We used to only allow SCEVAddRecExpr for pointer expressions in order to
be able to compute the bounds. However this is also trivially possible
for loop-invariant addresses (scUnknown) since then the bounds are the
address itself.
Interestingly, we used allow this for the special case when the
loop-invariant address happens to also be an SCEVAddRecExpr (in an outer
loop).
There are a couple more loops that are vectorized in SPEC after this.
My guess is that the main reason we don't see more because for example a
loop-invariant load is vectorized into a splat vector with several
vector-inserts. This is likely to make the vectorization unprofitable.
I.e. we don't notice that a later LICM will move all of this out of the
loop so the cost estimate should really be 0.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@264243 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
These intrinsics expose the BUFFER_ATOMIC_* instructions and will be used
by Mesa to implement atomics with buffer semantics. The intrinsic interface
matches that of buffer.load.format and buffer.store.format, except that the
GLC bit is not exposed (it is automatically deduced based on whether the
return value is used).
The change of hasSideEffects is required for TableGen to accept the pattern
that matches the intrinsic.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, arsenm
Subscribers: arsenm, rivanvx, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18151
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263791 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
As explained by the comment, threads will typically see different values
returned by atomic instructions even if the arguments are equal.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18156
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263719 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
When multiple threads perform an atomic op with the same arguments, they
will usually see different return values.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18101
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263440 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch fixes the problem which occurs when loop-vectorize tries to use @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsic for a non-default addrspace pointer. It fails with "Calling a function with a bad signature!" assertion in CallInst constructor because it tries to pass a non-default addrspace pointer to the pointer argument which has default addrspace.
The fix is to add pointer type as another overloaded type to @llvm.masked.load/store intrinsics.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17270
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263158 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
actually finish wiring up the old call graph.
There were bugs in the old call graph that hadn't been caught because it
wasn't being tested. It wasn't being tested because it wasn't in the
pipeline system and we didn't have a printing pass to run in tests. This
fixes all of that.
As for why I'm still keeping the old call graph alive its so that I can
port GlobalsAA to the new pass manager with out forking it to work with
the lazy call graph. That's clearly the right eventual design, but it
seems pragmatic to defer that until its necessary. The old call graph
works just fine for GlobalsAA.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263104 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
'lcg' instead of just 'cg'.
This makes it consistent with the analysis name of 'lcg'.
No functionality changed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263103 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As part of r251146 InstCombine was extended to call computeKnownBits on
every value in the function to determine whether it happens to be
constant. This increases typical compiletime by 1-3% (5% in irgen+opt
time) in my measurements. On the other hand this case did not trigger
once in the whole llvm-testsuite.
This patch introduces the notion of ExpensiveCombines which are only
enabled for OptLevel > 2. I removed the check in InstructionSimplify as
that is called from various places where the OptLevel is not known but
given the rarity of the situation I think a check in InstCombine is
enough.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16835
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263047 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Building on the previous change, this generalizes
ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work with
{Ext(C?A:B)+k0,+,Ext(C?A:B)+k1} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation, and k0 and k1 are constants.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262979 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This change generalizes ScalarEvolution::getRangeViaFactoring to work
with {Ext(C?A:B),+,Ext(C?A:B)} where Ext can be a zero extend, sign
extend or truncate operation.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262978 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This testcase had me confused. It made me believe that you can use
alias scopes and alias scopes list interchangeably with alias.scope and
noalias. Both langref and the other testcase use scope lists so I went
looking.
Turns out using scope directly only happens to work by chance. When
ScopedNoAliasAAResult::mayAliasInScopes traverses this as a scope list:
!1 = !{!1, !0, !"some scope"}
, the first entry is in fact a scope but only because the scope is
happened to be defined self-referentially to make it unique globally.
The remaining elements in the tuple (!0, !"some scope") are considered
as scopes but AliasScopeNode::getDomain will just bail on those without
any error.
