Summary:
Otherwise we might end up with some empty basic blocks or
single-entry-single-exit basic blocks.
This fixes PR32085
Reviewers: chandlerc, danielcdh
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30468
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@301395 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
entire SCC before iterating on newly-introduced call edges resulting
from any inlined function bodies.
This more closely matches the behavior of the old PM's inliner. While it
wasn't really clear to me initially, this behavior is actually essential
to the inliner behaving reasonably in its current design.
Because the inliner is fundamentally a bottom-up inliner and all of its
cost modeling is designed around that it often runs into trouble within
an SCC where we don't have any meaningful bottom-up ordering to use. In
addition to potentially cyclic, infinite inlining that we block with the
inline history mechanism, it can also take seemingly simple call graph
patterns within an SCC and turn them into *insanely* large functions by
accidentally working top-down across the SCC without any of the
threshold limitations that traditional top-down inliners use.
Consider this diabolical monster.cpp file that Richard Smith came up
with to help demonstrate this issue:
```
template <int N> extern const char *str;
void g(const char *);
template <bool K, int N> void f(bool *B, bool *E) {
if (K)
g(str<N>);
if (B == E)
return;
if (*B)
f<true, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
else
f<false, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
}
template <> void f<false, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<false, 0>(B, E); }
template <> void f<true, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<true, 0>(B, E); }
extern bool *arr, *end;
void test() { f<false, 0>(arr, end); }
```
When compiled with '-DMAX=N' for various values of N, this will create an SCC
with a reasonably large number of functions. Previously, the inliner would try
to exhaust the inlining candidates in a single function before moving on. This,
unfortunately, turns it into a top-down inliner within the SCC. Because our
thresholds were never built for that, we will incrementally decide that it is
always worth inlining and proceed to flatten the entire SCC into that one
function.
What's worse, we'll then proceed to the next function, and do the exact same
thing except we'll skip the first function, and so on. And at each step, we'll
also make some of the constant factors larger, which is awesome.
The fix in this patch is the obvious one which makes the new PM's inliner use
the same technique used by the old PM: consider all the call edges across the
entire SCC before beginning to process call edges introduced by inlining. The
result of this is essentially to distribute the inlining across the SCC so that
every function incrementally grows toward the inline thresholds rather than
allowing the inliner to grow one of the functions vastly beyond the threshold.
The code for this is a bit awkward, but it works out OK.
We could consider in the future doing something more powerful here such as
prioritized order (via lowest cost and/or profile info) and/or a code-growth
budget per SCC. However, both of those would require really substantial work
both to design the system in a way that wouldn't break really useful
abstraction decomposition properties of the current inliner and to be tuned
across a reasonably diverse set of code and workloads. It also seems really
risky in many ways. I have only found a single real-world file that triggers
the bad behavior here and it is generated code that has a pretty pathological
pattern. I'm not worried about the inliner not doing an *awesome* job here as
long as it does *ok*. On the other hand, the cases that will be tricky to get
right in a prioritized scheme with a budget will be more common and idiomatic
for at least some frontends (C++ and Rust at least). So while these approaches
are still really interesting, I'm not in a huge rush to go after them. Staying
even closer to the existing PM's behavior, especially when this easy to do,
seems like the right short to medium term approach.
I don't really have a test case that makes sense yet... I'll try to find a
variant of the IR produced by the monster template metaprogram that is both
small enough to be sane and large enough to clearly show when we get this wrong
in the future. But I'm not confident this exists. And the behavior change here
*should* be unobservable without snooping on debug logging. So there isn't
really much to test.
The test case updates come from two incidental changes:
1) We now visit functions in an SCC in the opposite order. I don't think there
really is a "right" order here, so I just update the test cases.
2) We no longer compute some analyses when an SCC has no call instructions that
we consider for inlining.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@297374 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
All the invalidation issues and bugs in this seem to be fixed, it has
survived a full build of the test suite plus SPEC with asserts and ASan
enabled on the Clang binary used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29815
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@294887 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Without any loops, we don't even bother to build the standard analyses
used by loop passes. Without these, we can't run loop analyses or
invalidate them properly. Unfortunately, we did these things in the
wrong order which would allow a loop analysis manager's proxy to be
built but then not have the standard analyses built. When we went to do
the invalidation in the proxy thing would fall apart. In the test case
provided, it would actually crash.
