Using RAUW was wrong here; if we have a switch transform such as:
18 -> 6 then
6 -> 0
If we use RAUW, while performing the second transform the *transformed* 6
from the first will be also replaced, so we end up with:
18 -> 0
6 -> 0
Found by clang stage2 bootstrap; testcase added.
llvm-svn: 277332
If a switch is sparse and all the cases (once sorted) are in arithmetic progression, we can extract the common factor out of the switch and create a dense switch. For example:
switch (i) {
case 5: ...
case 9: ...
case 13: ...
case 17: ...
}
can become:
if ( (i - 5) % 4 ) goto default;
switch ((i - 5) / 4) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
or even better:
switch ( ROTR(i - 5, 2) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
The division and remainder operations could be costly so we only do this if the factor is a power of two, and emit a right-rotate instead of a divide/remainder sequence. Dense switches can be lowered significantly better than sparse switches and can even be transformed into lookup tables.
llvm-svn: 277325
r273711 was reverted by r273743. The inliner needs to know about any
call sites in the inlined function. These were obscured if we replaced
a call to undef with an undef but kept the call around.
This fixes PR28298.
llvm-svn: 273753
reduce the number of comparisons.
Specifically, InstCombine can turn:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
into:
((i | 1) == 5335)
SimplifyCFG was already able to detect the pattern:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This patch supersedes D21315 and resolves PR27555
(https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27555).
Thanks to David and Chandler for the suggestions!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: majnemer chandlerc halfdan cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21397
llvm-svn: 273639
Switch from m_Constant to m_APInt per David's request. NFC.
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: majnemer cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21440
llvm-svn: 272977
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This transformation has some incorrect side conditions. Specifically, the
transformation is only applied when the right-hand side constant (5334 in
the example) is a power of two not equal and not equal to the negated mask.
These side conditions were added in r258904 to fix PR26323. The correct side
condition is that: ((Constant & Mask) == Constant)[(5334 & -2) == 5334].
It's a little bit hard to see why these transformations are correct and what
the side conditions ought to be. Here is a CVC3 program to verify them for
64-bit values:
ONE : BITVECTOR(64) = BVZEROEXTEND(0bin1, 63);
x : BITVECTOR(64);
y : BITVECTOR(64);
z : BITVECTOR(64);
mask : BITVECTOR(64) = BVSHL(ONE, z);
QUERY( (y & ~mask = y) =>
((x & ~mask = y) <=> (x = y OR x = (y | mask)))
);
Please note that each pattern must be a dual implication (<--> or iff). One
directional implication can create spurious matches. If the implication is
only one-way, an unsatisfiable condition on the left side can imply a
satisfiable condition on the right side. Dual implication ensures that
satisfiable conditions are transformed to other satisfiable conditions and
unsatisfiable conditions are transformed to other unsatisfiable conditions.
Here is a concrete example of a unsatisfiable condition on the left
implying a satisfiable condition on the right:
mask = (1 << z)
(x & ~mask) == y --> (x == y || x == (y | mask))
Substituting y = 3, z = 0 yields:
(x & -2) == 3 --> (x == 3 || x == 2)
The version of this code before r258904 had no side-conditions and
incorrectly justified itself in comments through one-directional
implication.
Thanks to Chandler for the suggestion!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: chandlerc majnemer hfinkel cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21417
llvm-svn: 272873
If a local_unnamed_addr attribute is attached to a global, the address
is known to be insignificant within the module. It is distinct from the
existing unnamed_addr attribute in that it only describes a local property
of the module rather than a global property of the symbol.
This attribute is intended to be used by the code generator and LTO to allow
the linker to decide whether the global needs to be in the symbol table. It is
possible to exclude a global from the symbol table if three things are true:
- This attribute is present on every instance of the global (which means that
the normal rule that the global must have a unique address can be broken without
being observable by the program by performing comparisons against the global's
address)
- The global has linkonce_odr linkage (which means that each linkage unit must have
its own copy of the global if it requires one, and the copy in each linkage unit
must be the same)
- It is a constant or a function (which means that the program cannot observe that
the unique-address rule has been broken by writing to the global)
Although this attribute could in principle be computed from the module
contents, LTO clients (i.e. linkers) will normally need to be able to compute
this property as part of symbol resolution, and it would be inefficient to
materialize every module just to compute it.
See:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160509/356401.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160516/356738.html
for earlier discussion.
Part of the fix for PR27553.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20348
llvm-svn: 272709
A basic block could contain:
%cp = cleanuppad []
cleanupret from %cp unwind to caller
This basic block is empty and is thus a candidate for removal. However,
there can be other uses of %cp outside of this basic block. This is
only possible in unreachable blocks.
Make our transform more correct by checking that the pad has a single
user before removing the BB.
This fixes PR28005.
llvm-svn: 271816
A cleanuppad is not cheap, they turn into many instructions and result
in additional spills and fills. It is not worth keeping a cleanuppad
around if all it does is hold a lifetime.end instruction.
N.B. We first try to merge the cleanuppad with another cleanuppad to
avoid dropping the lifetime and debug info markers.
llvm-svn: 270314
Summary: Set default branch weight to 1:1 if one of the branch has profile missing when simplifying CFG.
Reviewers: spatel, davidxl
Subscribers: danielcdh, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20307
llvm-svn: 269995
Summary: In sample profile, some branches may have profile missing due to profile inaccuracy. We want existing branch probability still valid after propagation.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19948
llvm-svn: 269137
Retrying r268550/r268751 which were reverted at r268577/r268765 due a memory sanitizer failure.
I have not been able to reproduce that failure, but I've taken another guess at fixing
the problem in this version of the patch and will watch for another failure.
Original commit message:
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268767
Retrying r268550 which was reverted at r268577 due a memory sanitizer failure.
I have not been able to reproduce that failure, but I've taken a guess at fixing
the problem in this version of the patch and will watch for another failure.
Original commit message:
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268751
MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
0x4910e47 in count /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h:159:12
0x4910e47 in countLeadingZeros<unsigned long> /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h:183
0x4910e47 in FitWeights /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:855
0x4910e47 in SimplifyCondBranchToCondBranch /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:2895
This reverts commit 609f4dd4bf3bc735c8c047a4d4b0a8e9e4d202e2.
llvm-svn: 268577
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268550
This patch fixes PR27615.
@llvm.dbg.value instructions no longer count towards the maximum number of
instructions to look back at in the instruction list when searching for a
store instruction. This should make the output consistent between debug and
non-debug build.
Patch by Henric Karlsson <henric.karlsson@ericsson.com>!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19912
llvm-svn: 268512
Make it possible that TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock merges empty
basic block including lifetime intrinsics as well as phi nodes and
unconditional branch into its successor or predecessor(s).
If successor of empty block has single predecessor, all contents including
lifetime intrinsics are sinked into the successor. Otherwise, they are
hoisted into its predecessor(s) and then merged into the predecessor(s).
Patch by Josh Yoon <josh.yoon@samsung.com>!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19257
llvm-svn: 268254
There's no existing test for this path, and I don't know how to expose
it in a regression test, but I'm assuming there's some reason this
path exists.
llvm-svn: 267813
When SimplifyCFG merges identical instructions from both sides of a diamond, it
can preserve !llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access (as it does with most of the other
metadata). There's no real data or control dependency change in this case.
llvm-svn: 267515
This patch improves SimplifyCFG to catch cases like:
if (a < b) {
if (a > b) <- known to be false
unreachable;
}
Phabricator Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18905
llvm-svn: 266767
This is almost identical to:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL264527
This doesn't solve PR27344; it just allows the profile weights to survive.
To solve the bug, we need to use the profile weights in the backend.
llvm-svn: 266442
Clarify what this RemapFlag actually means.
- Change the flag name to match its intended behaviour.
- Clearly document that it's not supposed to affect globals.
- Add a host of FIXMEs to indicate how to fix the behaviour to match
the intent of the flag.
