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
We may be able to assert that no shl-shl or lshr-lshr pairs ever get here
because we should have already handled those in foldShiftedShift().
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292726 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the library routine shared with the new PM and other code.
This assert checks that when LCSSA preservation is requested we start in
LCSSA form. Without this early assert, given *very* complex test cases
we can hit an assert or crash much later on when trying to preserve
LCSSA.
The new PM's loop simplify doesn't need to (and indeed can't) preserve
LCSSA as the new PM doesn't deal in transforms in the dependency graph.
But we asked the library to and shockingly, this didn't work very well!
Stop doing that. Now the assert will tell us immediately with existing
test cases. Before this, it took a pretty convoluted input to trigger
this.
However, sinking the assert also found a bug in LoopUnroll where we
asked simplifyLoop to preserve LCSSA *right before we reform it*. That's
kinda silly and unsurprising that it wasn't available. =D Stop doing
that too.
We also would assert that the unrolled loop was in LCSSA even if
preserving LCSSA was never requested! I don't have a test case or
anything here. I spotted it by inspection and it seems quite obvious. No
logic change anyways, that's just avoiding a spurrious assert.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292710 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Under option -mergefunc-preserve-debug-info we:
- Do not create a new function for a thunk.
- Retain the debug info for a thunk's parameters (and associated
instructions for the debug info) from the entry block.
Note: -debug will display the algorithm at work.
- Create debug-info for the call (to the shared implementation) made by
a thunk and its return value.
- Erase the rest of the function, retaining the (minimally sized) entry
block to create a thunk.
- Preserve a thunk's call site to point to the thunk even when both occur
within the same translation unit, to aid debugability. Note that this
behaviour differs from the underlying -mergefunc implementation which
modifies the thunk's call site to point to the shared implementation
when both occur within the same translation unit.
Reviewers: echristo, eeckstein, dblaikie, aprantl, friss
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: davide, fhahn, jfb, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28075
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292702 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Don't call `isTriviallyDeadInstructions()` once we discover that
an instruction is dead. Instead, set DFS number zero (as suggested
by Danny) and forget about it (this also speeds up things as we
won't try to reprocess that block).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28930
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292676 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This adds the following to the new PM based inliner in PGO mode:
* Use block frequency analysis to derive callsite's profile count and use
that to adjust thresholds of hot and cold callsites.
* Incrementally update the BFI of the caller after a callee gets inlined
into it. This incremental update is only within an invocation of the run
method - BFI is not preserved across calls to run.
Update the function entry count of the callee after inlining it into a
caller.
* I've tuned the thresholds for the hot and cold callsites using a hacked
up version of the old inliner that explicitly computes BFI on a set of
internal benchmarks and spec. Once the new PM based pipeline stabilizes
(IIRC Chandler mentioned there are known issues) I'll benchmark this
again and adjust the thresholds if required.
Inliner PGO support.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28331
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292666 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Allow non-ODR weak/linkonce non-prevailing copies to be marked
as available_externally in the index. Add support for dropping these to
declarations in the backend.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, pcc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28806
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292656 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This rewrites store expression/leader handling. We no longer use the
value operand as the leader, instead, we store it separately. We also
now store the stored value as part of the expression, and compare it
when comparing stores for equality. This enables us to get rid of a
bunch of our previous hacks and machinations, as the existing
machinery takes care of everything *except* updating the stored value
on classes. The only time we have to update it is if the storecount
goes to 0, and when we do, we destroy it.
Since we no longer use the value operand as the leader, during elimination, we have to use the value operand. Doing this also fixes a bunch of store forwarding cases we were missing.
Any value operand we use is guaranteed to either be updated by previous eliminations, or minimized by future ones.
(IE the fact that we don't use the most dominating value operand when it's not a constant does not affect anything).
Sadly, this change also exposes that we didn't pay attention to the
output of the pr31594.ll test, as it also very clearly exposes the
same store leader bug we are fixing here.
(I added pr31682.ll anyway, but maybe we think that's too large to be useful)
On the plus side, propagate-ir-flags.ll now passes due to the
corrected store forwarding.
This change was 3 stage'd on darwin and linux, with the full test-suite.