The fix is to carefully check for loops first, and to in fact build the
standard analyses before building the proxy. This allows it to
correctly trigger invalidation for those standard analyses.
An alternative might seem to be to look at whether there are any loops
when doing invalidation, but this doesn't work when during the loop
pipeline run we delete the last loop. I've even included that as a test
case. It is both simpler and more robust to defer building the proxy
until there are definitely the standard set of analyses and indeed
loops.
This bug was uncovered by enabling GlobalsAA in the pipeline.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@294728 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before
loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the
inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner
could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@294670 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@293249 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the
legacy PM. The missing pieces are:
- PruneEH (or some equivalent)
- ArgumentPromotion
- LoopLoadElimination
- LoopUnswitch
I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems
like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state.
One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've
consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the
pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening
passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have
any effect other than minor improvement to locality.
Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the
compiler doesn't crash or assert.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@293241 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM.
All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the
test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures.
There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new
PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at
least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and
they aren't completely broken.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@293225 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a lazy-asserting PoisoningVH.
AssertVH is fundamentally incompatible with cache-invalidation of
analysis results. The invaliadtion happens after the AssertingVH has
already fired. Instead, use a PoisoningVH that will assert if the
dangling handle is ever used rather than merely be assigned or
destroyed.
This patch also removes all of the (numerous) doomed attempts to work
around this fundamental incompatibility. It is a pretty significant
simplification IMO.
The most interesting change is in the Inliner where we still do some
clearing because we don't want to rely on the coarse grained
invalidation strategy of the containing pass manager. However, I prefer
the approach that contains this logic to the cleanup phase of the
Inliner, and I think we could enhance the CGSCC analysis management
layer to make this even better in the future if desired.
The rest is straight cleanup.
I've also added a test for one of the harder cases to work around: when
a *module analysis* contains many AssertingVHes pointing at functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29006
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292928 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
invalidation of deleted functions in GlobalDCE.
This was always testing a bug really triggered in GlobalDCE. Right now
we have analyses with asserting value handles into IR. As long as those
remain, when *deleting* an IR unit, we cannot wait for the normal
invalidation scheme to kick in even though it was designed to work
correctly in the face of these kinds of deletions. Instead, the pass
needs to directly handle invalidating the analysis results pointing at
that IR unit.
I've tought the Inliner about this and this patch teaches GlobalDCE.
This will handle the asserting VH case in the existing test as well as
other issues of the same fundamental variety. I've moved the test into
the GlobalDCE directory and added a comment explaining what is going on.
Note that we cannot simply require LVI here because LVI is too lazy.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292773 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
become unavailable.
The AssumptionCache is now immutable but it still needs to respond to
DomTree invalidation if it ended up caching one.
This lets us remove one of the explicit invalidates of LVI but the
other one continues to avoid hitting a latent bug.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292769 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
new PM's inliner.
The bug happens when we refine an SCC after having computed a proxy for
the FunctionAnalysisManager, and then proceed to compute fresh analyses
for functions in the *new* SCC using the manager provided by the old
SCC's proxy. *And* when we manage to mutate a function in this new SCC
in a way that invalidates those analyses. This can be... challenging to
reproduce.
I've managed to contrive a set of functions that trigger this and added
a test case, but it is a bit brittle. I've directly checked that the
passes run in the expected ways to help avoid the test just becoming
silently irrelevant.
This gets the new PM back to passing the LLVM test suite after the PGO
improvements landed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292757 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This adds the last remaining core feature of the loop pass pipeline in
the new PM and removes the last of the really egregious hacks in the
LICM tests.
Sadly, this requires really substantial changes in the unittests in
order to provide and maintain simplified loops. This is particularly
hard because for example LoopSimplify will try to fold undef branches to
an ideal direction and simplify the loop accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28766
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292709 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences
in type pretty-printing.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292536 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292530 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
