r279460 rewrote this function to be able to handle more than two incoming edges and took pains to ensure this didn't regress anything.
This time we change the logic for determining if an instruction should be sunk. Previously we used a single pass greedy algorithm - sink instructions until one requires more than one PHI node or we run out of instructions to sink.
This had the problem that sinking instructions that had non-identical but trivially the same operands needed extra logic so we sunk them aggressively. For example:
%a = load i32* %b %d = load i32* %b
%c = gep i32* %a, i32 0 %e = gep i32* %d, i32 1
Sinking %c and %e would naively require two PHI merges as %a != %d. But the loads are obviously equivalent (and maybe can't be hoisted because there is no common predecessor).
This is why we implemented the fairly complex function areValuesTriviallySame(), to look through trivial differences like this. However it's just not clever enough.
Instead, throw areValuesTriviallySame away, use pointer equality to check equivalence of operands and switch to a two-stage algorithm.
In the "scan" stage, we look at every sinkable instruction in isolation from end of block to front. If it's sinkable, we keep track of all operands that required PHI merging.
In the "sink" stage, we iteratively sink the last non-terminator in the source blocks. But when calculating how many PHIs are actually required to be inserted (to work out if we should stop or not) we remove any values that have already been sunk from the set of PHI-merges required, which allows us to be more aggressive.
This turns an algorithm with potentially recursive lookahead (looking through GEPs, casts, loads and any other instruction potentially not CSE'd) to two linear scans.
llvm-svn: 280216
This was deliberately disabled during my rewrite of SinkIfThenToEnd to keep behaviour
at least vaguely consistent with the previous version and keep it as close to NFC as
I could.
There's no real reason not to merge sideeffect calls though, so let's do it! Small fixup
along the way to ensure we don't create indirect calls.
Should fix PR28964.
llvm-svn: 280215
Assuming the default FP env, we should not treat fdiv and frem any differently in terms of
trapping behavior than any other FP op. Ie, FP ops do not trap with the default FP env.
This matches how we treat the fdiv/frem in IR with isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute() and in
the backend after:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279970
llvm-svn: 279973
[Recommitting now an unrelated assertion in SROA is sorted out]
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
Round 4. This time we should handle all instructions correctly, and not replace any operands that need to be constant with variables.
This was really hard to determine safely, so the helper function should be put into the Instruction API. I'll do that as a followup.
llvm-svn: 279460
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
Round 4. This time we should handle all instructions correctly, and not replace any operands that need to be constant with variables.
This was really hard to determine safely, so the helper function should be put into the Instruction API. I'll do that as a followup.
llvm-svn: 279443
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
llvm-svn: 279229
This reverts commit r278660.
It causes downstream assertion failure in InstCombine on shuffle
instructions. Comes up in __mm_swizzle_epi32.
llvm-svn: 278672
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
llvm-svn: 278660
This generated IR based on the order of evaluation, which is different
between GCC and Clang. With that in mind you get bootstrap miscompares
if you compare a Clang built with GCC-built Clang vs. Clang built with
Clang-built Clang. Diagnosing that made my head hurt.
This also reverts commit r277337, which "fixed" the test case.
llvm-svn: 277820
Using RAUW was wrong here; if we have a switch transform such as:
18 -> 6 then
6 -> 0
If we use RAUW, while performing the second transform the *transformed* 6
from the first will be also replaced, so we end up with:
18 -> 0
6 -> 0
Found by clang stage2 bootstrap; testcase added.
llvm-svn: 277332
It looks like the two independent parts of the rotate operation (a lshr and shl) are being reordered on some bots. Add CHECK-DAGs to account for this.
llvm-svn: 277329
If a switch is sparse and all the cases (once sorted) are in arithmetic progression, we can extract the common factor out of the switch and create a dense switch. For example:
switch (i) {
case 5: ...
case 9: ...
case 13: ...
case 17: ...
}
can become:
if ( (i - 5) % 4 ) goto default;
switch ((i - 5) / 4) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
or even better:
switch ( ROTR(i - 5, 2) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
The division and remainder operations could be costly so we only do this if the factor is a power of two, and emit a right-rotate instead of a divide/remainder sequence. Dense switches can be lowered significantly better than sparse switches and can even be transformed into lookup tables.
llvm-svn: 277325
SimplifyCFG had logic to insert calls to llvm.trap for two very
particular IR patterns: stores and invokes of undef/null.
While InstCombine canonicalizes certain undefined behavior IR patterns
to stores of undef, phase ordering means that this cannot be relied upon
in general.
There are much better tools than llvm.trap: UBSan and ASan.
N.B. I could be argued into reverting this change if a clear argument as
to why it is important that we synthesize llvm.trap for stores, I'd be
hard pressed to see why it'd be useful for invokes...
llvm-svn: 273778
reduce the number of comparisons.