This change avoids this ambiguity in the test but I've also been
wondering if we should issue some sort of a diagnostics.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, hfinkel
Subscribers: mssimpso, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16670
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262841 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This experiment was originally about trying to use facts implied dominating conditions to infer more precise known bits. While the compile time was found to be acceptable on several large code bases, we never found sufficiently profitable examples to justify turning on the code by default. Given this, it's time to abandon the experiment.
Several folks have commented that they've found this useful for experimentation, but nothing has come of those experiments. Given how easy the patch is to apply, there's no reason to leave the code in tree.
For anyone interested in further investigation in this area, I recommend finding the summary email I sent on one of the original review threads. In particular, I now believe the use-list based approach is strictly worse than the dom-tree-walking approach.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262646 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Exploit ScalarEvolution::getRange's newly acquired smartness (since
r262438) by using that to infer nsw and nuw when possible.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262639 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
After r262438 we can have provably positive NSW SCEV expressions whose
zero extensions cannot be simplified (since r262438 makes SCEV better at
computing constant ranges). This means demoting sexts of positive add
recurrences eagerly can result in an unsimplified zero extension where
we could have had a simplified sign extension. This change fixes the
issue by teaching SCEV to demote sext of a positive SCEV expression to a
zext only if the sext could not be simplified.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262638 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Have ScalarEvolution::getRange re-consider cases like "{C?A:B,+,C?P:Q}"
by factoring out "C" and computing RangeOf{A,+,P} union RangeOf({B,+,Q})
instead.
The latter can be easier to compute precisely in cases like
"{C?0:N,+,C?1:-1}" N is the backedge taken count of the loop; since in
such cases the latter form simplifies to [0,N+1) union [0,N+1).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@262438 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
tests over to exercise this code.
This uncovered a few missing bits here and there in the analysis, but
nothing interesting.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@261404 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
it to actually test the new pass manager AA wiring.
This patch was extracted from the (somewhat too large) D12357 and
rebosed on top of the slightly different design of the new pass manager
AA wiring that I just landed. With this we can start testing the AA in
a thorough way with the new pass manager.
Some minor cleanups to the code in the pass was necessitated here, but
otherwise it is a very minimal change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17372
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@261403 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
reference-edge SCCs.
This essentially builds a more normal call graph as a subgraph of the
"reference graph" that was the old model. This allows both to exist and
the different use cases to use the aspect which addresses their needs.
Specifically, the pass manager and other *ordering* constrained logic
can use the reference graph to achieve conservative order of visit,
while analyses reasoning about attributes and other properties derived
from reachability can reason about the direct call graph.
Note that this isn't necessarily complete: it doesn't model edges to
declarations or indirect calls. Those can be found by scanning the
instructions of the function if desirable, and in fact every user
currently does this in order to handle things like calls to instrinsics.
If useful, we could consider caching this information in the call graph
to save the instruction scans, but currently that doesn't seem to be
important.
An important realization for why the representation chosen here works is
that the call graph is a formal subset of the reference graph and thus
both can live within the same data structure. All SCCs of the call graph
are necessarily contained within an SCC of the reference graph, etc.
The design is to build 'RefSCC's to model SCCs of the reference graph,
and then within them more literal SCCs for the call graph.
The formation of actual call edge SCCs is not done lazily, unlike
reference edge 'RefSCC's. Instead, once a reference SCC is formed, it
directly builds the call SCCs within it and stores them in a post-order
sequence. This is used to provide a consistent platform for mutation and
update of the graph. The post-order also allows for very efficient
updates in common cases by bounding the number of nodes (and thus edges)
considered.
There is considerable common code that I'm still looking for the best
way to factor out between the various DFS implementations here. So far,
my attempts have made the code harder to read and understand despite
reducing the duplication, which seems a poor tradeoff. I've not given up
on figuring out the right way to do this, but I wanted to wait until
I at least had the system working and tested to continue attempting to
factor it differently.