Reviewers:
davide
Subscribers:
llvm-commits
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292648 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Like several other loop passes (the vectorizer, etc) this pass doesn't
really fit the model of a loop pass. The critical distinction is that it
isn't intended to be pipelined together with other loop passes. I plan
to add some documentation to the loop pass manager to make this more
clear on that side.
LoopSink is also different because it doesn't really need a lot of the
infrastructure of our loop passes. For example, if there aren't loop
invariant instructions causing a preheader to exist, there is no need to
form a preheader. It also doesn't need LCSSA because this pass is
only involved in sinking invariant instructions from a preheader into
the loop, not reasoning about live-outs.
This allows some nice simplifications to the pass in the new PM where we
can directly walk the loops once without restructuring them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28921
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292589 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Part of the assert has been left active for further debugging.
The other part has been turned into a stat for tracking for the
moment.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292583 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This can prove that:
extern int f;
int g() {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 365; ++i) {
x /= f;
}
return x;
}
always returns zero. Thanks to Sanjoy for confirming this
transformation actually made sense (bugs are mine).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292531 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
In case of non-alloca pointers, we check for whether it is a pointer
from malloc-like calls and it is not captured. In such case, we can
promote the pointer, as the caller will have no way to access this pointer
even if there is unwinding in middle of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, reames, eli.friedman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28834
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292510 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Type identifiers are exported by:
- Adding coarse-grained information about how to test the type
identifier to the summary.
- Creating symbols in the object file (aliases and absolute symbols)
containing fine-grained information about the type identifier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28424
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292462 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This changes the vectorizer to explicitly use the loopsimplify and lcssa utils,
instead of "requiring" the transformations as if they were analyses.
This is not NFC, since it changes the LCSSA behavior - we no longer run LCSSA
for all loops, but rather only for the loops we expect to modify.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28868
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292456 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Mostly straightforward changes; we just didn't do the computation before.
One sort of interesting change in LoopUnroll.cpp: we weren't handling
dominance for children of the loop latch correctly, but
foldBlockIntoPredecessor hid the problem for complete unrolling.
Currently punting on loop peeling; made some minor changes to isolate
that problem to LoopUnrollPeel.cpp.
Adds a flag -unroll-verify-domtree; it verifies the domtree immediately
after we finish updating it. This is on by default for +Asserts builds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28073
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292447 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We currently check whether a reduction has a single outside user. We don't
really need to require that - we just need to make sure a single value is
used externally. The number of external users of that value shouldn't actually
matter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28830
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292424 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As discussed on D28777 - we don't need to handle 'all element' shuffles inside InstCombiner::visitCallInst as InstCombiner::SimplifyDemandedVectorElts will do everything we need.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292365 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
follow LLVM's naming conventions while I'm here.
Again, sorry I didn't spot this earlier to coalesce with other cleanup
changes.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292333 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
deleted.
I've expanded its test coverage a bit including adding one test that
will crash clearly without this change.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292332 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: Partial unrolling should have separate threshold with full unrolling.
Reviewers: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Reviewed By: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28831
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292293 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
unique exit block if available rather than rolling it ourselves.
This is a little disappointing because that helper doesn't do anything
clever to short-circuit the (surprisingly expensive) computation of all
exit blocks. What's worse is that the way we compute this is hopelessly,
hilariously inefficient. We're literally computing the same information
two different ways and multiple times each way:
- hasDedicatedExits computes the exit block set and then looks at the
predecessors of each
- getExitingBlocks computes the set of loop blocks which have exiting
successors
- getUniqueExitBlock(s) computes the set of non-loop blocks reached from
loop blocks (sound familiar?)
Anyways, at some point we should clean all of this up in the LoopInfo
API, but for now just simplifying the user I'm about to touch.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292282 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
I hope that for any code, it is changed only with good reason and only
when the author knows what they are doing...
There is of course good reason to comment here about the subtlety of the
process, and I've left that comment in tact.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292275 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
instead of members.
No state was being provided by the object so this seems strictly
simpler.
I've also tried to improve the name and comments for the functions to
more thoroughly document what they are doing.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292274 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
