the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291662 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291651 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
analyses to have a common type which is enforced rather than using
a char object and a `void *` type when used as an identifier.
This has a number of advantages. First, it at least helps some of the
confusion raised in Justin Lebar's code review of why `void *` was being
used everywhere by having a stronger type that connects to documentation
about this.
However, perhaps more importantly, it addresses a serious issue where
the alignment of these pointer-like identifiers was unknown. This made
it hard to use them in pointer-like data structures. We were already
dodging this in dangerous ways to create the "all analyses" entry. In
a subsequent patch I attempted to use these with TinyPtrVector and
things fell apart in a very bad way.
And it isn't just a compile time or type system issue. Worse than that,
the actual alignment of these pointer-like opaque identifiers wasn't
guaranteed to be a useful alignment as they were just characters.
This change introduces a type to use as the "key" object whose address
forms the opaque identifier. This both forces the objects to have proper
alignment, and provides type checking that we get it right everywhere.
It also makes the types somewhat less mysterious than `void *`.
We could go one step further and introduce a truly opaque pointer-like
type to return from the `ID()` static function rather than returning
`AnalysisKey *`, but that didn't seem to be a clear win so this is just
the initial change to get to a reliably typed and aligned object serving
is a key for all the analyses.
Thanks to Richard Smith and Justin Lebar for helping pick plausible
names and avoid making this refactoring many times. =] And thanks to
Sean for the super fast review!
While here, I've tried to move away from the "PassID" nomenclature
entirely as it wasn't really helping and is overloaded with old pass
manager constructs. Now we have IDs for analyses, and key objects whose
address can be used as IDs. Where possible and clear I've shortened this
to just "ID". In a few places I kept "AnalysisID" to make it clear what
was being identified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27031
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@287783 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
All of these existed because MSVC 2013 was unable to synthesize default
move ctors. We recently dropped support for it so all that error-prone
boilerplate can go.
No functionality change intended.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@284721 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
(Recommit after making sure IsVerbose gets properly initialized in
DiagnosticInfoOptimizationBase. See previous commit that takes care of
this.)
OptimizationRemarkAnalysis directly takes the role of the report that is
generated by LAA.
Then we need the magic to be able to turn an LAA remark into an LV
remark. This is done via a new OptimizationRemark ctor.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@282813 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
OptimizationRemarkAnalysis directly takes the role of the report that is
generated by LAA.
Then we need the magic to be able to turn an LAA remark into an LV
remark. This is done via a new OptimizationRemark ctor.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@282758 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Ever since LAA was split out into an analysis on its own, this function
stopped emitting the report directly. Instead it stores it to be
retrieved by the client which can then emit it as its own report
(e.g. -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@282561 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Fixed a bug in run-time checks for possible memory conflicts inside loop.
The bug is in Low <-> High boundaries calculation. The High boundary should be calculated as "last memory access pointer + element size".
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23176
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@279930 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
One exception here is LoopInfo which must forward-declare it (because
the typedef is in LoopPassManager.h which depends on LoopInfo).
Also, some includes for LoopPassManager.h were needed since that file
provides the typedef.
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@278079 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The earlier change added hotness attribute to missed-optimization
remarks. This follows up with the analysis remarks (the ones explaining
the reason for the missed optimization).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@276192 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We were inappropriately using 32-bit types to account for quantities
that can be far larger.
Fixed in PR28443.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@274737 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It did not handle correctly cases without GEP.
The following loop wasn't vectorized:
for (int i=0; i<len; i++)
*to++ = *from++;
I use getPtrStride() to find Stride for memory access and return 0 is the Stride is not 1 or -1.
Re-commit rL273257 - revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20789
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@273864 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It did not handle correctly cases without GEP.
The following loop wasn't vectorized:
for (int i=0; i<len; i++)
*to++ = *from++;
I use getPtrStride() to find Stride for memory access and return 0 is the Stride is not 1 or -1.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20789
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@273257 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is a functional change for LLE and LDist. The other clients (LV,
LVerLICM) already had this explicitly enabled.
The temporary boolean parameter to LAA is removed that allowed turning
off speculation of symbolic strides. This makes LAA's caching interface
LAA::getInfo only take the loop as the parameter. This makes the
interface more friendly to the new Pass Manager.
The flag -enable-mem-access-versioning is moved from LV to a LAA which
now allows turning off speculation globally.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@273064 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is still NFCI, so the list of clients that allow symbolic stride
speculation does not change (yes: LV and LoopVersioningLICM, no: LLE,
LDist). However since the symbolic strides are now managed by LAA
rather than passed by client a new bool parameter is used to enable
symbolic stride speculation.
The existing test Transforms/LoopVectorize/version-mem-access.ll checks
that stride speculation is performed for LV.
The previously added test Transforms/LoopLoadElim/symbolic-stride.ll
ensures that no speculation is performed for LLE.
The next patch will change the functionality and turn on symbolic stride
speculation in all of LAA's clients and remove the bool parameter.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@272970 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Also s/Cycles/Iters/ in NumCyclesForStoreLoadThroughMemory to make it
clear that this is not about clock cycles but loop cycles/iterations.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@269667 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
I somehow missed this. The case in GCC (global_alloc) was similar to
the new testcase except it had an array of structs rather than a two
dimensional array.
Fixes RP26885.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263058 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We changed several functions in LoopAccessAnalysis to use PSE instead of
taking SE and a SCEV predicate as arguments, but didn't update the comments.
