Reapply with DTU update moved after CFG update, which is a
requirement of the API.
-----
Non-feasible control-flow edges are currently removed by replacing
the branch condition with a constant and then calling
ConstantFoldTerminator. This happens in a rather roundabout manner,
by inspecting the users (effectively: predecessors) of unreachable
blocks, and further complicated by the need to explicitly materialize
the condition for "forced" edges. I would like to extend SCCP to
discard switch conditions that are non-feasible based on range
information, but this is incompatible with the current approach
(as there is no single constant we could use.)
Instead, this patch explicitly removes non-feasible edges. It
currently only needs to handle the case where there is a single
feasible edge. The llvm_unreachable() branch will need to be
implemented for the aforementioned switch improvement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84264
It breaks stage-2 build. Clang crashed when compiling
llvm/lib/Target/Hexagon/HexagonFrameLowering.cpp
llvm/Support/GenericDomTree.h eraseNode: Node is not a leaf node
Non-feasible control-flow edges are currently removed by replacing
the branch condition with a constant and then calling
ConstantFoldTerminator. This happens in a rather roundabout manner,
by inspecting the users (effectively: predecessors) of unreachable
blocks, and further complicated by the need to explicitly materialize
the condition for "forced" edges. I would like to extend SCCP to
discard switch conditions that are non-feasible based on range
information, but this is incompatible with the current approach
(as there is no single constant we could use.)
Instead, this patch explicitly removes non-feasible edges. It
currently only needs to handle the case where there is a single
feasible edge. The llvm_unreachable() branch will need to be
implemented for the aforementioned switch improvement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84264
This patch updates SCCP/IPSCCP to use the computed range info to turn
sexts into zexts, if the value is known to be non-negative. We already
to a similar transform in CorrelatedValuePropagation, but it seems like
we can catch a lot of additional cases by doing it in SCCP/IPSCCP as
well.
The transform is limited to ranges that are known to not include undef.
Currently constant ranges from conditions are treated as potentially
containing undef, due to PR46144. Once we flip this, the transform will
be more effective in practice.
Reviewers: efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81756
Currently SCCP does not widen PHIs, stores or along call edges
(arguments/return values), but on operations that directly extend ranges
(like binary operators).
This means PHIs, stores and call edges are not pessimized by widening
currently, while binary operators are. The main reason for widening
operators initially was that opting-out for certain operations was
more straight-forward in the initial implementation (and it did not
matter too much, as range support initially was only implemented for a
very limited set of operations.
During the discussion in D78391, it was suggested to consider flipping
widening to PHIs, stores and along call edges. After adding support for
tracking the number of range extensions in ValueLattice, limiting the
number of range extensions per value is straight forward.
This patch introduces a MaxWidenSteps option to the MergeOptions,
limiting the number of range extensions per value. For PHIs, it seems
natural allow an extension for each (active) incoming value plus 1. For
the other cases, a arbitrary limit of 10 has been chosen initially. It would
potentially make sense to set it depending on the users of a
function/global, but that still needs investigating. This potentially
leads to more state-changes and longer compile-times.
The results look quite promising (MultiSource, SPEC):
Same hash: 179 (filtered out)
Remaining: 58
Metric: sccp.IPNumInstRemoved
Program base widen-phi diff
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep.test 58.00 82.00 41.4%
test-suite...marks/SciMark2-C/scimark2.test 32.00 43.00 34.4%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/mason/mason.test 6.00 8.00 33.3%
test-suite...langs-C/football/football.test 104.00 128.00 23.1%
test-suite...cations/hexxagon/hexxagon.test 36.00 42.00 16.7%
test-suite...CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa.test 214.00 249.00 16.4%
test-suite...ngs-C/assembler/assembler.test 14.00 16.00 14.3%
test-suite...arks/VersaBench/dbms/dbms.test 10.00 11.00 10.0%
test-suite...oxyApps-C++/miniFE/miniFE.test 43.00 47.00 9.3%
test-suite...ications/JM/ldecod/ldecod.test 179.00 195.00 8.9%
test-suite...CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc.test 249.00 265.00 6.4%
test-suite.../CINT2000/175.vpr/175.vpr.test 98.00 104.00 6.1%
test-suite...peg2/mpeg2dec/mpeg2decode.test 70.00 74.00 5.7%