Specifically, InstCombine can turn:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
into:
((i | 1) == 5335)
SimplifyCFG was already able to detect the pattern:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This patch supersedes D21315 and resolves PR27555
(https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27555).
Thanks to David and Chandler for the suggestions!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: majnemer chandlerc halfdan cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21397
llvm-svn: 273639
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This transformation has some incorrect side conditions. Specifically, the
transformation is only applied when the right-hand side constant (5334 in
the example) is a power of two not equal and not equal to the negated mask.
These side conditions were added in r258904 to fix PR26323. The correct side
condition is that: ((Constant & Mask) == Constant)[(5334 & -2) == 5334].
It's a little bit hard to see why these transformations are correct and what
the side conditions ought to be. Here is a CVC3 program to verify them for
64-bit values:
ONE : BITVECTOR(64) = BVZEROEXTEND(0bin1, 63);
x : BITVECTOR(64);
y : BITVECTOR(64);
z : BITVECTOR(64);
mask : BITVECTOR(64) = BVSHL(ONE, z);
QUERY( (y & ~mask = y) =>
((x & ~mask = y) <=> (x = y OR x = (y | mask)))
);
Please note that each pattern must be a dual implication (<--> or iff). One
directional implication can create spurious matches. If the implication is
only one-way, an unsatisfiable condition on the left side can imply a
satisfiable condition on the right side. Dual implication ensures that
satisfiable conditions are transformed to other satisfiable conditions and
unsatisfiable conditions are transformed to other unsatisfiable conditions.
Here is a concrete example of a unsatisfiable condition on the left
implying a satisfiable condition on the right:
mask = (1 << z)
(x & ~mask) == y --> (x == y || x == (y | mask))
Substituting y = 3, z = 0 yields:
(x & -2) == 3 --> (x == 3 || x == 2)
The version of this code before r258904 had no side-conditions and
incorrectly justified itself in comments through one-directional
implication.
Thanks to Chandler for the suggestion!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: chandlerc majnemer hfinkel cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21417
llvm-svn: 272873
A basic block could contain:
%cp = cleanuppad []
cleanupret from %cp unwind to caller
This basic block is empty and is thus a candidate for removal. However,
there can be other uses of %cp outside of this basic block. This is
only possible in unreachable blocks.
Make our transform more correct by checking that the pad has a single
user before removing the BB.
This fixes PR28005.
llvm-svn: 271816
A cleanuppad is not cheap, they turn into many instructions and result
in additional spills and fills. It is not worth keeping a cleanuppad
around if all it does is hold a lifetime.end instruction.
N.B. We first try to merge the cleanuppad with another cleanuppad to
avoid dropping the lifetime and debug info markers.
llvm-svn: 270314
Summary: Set default branch weight to 1:1 if one of the branch has profile missing when simplifying CFG.
Reviewers: spatel, davidxl
Subscribers: danielcdh, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20307
llvm-svn: 269995
Summary: In sample profile, some branches may have profile missing due to profile inaccuracy. We want existing branch probability still valid after propagation.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19948
llvm-svn: 269137
Retrying r268550/r268751 which were reverted at r268577/r268765 due a memory sanitizer failure.
I have not been able to reproduce that failure, but I've taken another guess at fixing
the problem in this version of the patch and will watch for another failure.
Original commit message:
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268767
Retrying r268550 which was reverted at r268577 due a memory sanitizer failure.
I have not been able to reproduce that failure, but I've taken a guess at fixing
the problem in this version of the patch and will watch for another failure.
Original commit message:
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268751
MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
0x4910e47 in count /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h:159:12
0x4910e47 in countLeadingZeros<unsigned long> /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h:183
0x4910e47 in FitWeights /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:855
0x4910e47 in SimplifyCondBranchToCondBranch /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot2/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:2895
This reverts commit 609f4dd4bf3bc735c8c047a4d4b0a8e9e4d202e2.
llvm-svn: 268577
Unlike earlier similar fixes, we need to recalculate the branch weights
in this case.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19674
llvm-svn: 268550
This patch fixes PR27615.
@llvm.dbg.value instructions no longer count towards the maximum number of
instructions to look back at in the instruction list when searching for a
store instruction. This should make the output consistent between debug and
non-debug build.
Patch by Henric Karlsson <henric.karlsson@ericsson.com>!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19912
llvm-svn: 268512
Make it possible that TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock merges empty
basic block including lifetime intrinsics as well as phi nodes and
unconditional branch into its successor or predecessor(s).
If successor of empty block has single predecessor, all contents including
lifetime intrinsics are sinked into the successor. Otherwise, they are
hoisted into its predecessor(s) and then merged into the predecessor(s).
Patch by Josh Yoon <josh.yoon@samsung.com>!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19257
llvm-svn: 268254
When SimplifyCFG merges identical instructions from both sides of a diamond, it
can preserve !llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access (as it does with most of the other
metadata). There's no real data or control dependency change in this case.
llvm-svn: 267515