This also requires introducing several new algorithms in order to handle
all of the incremental update scenarios for the more complex structure
involving two edge colorings. I've tried to comment the algorithms
sufficiently to make it clear how this is expected to work, but they may
still need more extensive documentation.
I know that there are some changes which are not strictly necessarily
coupled here. The process of developing this started out with a very
focused set of changes for the new structure of the graph and
algorithms, but subsequent changes to bring the APIs and code into
consistent and understandable patterns also ended up touching on other
aspects. There was no good way to separate these out without causing
*massive* merge conflicts. Ultimately, to a large degree this is
a rewrite of most of the core algorithms in the LCG class and so I don't
think it really matters much.
Many thanks to the careful review by Sanjoy Das!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16802
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@261040 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
than the SCC object, and have it scan the instruction stream directly
rather than relying on call records.
This makes the behavior of this routine consistent between libc routines
and LLVM intrinsics for libc routines. We can go and start teaching it
about those being norecurse, but we should behave the same for the
intrinsic and the libc routine rather than differently. I chatted with
James Molloy and the inconsistency doesn't seem intentional and likely
is due to intrinsic calls not being modelled in the call graph analyses.
This also fixes a bug where we would deduce norecurse on optnone
functions, when generally we try to handle optnone functions as-if they
were replaceable and thus unanalyzable.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260813 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Passes that call `getAnalysisIfAvailable<T>` also need to call
`addUsedIfAvailable<T>` in `getAnalysisUsage` to indicate to the
legacy pass manager that it uses `T`. This contract was being
violated by passes that used `createLegacyPMAAResults`. This change
fixes this by exposing a helper in AliasAnalysis.h,
`addUsedAAAnalyses`, that is complementary to createLegacyPMAAResults
and does the right thing when called from `getAnalysisUsage`.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17010
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
IndVarSimplify assumes scAddRecExpr to be expanded in literal form instead of
canonical form by calling disableCanonicalMode after it creates SCEVExpander.
When CanonicalMode is disabled, SCEVExpander::expand should always return PHI
node for scAddRecExpr. r259736 broke the assumption.
The fix is to let SCEVExpander::expand skip the reuse Value logic if
CanonicalMode is false.
In addition, Besides IndVarSimplify, LSR pass also calls disableCanonicalMode
before doing rewrite. We can remove the original check of LSRMode in reuse
Value logic and use CanonicalMode instead.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260174 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
We shouldn't assert when there are no memchecks, since we
can have SCEV checks. There is already an assert covering
the case where there are no SCEV checks or memchecks.
This also changes the LAA pointer wrapping versioning test
to use the loop versioning pass (this was how I managed to
trigger the assert in the loop versioning pass).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@260086 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
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
The original commit triggered regressions in Polly tests. The regressions
exposed two problems which have been fixed in current version.
1. Polly will generate a new function based on the old one. To generate an
instruction for the new function, it builds SCEV for the old instruction,
applies some tranformation on the SCEV generated, then expands the transformed
SCEV and insert the expanded value into new function. Because SCEV expansion
may reuse value cached in ExprValueMap, the value in old function may be
inserted into new function, which is wrong.
In SCEVExpander::expand, there is a logic to check the cached value to
be used should dominate the insertion point. However, for the above
case, the check always passes. That is because the insertion point is
in a new function, which is unreachable from the old function. However
for unreachable node, DominatorTreeBase::dominates thinks it will be
dominated by any other node.
The fix is to simply add a check that the cached value to be used in
expansion should be in the same function as the insertion point instruction.
2. When the SCEV is of scConstant type, expanding it directly is cheaper than
reusing a normal value cached. Although in the cached value set in ExprValueMap,
there is a Constant type value, but it is not easy to find it out -- the cached
Value set is not sorted according to the potential cost. Existing reuse logic
in SCEVExpander::expand simply chooses the first legal element from the cached
value set.
The fix is that when the SCEV is of scConstant type, don't try the reuse
logic. simply expand it.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@259736 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