test-suite...CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp.test 71.00 75.00 5.6%
test-suite...ce/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p.test 111.00 117.00 5.4%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 41.00 43.00 4.9%
test-suite...000/197.parser/197.parser.test 66.00 69.00 4.5%
test-suite...tions/lambda-0.1.3/lambda.test 23.00 24.00 4.3%
test-suite...urce/Applications/lua/lua.test 301.00 313.00 4.0%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 76.00 79.00 3.9%
test-suite...lications/ClamAV/clamscan.test 991.00 1030.00 3.9%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 53.00 55.00 3.8%
test-suite...fice-ispell/office-ispell.test 83.00 86.00 3.6%
test-suite...lications/obsequi/Obsequi.test 28.00 29.00 3.6%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C/bison/mybison.test 56.00 58.00 3.6%
test-suite.../CINT2000/254.gap/254.gap.test 170.00 176.00 3.5%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 30.00 31.00 3.3%
test-suite.../CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc.test 1202.00 1240.00 3.2%
test-suite...pplications/treecc/treecc.test 79.00 81.00 2.5%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 357.00 366.00 2.5%
test-suite...eeBench/analyzer/analyzer.test 103.00 105.00 1.9%
test-suite...T2006/445.gobmk/445.gobmk.test 1697.00 1724.00 1.6%
test-suite...006/453.povray/453.povray.test 1812.00 1839.00 1.5%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 337.00 342.00 1.5%
test-suite.../CINT2000/252.eon/252.eon.test 426.00 432.00 1.4%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 214.00 217.00 1.4%
test-suite...pplications/oggenc/oggenc.test 244.00 247.00 1.2%
test-suite.../CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc.test 4008.00 4055.00 1.2%
test-suite...T2006/456.hmmer/456.hmmer.test 175.00 177.00 1.1%
test-suite...nal/skidmarks10/skidmarks.test 430.00 434.00 0.9%
test-suite.../Applications/sgefa/sgefa.test 115.00 116.00 0.9%
test-suite...006/447.dealII/447.dealII.test 1082.00 1091.00 0.8%
test-suite...6/482.sphinx3/482.sphinx3.test 141.00 142.00 0.7%
test-suite...ocBench/espresso/espresso.test 152.00 153.00 0.7%
test-suite...3.xalancbmk/483.xalancbmk.test 4003.00 4025.00 0.5%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 548.00 551.00 0.5%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 5522.00 5551.00 0.5%
test-suite...nsumer-lame/consumer-lame.test 208.00 209.00 0.5%
test-suite...:: External/Povray/povray.test 1556.00 1563.00 0.4%
test-suite...000/186.crafty/186.crafty.test 298.00 299.00 0.3%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 2019.00 2025.00 0.3%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 8427.00 8449.00 0.3%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 6797.00 6813.00 0.2%
test-suite...6/471.omnetpp/471.omnetpp.test 431.00 430.00 -0.2%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 446.00 447.00 0.2%
test-suite...0.perlbench/400.perlbench.test 1729.00 1727.00 -0.1%
test-suite...000/255.vortex/255.vortex.test 3815.00 3819.00 0.1%
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79036
Currently an unknown/undef value is marked as overdefined when merged
with an empty range. An empty range can occur in unreachable/dead code.
When merging the new unknown state (= no value known yet) with an empty
range, there still isn't any information about the value yet and we can
stay in unknown.
This gives a few nice improvements on the number of instructions removed
by IPSCCP:
Same hash: 170 (filtered out)
Remaining: 67
Metric: sccp.IPNumInstRemoved
Program base patch diff
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/mason/mason.test 3.00 6.00 100.0%
test-suite...nchmarks/McCat/18-imp/imp.test 3.00 5.00 66.7%
test-suite...C/CFP2000/179.art/179.art.test 2.00 3.00 50.0%
test-suite...ijndael/security-rijndael.test 2.00 3.00 50.0%
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep.test 40.00 58.00 45.0%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 26.00 37.00 42.3%
test-suite...cCat/03-testtrie/testtrie.test 3.00 4.00 33.3%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 29.00 36.00 24.1%
test-suite.../Applications/spiff/spiff.test 9.00 11.00 22.2%
test-suite...s/FreeBench/neural/neural.test 5.00 6.00 20.0%
test-suite...pplications/treecc/treecc.test 66.00 79.00 19.7%
test-suite...langs-C/football/football.test 85.00 101.00 18.8%
test-suite...ce/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p.test 90.00 105.00 16.7%
test-suite...oxyApps-C++/miniFE/miniFE.test 37.00 43.00 16.2%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft.test 26.00 30.00 15.4%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 481.00 548.00 13.9%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 4875.00 5522.00 13.3%
test-suite.../CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc.test 1117.00 1197.00 7.2%
test-suite...0.perlbench/400.perlbench.test 1618.00 1732.00 7.0%
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78667
Nikita Popov