal to 0 if `X` is negative. If we multiply `Begin, End` of safe
iteration space by this function calculated for `X = IRC.getEnd()`, we will get the original
`[Begin, End)` if `IRC.getEnd()` was non-negative (and, thus, `ClampedSubtract` worked
correctly) and the empty range `[0, 0)` in case if ` IRC.getEnd()` was negative.
So we in fact prohibit execution of the main loop if at least one of range checks was
made against a negative value (and we figured it out in runtime). It is still better than
what we have before (non-negativity had to be proved in compile time) and prevents
us from miscompile, however it is sometiles too restrictive for unsigned range checks
against a negative value (which in fact can be eliminated).
Once we re-implement `ClampedSubtract` in a way that it handles negative `X` correctly,
this limitation can be lifted, too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46860
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 332809
Summary:
The verifier accepts PHI nodes with multiple entries for the
same basic block, as long as the value is the same.
As seen in PR37203, SROA did not handle such PHI nodes properly
when speculating loads over the PHI, since it inserted multiple
loads in the predecessor block and changed the PHI into having
multiple entries for the same basic block, but with different
values.
This patch teaches SROA to reuse the same speculated load for
each PHI duplicate entry in such situations.
Resolves: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37203
Reviewers: uabelho, chandlerc, hfinkel, bkramer, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: dberlin, efriedma, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46426
llvm-svn: 332577
The current integer widening does not support rewriting partial split slices in rewriteIntegerStore (and rewriteIntegerLoad).
This patch adds explicit checks for this case in isIntegerWideningViableForSlice.
Before r322533, splitting is allowed only for the whole-alloca slice and hence the above case is implicitly rejected by another check `if (DL.getTypeStoreSize(ValueTy) > Size)` because whole-alloca slice is larger than the partition.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46750
llvm-svn: 332575
r332057 introduced distance() for ranges. Based on post-commit feedback,
this renames distance() to size(). The new size() is also only enabled
when the operation is O(1).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46976
llvm-svn: 332551
Author: Samuel Pitoiset
Without this patch, it appears to me that we are selecting
the wrong operand when inverting conditions. In the attached
test, it will select %tmp3 instead of %tmp4. To fix it, just
use 'A' as everywhere.
This fixes a regression introduced by
"[PatternMatch] define m_Not using m_Xor and cst_pred_ty"
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46351
llvm-svn: 332403
Chijun Sima