RF_IgnoreMissingLocals should only affect the behaviour of
RemapInstruction for function-local operands; namely, for operands of
type Argument, Instruction, and BasicBlock. Currently, it is *only*
passed into RemapInstruction calls (and the transitive MapValue calls
that it makes).
When I split Metadata from Value I didn't understand the flag, and I
used it in a bunch of places for "global" metadata.
This commit doesn't have any functionality change, but prepares to
cleanup MapMetadata and MapValue.
llvm-svn: 265628
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).
The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes.
llvm-svn: 264697
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).
The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes.
llvm-svn: 264596
This is similar to D18133 where we allowed profile weights on select instructions.
This extends that change to also allow the 'unpredictable' attribute of branches to apply to selects.
A test to check that 'unpredictable' metadata is preserved when cloning instructions was checked in at:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL263648
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18220
llvm-svn: 263716
As noted in:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26636
This doesn't accomplish anything on its own. It's the first step towards preserving
and using branch weights with selects.
The next step would be to make sure we're propagating the info in all of the other
places where we create selects (SimplifyCFG, InstCombine, etc). I don't think there's
an easy fix to make this happen; we have to look at each transform individually to
determine how to correctly propagate the weights.
Along with that step, we need to then use the weights when making subsequent transform
decisions such as discussed in http://reviews.llvm.org/D16836.
The inliner test is independent but closely related. It verifies that metadata is
preserved when both branches and selects are cloned.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18133
llvm-svn: 263482
commit ae14bf6488e8441f0f6d74f00455555f6f3943ac
Author: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
Date: Fri Mar 11 17:15:50 2016 +0000
Remove PreserveNames template parameter from IRBuilder
Summary:
Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
discard Value names in release builds.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263258
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
until we can figure out what to do about clang and Release build testing.
This reverts commit 263258.
llvm-svn: 263321
Summary:
Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
discard Value names in release builds.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 263258
The cleanupret instruction has an invariant that it's 'from' operand be
a cleanuppad. This invariant was violated when we removed a dead block
which removed a cleanuppad leaving behind a cleanupret with an undef
'from' operand.
This was solved in r261731 by staving off the removal of the dead block
to a later pass.
However, it occured to me that we do not need to do this.
Instead, we can simply avoid processing the cleanupret if it has an
undef 'from' operand because we know that it will be removed soon.
llvm-svn: 261754
DeleteDeadBlock was called indiscriminately, leading to cleanuprets with
undef cleanuppad references.
Instead, try to drain the BB of most of it's instructions if it is
unreachable. We can then remove the BB if it solely consists of a
terminator (and maybe some phis).
llvm-svn: 261731
I missed == and != when I removed implicit conversions between iterators
and pointers in r252380 since they were defined outside ilist_iterator.
Since they depend on getNodePtrUnchecked(), they indirectly rely on UB.
This commit removes all uses of these operators. (I'll delete the
operators themselves in a separate commit so that it can be easily
reverted if necessary.)
There should be NFC here.
llvm-svn: 261498
Cleanuppads may be merged together if one is the only predecessor of the
other in which case a simple transform can be performed: replace the
a cleanupret with a branch and remove an unnecessary cleanuppad.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17459
llvm-svn: 261390
Summary:
Performing this optimization duplicates the call to the convergent
function and adds new control-flow dependencies, which is a no-no.
Reviewers: jingyue
Subscribers: broune, hfinkel, tra, resistor, joker.eph, arsenm, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17128
llvm-svn: 260730
D16251)
Summary:
This is a simpler fix to the problem than the dominator approach in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16251. It adds only values into the gather() while loop
that have been seen before.
The actual endless loop is in the constant compare gather() routine in
Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp. The same value ret.0.off0.i is pushed back into the
queue:
%.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %.ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i
Here is what happens at the IR level:
for.cond.i: ; preds = %if.end6.i,
%if.end.i54
%ix.0.i = phi i32 [ 0, %if.end.i54 ], [ %inc.i55, %if.end6.i ]
%ret.0.off0.i = phi i1 [false, %if.end.i54], [%.ret.0.off0.i, %if.end6.i] <<<
%cmp2.i = icmp ult i32 %ix.0.i, %11
br i1 %cmp2.i, label %for.body.i, label %LBJ_TmpSimpleNeedExt.exit
if.end6.i: ; preds = %for.body.i
%cmp10.i = icmp ugt i32 %conv.i, %add9.i
%.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i <<<
When if.end.i54 gets eliminated which removes the definition of ret.0.off0.i.
