Summary:
The SLP vectorizer should propagate IR-level optimization hints/flags
(nsw, nuw, exact, fast-math) when converting scalar horizontal
reductions instructions into vectors, just like for other vectorized
instructions.
It doe not include IR propagation for extra arguments, we need to handle
original scalar operations for extra args to propagate correct flags.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30418
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296614 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
We should preserve IR flags for extra args. These IR flags should be
taken from original scalar operations, not from the reduction
operations.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30447
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296613 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
If horizontal reduction tree starts from the binary operation that is
used in PHI node, but this PHI is not used in horizontal reduction, we
may end up with extra addition of this PHI node after vectorization.
Here is an example:
```
%phi = phi i32 [ %tmp, %end], ...
...
%tmp = add i32 %tmp1, %tmp2
end:
```
after vectorization we always have something like:
```
%phi = phi i32 [ %tmp, %end], ...
...
%red = extractelement <8 x 32> %vec.red, 0
%tmp = add i32 %red, %phi
end:
```
even if `%phi` is not used in reduction tree. Patch considers these PHI
nodes as extra arguments and considers them in the final result iff they
really used in reduction.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30409
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296606 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Solves PR 31990.
The bad rewrite could replace a memcpy of one word with
store i4 -1
while it should actually be
store i8 -1
Hopefully opt and llc has improved enough so the original optimization
done by the code isn't needed anymore.
One already existing testcase is affected. It originally tested that
the memcpy was replaced with
load double
but since we now remove that rewrite it will be
load i64
instead.
Patch suggestion by Eli Friedman.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, majnemer, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30254
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296585 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The practice in LV is that we emit analysis remarks and then finally report
either a missed or applied remark on the final decision whether vectorization
is taking place. On this code path, we were closing with an analysis remark.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296578 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
for VectorizeTree() API.This API uses it for proper mask computation to be used in shufflevector IR.
The fix is to compute the mask for out of order memory accesses while building the vectorizable tree
instead of actual vectorization of vectorizable tree.
Reviewers: mkuper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30159
Change-Id: Id1e287f073fa4959713ba545fa4254db5da8b40d
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296575 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Currently, our post-dom tree tries to ignore and remove the effects of
infinite loops. It fails miserably at this, because it tries to do it
ahead of time, and thus can only detect self-loops, and any other type
of infinite loop, it pretends doesn't exist at all.
This can, in a bunch of cases, lead to wrong answers and a completely
empty post-dom tree.
Wrong answer:
```
declare void foo()
define internal void @f() {
entry:
br i1 undef, label %bb35, label %bb3.i
bb3.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bb3.i
bb35.loopexit3:
br label %bb35
bb35:
ret void
}
```
We get:
```
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,7}
[2] %bb35 {1,6}
[3] %bb35.loopexit3 {2,3}
[3] %entry {4,5}
```
This is a trivial modification of the testcase for PR 6047
Note that we pretend bb3.i doesn't exist.
We also pretend that bb35 post-dominates entry.
While it's true that it does not exit in a theoretical sense, it's not
really helpful to try to ignore the effect and pretend that bb35
post-dominates entry. Worse, we pretend the infinite loop does
nothing (it's usually considered a side-effect), and doesn't even
exist, even when it calls a function. Sadly, this makes it impossible
to use when you are trying to move code safely. All compilers also
create virtual or real single exit nodes (including us), and connect
infinite loops there (which this patch does). In fact, others have
worked around our behavior here, to the point of building their own
post-dom trees:
https://zneak.github.io/fcd/2016/02/17/structuring.html and pointing
out the region infrastructure is near-useless for them with postdom in
this state :(
Completely empty post-dom tree:
```
define void @spam() #0 {
bb:
br label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb1, %bb
br label %bb1
bb2: ; No predecessors!
ret void
}
```
Printing analysis 'Post-Dominator Tree Construction' for function 'foo':
=============================--------------------------------
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,1}
:(
(note that even if you ignore the effects of infinite loops, bb2
should be present as an exit node that post-dominates nothing).