This also fixes a comment in ScalarEvolution, where we refered to Preds
when the argument name was A.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263009 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
sanitizer issue. The PredicatedScalarEvolution's copy constructor
wasn't copying the Generation value, and was leaving it un-initialized.
Original commit message:
[SCEV][LAA] Add no wrap SCEV predicates and use use them to improve strided pointer detection
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260112 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260085 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is a recommit of r258620 which causes PR26293.
The original message:
Now LIR can turn following codes into memset:
typedef struct foo {
int a;
int b;
} foo_t;
void bar(foo_t *f, unsigned n) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
f[i].a = 0;
f[i].b = 0;
}
}
void test(foo_t *f, unsigned n) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
f[i] = 0;
f[i+1] = 0;
}
}
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@258777 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
ScalarEvolution.h, in order to avoid cyclic dependencies between the Transform
and Analysis modules:
[LV][LAA] Add a layer over SCEV to apply run-time checked knowledge on SCEV expressions
Summary:
This change creates a layer over ScalarEvolution for LAA and LV, and centralizes the
usage of SCEV predicates. The SCEVPredicatedLayer takes the statically deduced knowledge
by ScalarEvolution and applies the knowledge from the SCEV predicates. The end goal is
that both LAA and LV should use this interface everywhere.
This also solves a problem involving the result of SCEV expression rewritting when
the predicate changes. Suppose we have the expression (sext {a,+,b}) and two predicates
P1: {a,+,b} has nsw
P2: b = 1.
Applying P1 and then P2 gives us {a,+,1}, while applying P2 and the P1 gives us
sext({a,+,1}) (the AddRec expression was changed by P2 so P1 no longer applies).
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains the order of transformations by feeding back
the results of previous transformations into new transformations, and therefore
avoiding this issue.
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains a cache to remember the results of previous
SCEV rewritting results. This also has the benefit of reducing the overall number
of expression rewrites.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet
Subscribers: jmolloy, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14296
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@255122 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This change creates a layer over ScalarEvolution for LAA and LV, and centralizes the
usage of SCEV predicates. The SCEVPredicatedLayer takes the statically deduced knowledge
by ScalarEvolution and applies the knowledge from the SCEV predicates. The end goal is
that both LAA and LV should use this interface everywhere.
This also solves a problem involving the result of SCEV expression rewritting when
the predicate changes. Suppose we have the expression (sext {a,+,b}) and two predicates
P1: {a,+,b} has nsw
P2: b = 1.
Applying P1 and then P2 gives us {a,+,1}, while applying P2 and the P1 gives us
sext({a,+,1}) (the AddRec expression was changed by P2 so P1 no longer applies).
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains the order of transformations by feeding back
the results of previous transformations into new transformations, and therefore
avoiding this issue.
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains a cache to remember the results of previous
SCEV rewritting results. This also has the benefit of reducing the overall number
of expression rewrites.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet
Subscribers: jmolloy, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14296
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@255115 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
The goal of this pass is to perform store-to-load forwarding across the
backedge of a loop. E.g.:
for (i)
A[i + 1] = A[i] + B[i]
=>
T = A[0]
for (i)
T = T + B[i]
A[i + 1] = T
The pass relies on loop dependence analysis via LoopAccessAnalisys to
find opportunities of loop-carried dependences with a distance of one
between a store and a load. Since it's using LoopAccessAnalysis, it was
easy to also add support for versioning away may-aliasing intervening
stores that would otherwise prevent this transformation.
This optimization is also performed by Load-PRE in GVN without the
option of multi-versioning. As was discussed with Daniel Berlin in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9548, this is inferior to a more loop-aware
solution applied here. Hopefully, we will be able to remove some
complexity from GVN/MemorySSA as a consequence.
In the long run, we may want to extend this pass (or create a new one if
there is little overlap) to also eliminate loop-indepedent redundant
loads and store that *require* versioning due to may-aliasing
intervening stores/loads. I have some motivating cases for store
elimination. My plan right now is to wait for MemorySSA to come online
first rather than using memdep for this.
The main motiviation for this pass is the 456.hmmer loop in SPECint2006
where after distributing the original loop and vectorizing the top part,
we are left with the critical path exposed in the bottom loop. Being
able to promote the memory dependence into a register depedence (even
though the HW does perform store-to-load fowarding as well) results in a
major gain (~20%). This gain also transfers over to x86: it's
around 8-10%.
Right now the pass is off by default and can be enabled
with -enable-loop-load-elim. On the LNT testsuite, there are two
performance changes (negative number -> improvement):
1. -28% in Polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/dynprog: the length of the
critical paths is reduced
2. +2% in Polybench/stencils/adi: Unfortunately, I couldn't reproduce this
outside of LNT
The pass is scheduled after the loop vectorizer (which is after loop
distribution). The rational is to try to reuse LAA state, rather than
recomputing it. The order between LV and LLE is not critical because
normally LV does not touch scalar st->ld forwarding cases where
vectorizing would inhibit the CPU's st->ld forwarding to kick in.
LoopLoadElimination requires LAA to provide the full set of dependences
(including forward dependences). LAA is known to omit loop-independent
dependences in certain situations. The big comment before
removeDependencesFromMultipleStores explains why this should not occur
for the cases that we're interested in.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel
Subscribers: junbuml, dberlin, mssimpso, rengolin, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13259
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@252017 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