The result is the expression %.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %.ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i
(Note the first ‘or’ operand is now %.ret.0.off0.i, and *NOT* %ret.0.off0.i).
And
now there is use of .ret.0.off0.i before a definition which triggers the
“endless” loop in gather():
while(!DFT.empty()) {
V = DFT.pop_back_val(); // V is .ret.0.off0.i
if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V)) {
// If it is a || (or && depending on isEQ), process the operands.
if (I->getOpcode() == (isEQ ? Instruction::Or : Instruction::And)) {
DFT.push_back(I->getOperand(1)); // This is now .ret.0.off0.i also
DFT.push_back(I->getOperand(0));
continue; // “endless loop” for .ret.0.off0.i
}
Reviewers: reames, ahatanak
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16839
llvm-svn: 259730
This is a fix for:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26308
With the switch to using the TTI cost model in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL228826
...it became possible to hit a zero-cost cycle of instructions (gep -> phi -> gep...),
so we need a cap for the recursion in DominatesMergePoint().
A recursion depth parameter was already added for a different reason in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL255660
...so we can just set a limit for it.
I pulled "10" out of the air and made it an independent parameter that we can play with.
It might be higher than it needs to be given the currently low default value of
PHINodeFoldingThreshold (2). That's the starting cost value that we enter the recursion
with, and most instructions have cost set to TCC_Basic (1), so I don't think we're going
to speculate more than 2 instructions with the current parameters.
As noted in the review and the TODO comment, we can do better than just limiting recursion
depth.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16637
llvm-svn: 258971
SimplifyCFG tries to turn complex branch conditions into a switch.
Some of it's logic attempts to reason about bitwise arithmetic produced
by InstCombine. InstCombine can turn things like (X == 2) || (X == 3)
into (X & 1) == 2 and so SimplifyCFG tries to detect when this occurs so
that it can produce a switch instruction.
However, the legality checking was not sufficient to determine whether
or not this had occured. Correctly check this case by requiring that
the right-hand side of the comparison be a power of two.
This fixes PR26323.
llvm-svn: 258904
Summary:
The previous form, taking opcode and type, is moved to an internal
helper and the new form, taking an instruction, is a wrapper around this
helper.
Although this is a slight cleanup on its own, the main motivation is to
refactor the constant folding API to ease migration to opaque pointers.
This will be follow-up work.
Reviewers: eddyb
Subscribers: dblaikie, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16383
llvm-svn: 258391
Summary:
This is a fix of D13718. D13718 was committed but then reverted because of the following bug:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25299
This patch fixes the issue shown in the bug.
Reviewers: majnemer, reames
Subscribers: jevinskie, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14308
llvm-svn: 257277
Summary:
At least for CoreCLR, a catchpad which immediately executes an
`unreachable` instruction indicates that the exception can never have a
matching type, and so such catchpads can be removed, and so can their
catchswitches if the catchswitch becomes empty.
Reviewers: rnk, andrew.w.kaylor, majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15846
llvm-svn: 256809
In conditional store merging, we were creating PHIs when we didn't
need to. If the value to be predicated isn't defined in the block
we're predicating, then it doesn't need a PHI at all (because we only
deal with triangles and diamonds, any value not in the predicated BB
must dominate the predicated BB).
This fixes a large code size increase in some benchmarks in a popular embedded benchmark suite.
Now with a fix (and fixed tests) for the conformance issue seen in Chromium.
llvm-svn: 255767
This is the last general step to allow more IR-level speculation with a safety harness in place in CodeGenPrepare.