This patch changes post-dom to properly handle infinite loops and does
root finding during calculation to prevent empty tress in such cases.
We match gcc's (and the canonical theoretical) behavior for infinite
loops (find the backedge, connect it to the exit block).
Testcases coming as soon as i finish running this on a ton of random graphs :)
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: bryant, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29705
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296535 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: For SamplePGO, the profile may contain cross-module inline stacks. As we need to make sure the profile annotation happens when all the hot inline stacks are expanded, we need to pass this info to the module importer so that it can import proper functions if necessary. This patch implemented this feature by emitting cross-module targets as part of function entry metadata. In the module-summary phase, the metadata is used to build call edges that points to functions need to be imported.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, tejohnson
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Subscribers: davidxl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30053
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296498 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The LLVM backend cannot produce any debug info for an llvm::Function
without a DISubprogram attachment. When inlining a debug-info-carrying
function into a nodebug function, there is therefore no reason to keep
any debug info intrinsic calls or debug locations on the instructions.
This fixes a problem discovered in PR32042.
rdar://problem/30679307
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296488 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This was suggested in D27855: have the inliner add assumptions, so we don't
lose nonnull info provided by argument attributes.
This still doesn't solve PR28430 (dyn_cast), but this gets us closer.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29999
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296366 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296345 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
BranchInst, SwitchInst (with non-default case) with Undef as input is not
possible at this point. As we always default-fold terminator to one target in
ResolvedUndefsIn and set the input accordingly.
So we should only have constantint/blockaddress here.
If ConstantFoldTerminator fails, that could mean 2 things.
1. ConstantFoldTerminator is doing something unexpected, i.e. not folding on constantint
or blockaddress and not making blocks that should be dead dead.
2. This is not a terminator on constantint or blockaddress. Its on a constant or
overdefined, then this block should not be dead.
In both cases, we should assert.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30381
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296281 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch merges the existing floating-point induction variable widening code
into the integer induction variable widening code, creating a single set of
functions for both kinds of inductions. The primary motivation for doing this
is to enable vector phi node creation for floating-point induction variables.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30211
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296145 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This one seems more obvious than D30270 that it can't make improvements because an extension always needs
all of the incoming bits. There's one specific transform in SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits of converting
a sext to a zext when the sign-bit is known zero, but that is handled explicitly in visitSext() with
ComputeSignBit().
Like D30270, there are no IR differences (other than instruction names) for the case in PR32037:
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32037
...and no regression test differences.
Zext/sext are a smaller part of the profile, but this still appears to shave off another 0.5% or so from
'opt -O2'.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30280
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296129 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
LoopUnswitch/simplify-with-nonvalness.ll is the test case for this.
The LIC has 2 users and deleting the 1st user when it can be simplified
invalidated the iterator for the 2nd user.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296069 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Before this, MSan poisoned exactly one element of any array alloca,
even if the number of elements was zero.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296050 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: In case we do not know what the condition is in an unswitched loop, but we know its definitely NOT a known constant. We can perform simplifcations based on this information.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chenli, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28968
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296041 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
These are only used when emitting remarks without ORE directly using the free
functions emitOptimizationRemark*.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296037 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
While not CVP's fault, this caused miscompiles (PR31181). Reverting
until those are resolved.
(This also reverts the follow-ups r288154 and r288161 which removed the
flag.)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296030 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: SamplePGO uses branch_weight annotation to represent callsite hotness. When ICP promotes an indirect call to direct call, we need to make sure the direct call is annotated with branch_weight in SamplePGO mode, so that downstream function inliner can use hot callsite heuristic.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman, xur
Reviewed By: davidxl, xur
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30282
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296028 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The need for this removed when I converted everything to use the opt-remark
classes directly with the streaming interface.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296017 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The need for this removed when I converted everything to use the opt-remark
classes directly with the streaming interface.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296016 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296003 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: The discriminator has been encoded, and only the base discriminator should be used during profile matching.
Reviewers: dblaikie, davidxl
Reviewed By: dblaikie, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30218
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@295999 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@295972 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@295956 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@295949 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Hans Wennborg