The intent is to restore the behavior enabled by:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL228826
but prevent bad performance such as:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24818
Earlier patches in this sequence:
D12882 (disable SimplifyCFG speculation for expensive instructions)
D13297 (have CGP despeculate expensive ops)
D14630 (have CGP despeculate special versions of cttz/ctlz)
As shown in the test cases, we only have two instructions currently affected: ctz for some x86 and fdiv generally.
Allowing exactly one expensive instruction is a bit of a hack, but it lines up with what is currently implemented
in CGP. If we make the despeculation more general in CGP, we can make the speculation here more liberal.
A follow-up patch will adjust the cost for sqrt and possibly other typically expensive math intrinsics (currently
everything is cheap by default). GPU targets would likely want to override those expensive default costs (just as
they probably should already override the cost of div/rem) because just about any math is cheaper than control-flow
on those targets.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15213
llvm-svn: 255660
It turns out that terminatepad gives little benefit over a cleanuppad
which calls the termination function. This is not sufficient to
implement fully generic filters but MSVC doesn't support them which
makes terminatepad a little over-designed.
Depends on D15478.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15479
llvm-svn: 255522
In conditional store merging, we were creating PHIs when we didn't
need to. If the value to be predicated isn't defined in the block
we're predicating, then it doesn't need a PHI at all (because we only
deal with triangles and diamonds, any value not in the predicated BB
must dominate the predicated BB).
This fixes a large code size increase in some benchmarks in a popular embedded benchmark suite.
llvm-svn: 255489
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
Summary:
Followed the guidelines in:
http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#include-style
However, I noticed that uppercase named headers come before lowercase ones
throughout the codebase. So kept them as is.
Patch by Mandeep Singh Grang <mgrang@codeaurora.org>
Reviewers: majnemer, davide, jmolloy, atrick
Subscribers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14939
llvm-svn: 254005
This is fix for PR24059.
When we are hoisting instruction above some condition it may turn out
that metadata on this instruction was control dependant on the condition.
This metadata becomes invalid and we need to drop it.
This patch should cover most obvious places of speculative execution (which
I have found by greping isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute). I think there are more
cases but at least this change covers the severe ones.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14398
llvm-svn: 252604
Some implicit ilist iterator conversions have crept back into Analysis,
Transforms, Hexagon, and llvm-stress. This removes them.
I'll commit a patch immediately after this to disallow them (in a
separate patch so that it's easy to revert if necessary).
llvm-svn: 252371
Summary:
This change makes the `isImpliedCondition` interface similar to the rest
of the functions in ValueTracking (in that it takes a DataLayout,
AssumptionCache etc.). This is an NFC, intended to make a later diff
less noisy.
Depends on D14369
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14391
llvm-svn: 252333
We were correctly skipping dbginfo intrinsics and terminators, but the initial bailout wasn't, causing it to bail out on almost any block.
llvm-svn: 252152
We can often end up with conditional stores that cannot be speculated. They can come from fairly simple, idiomatic code:
if (c & flag1)
*a = x;
if (c & flag2)
*a = y;
...
There is no dominating or post-dominating store to a, so it is not legal to move the store unconditionally to the end of the sequence and cache the intermediate result in a register, as we would like to.
It is, however, legal to merge the stores together and do the store once:
tmp = undef;
if (c & flag1)
tmp = x;
if (c & flag2)
tmp = y;
if (c & flag1 || c & flag2)
*a = tmp;
The real power in this optimization is that it allows arbitrary length ladders such as these to be completely and trivially if-converted. The typical code I'd expect this to trigger on often uses binary-AND with constants as the condition (as in the above example), which means the ending condition can simply be truncated into a single binary-AND too: 'if (c & (flag1|flag2))'. As in the general case there are bitwise operators here, the ladder can often be optimized further too.
This optimization involves potentially increasing register pressure. Even in the simplest case, the lifetime of the first predicate is extended. This can be elided in some cases such as using binary-AND on constants, but not in the general case. Threading 'tmp' through all branches can also increase register pressure.
The optimization as in this patch is enabled by default but kept in a very conservative mode. It will only optimize if it thinks the resultant code should be if-convertable, and additionally if it can thread 'tmp' through at least one existing PHI, so it will only ever in the worst case create one more PHI and extend the lifetime of a predicate.
This doesn't trigger much in LNT, unfortunately, but it does trigger in a big way in a third party test suite.
llvm-svn: 252051
The most common use case is when eliminating redundant range checks in an example like the following:
c = a[i+1] + a[i];
Note that all the smarts of the transform (the implication engine) is already in ValueTracking and is tested directly through InstructionSimplify.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040
llvm-svn: 251596
CatchReturnInst has side-effects: it runs a destructor. This destructor
could conceivably run forever/call exit/etc. and should not be removed.
llvm-svn: 251461
Summary: Currently SimplifyResume can convert an invoke instruction to a call instruction if its landing pad is trivial. In practice we could have several invoke instructions with trivial landing pads and share a common rethrow block, and in the common rethrow block, all the landing pads join to a phi node. The patch extends SimplifyResume to check the phi of landing pad and their incoming blocks. If any of them is trivial, remove it from the phi node and convert the invoke instruction to a call instruction.
Reviewers: hfinkel, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13718
llvm-svn: 251061
SimplifyTerminatorOnSelect didn't consider the possibility that the
condition might be related to one of PHI nodes.
This fixes PR25267.
llvm-svn: 250922
Turns out this approach is buggy. In discussion about follow on work, Sanjoy pointed out that we could be subject to circular logic problems.
Consider:
if (i u< L) leave()
if ((i + 1) u< L) leave()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
If we know that L is less than UINT_MAX, we could possible prove (in a control dependent way) that i + 1 does not overflow. This gives us:
if (i u< L) leave()
if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
If we now do the transform this patch proposed, we end up with:
if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave_appropriately()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
That would be a miscompile when i==-1. The problem here is that the control dependent nuw bits got used to prove something about the first condition. That's obviously invalid.
This won't happen today, but since I plan to enhance LVI/CVP with exactly that transform at some point in the not too distant future...
llvm-svn: 250430
If we have a series of branches which are all unlikely to fail, we can possibly combine them into a single check on the fastpath combined with a bit of dispatch logic on the slowpath. We don't want to do this unconditionally since it requires speculating instructions past a branch, but if the profiling metadata on the branch indicates profitability, this can reduce the number of checks needed along the fast path.
The canonical example this is trying to handle is removing the second bounds check implied by the Java code: a[i] + a[i+1]. Note that it can currently only do so for really simple conditions and the values of a[i] can't be used anywhere except in the addition. (i.e. the load has to have been sunk already and not prevent speculation.) I plan on extending this transform over the next few days to handle alternate sequences.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13070
llvm-svn: 250343
Continuing the work from last week to remove implicit ilist iterator
conversions. First related commit was probably r249767, with some more
motivation in r249925. This edition gets LLVMTransformUtils compiling
without the implicit conversions.
No functional change intended.
llvm-svn: 250142
The most important part required to make clang
devirtualization works ( ͡°͜ʖ ͡°).
The code is able to find non local dependencies, but unfortunatelly
because the caller can only handle local dependencies, I had to add
some restrictions to look for dependencies only in the same BB.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12992
llvm-svn: 249196
Summary:
Factor the code that rewrites invokes to calls and rewrites WinEH
terminators to their "unwind to caller" equivalents into a helper in
Utils/Local, and use it in the three places I'm aware of that need to do
this.
Reviewers: andrew.w.kaylor, majnemer, rnk
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13152
llvm-svn: 248677
This is a follow up to http://reviews.llvm.org/D11995 implementing the suggestion by Hans.
If we know some of the bits of the value being switched on, we know that the maximum number of unique cases covers the unknown bits. This allows to eliminate switch defaults for large integers (i32) when most bits in the value are known.
Note that I had to make the transform contingent on not having any dead cases. This is conservatively correct with the old code, but required for the new code since we might have a dead case which varies one of the known bits. Counting that towards our number of covering cases would be bad. If we do have dead cases, we'll eliminate them first, then revisit the possibly dead default.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12497
llvm-svn: 247309
