This intrinsic implements IEEE-754 operation roundToIntegralTiesToEven,
and performs rounding to the nearest integer value, rounding halfway
cases to even. The intrinsic represents the missed case of IEEE-754
rounding operations and now llvm provides full support of the rounding
operations defined by the standard.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75670
If we don't know anything about the alignment of a pointer, Align(1) is
still correct: all pointers are at least 1-byte aligned.
Included in this patch is a bugfix for an issue discovered during this
cleanup: pointers with "dereferenceable" attributes/metadata were
assumed to be aligned according to the type of the pointer. This
wasn't intentional, as far as I can tell, so Loads.cpp was fixed to
stop making this assumption. Frontends may need to be updated. I
updated clang's handling of C++ references, and added a release note for
this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80072
It's really almost going to be misleading, see the example in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45820
Maybe at some point we can do something fancier, but at least
this will fix a bug where we step on dead code while debugging.
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Summary:
The assume builder was non-deterministic when working on unamed values.
this patch fixes this.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, mgrang, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78616
The current strategy LICM uses when sinking for debuginfo is
that of picking the debug location of one of the uses.
This causes stepping to be wrong sometimes, see, e.g. PR45523.
This patch introduces a generalization of getMergedLocation(),
that operates on a vector of locations instead of two, and try
to merge all them together, and use the new API in LICM.
<rdar://problem/61750950>
This reverts commit 8d22100f66c4170510c6ff028c60672acfe1cff9.
There was a functional regression reported (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44996). I'm not actually sure the patch is wrong, but I don't have time to investigate currently, and this line of work isn't something I'm likely to get back to quickly.
Summary:
Same as D60846 and D69571 but with a fix for the problem encountered
after them. Both times it was a missing context adjustment in the
handling of PHI nodes.
The reproducers created from the bugs that caused the old commits to be
reverted are included.
Reviewers: nikic, nlopes, mkazantsev, spatel, dlrobertson, uabelho, hakzsam, hans
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71181
This caused miscompiles of Chromium (https://crbug.com/1023818). The reduced
repro is small enough to fit here:
$ cat /tmp/a.c
unsigned char f(unsigned char *p) {
unsigned char result = 0;
for (int shift = 0; shift < 1; ++shift)
result |= p[0] << (shift * 8);
return result;
}
$ bin/clang -O2 -S -o - /tmp/a.c | grep -A4 f:
f: # @f
.cfi_startproc
# %bb.0: # %entry
xorl %eax, %eax
retq
That's nicely optimized, but I don't think it's the right result :-)
> Same as D60846 but with a fix for the problem encountered there which
> was a missing context adjustment in the handling of PHI nodes.
>
> The test that caused D60846 to be reverted was added in e15ab8f277c7.
>
> Reviewers: nikic, nlopes, mkazantsev,spatel, dlrobertson, uabelho, hakzsam
>
> Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
>
> Tags: #llvm
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69571
This reverts commit 57dd4b03e4806bbb4760ab6150940150d884df20.
This patch implements a correct, but not terribly useful, transform. In particular, if we have a dynamic alloca in a loop which is guaranteed to execute, and provably not captured, we hoist the alloca out of the loop. The capture tracking is needed so that we can prove that each previous stack region dies before the next one is allocated. The transform decreases the amount of stack allocation needed by a linear factor (e.g. the iteration count of the loop).
Now, I really hope no one is actually using dynamic allocas. As such, why this patch?
Well, the actual problem I'm hoping to make progress on is allocation hoisting. There's a large draft patch out for review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D60056), and this patch was the smallest chunk of testable functionality I could come up with which takes a step vaguely in that direction.
Once this is in, it makes motivating the changes to capture tracking mentioned in TODOs testable. After that, I hope to extend this to trivial malloc free regions (i.e. free dominating all loop exits) and allocation functions for GCed languages.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69227
The change itself is straight forward and obvious, but ... there's an existing test checking for exactly the opposite. Both I and Artur think this is simply conservatism in the initial implementation. If anyone bisects a problem to this, a counter example will be very interesting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69907
Same as D60846 but with a fix for the problem encountered there which
was a missing context adjustment in the handling of PHI nodes.
The test that caused D60846 to be reverted was added in e15ab8f277c7.
Reviewers: nikic, nlopes, mkazantsev,spatel, dlrobertson, uabelho, hakzsam
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69571
exits"
Get a better approach in https://reviews.llvm.org/D68107 to solve the problem.
Revert the initial patch and will commit the new one soon.
This reverts commit rL372990.
llvm-svn: 373044
for extreme large case.
We had a case that a single loop which has 4000 exits and the average number
of predecessors of each exit is > 1000, and we found compiling the case spent
a significant amount of time on checking whether a loop has dedicated exits.
This patch adds a limit for the iterations to the check. With the patch, the
time to compile our testcase reduced from 1000s to 200s (clang release build).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67359
llvm-svn: 372990
Properly check if NewAAInfo conflicts with AAInfo.
Update local variable and alias set that a change occured when a conflict is found.
Resolves PR42969.
llvm-svn: 371139
Summary:
Add a flag to the FunctionToLoopAdaptor that allows enabling MemorySSA only for the loop pass managers that are known to preserve it.
If an LPM is known to have only loop transforms that *all* preserve MemorySSA, then use MemorySSA if `EnableMSSALoopDependency` is set.
If an LPM has loop passes that do not preserve MemorySSA, then the flag passed is `false`, regardless of the value of `EnableMSSALoopDependency`.
When using a custom loop pass pipeline via `passes=...`, use keyword `loop` vs `loop-mssa` to use MemorySSA in that LPM. If a loop that does not preserve MemorySSA is added while using the `loop-mssa` keyword, that's an error.
Add the new `loop-mssa` keyword to a few tests where a difference occurs when enabling MemorySSA.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66376
llvm-svn: 369548
Summary:
Hoisting/sinking instruction out of a loop isn't always beneficial. Hoisting an instruction from a cold block inside a loop body out of the loop could hurt performance. This change makes Loop ICM profile aware - it now checks block frequency to make sure hoisting/sinking anly moves instruction to colder block.
Test Plan:
ninja check
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy, reames, nikic, hfinkel, vsk
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: fhahn, vsk, davidxl, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65060
llvm-svn: 368526
For some targets the LICM pass can result in sub-optimal code in some
cases where it would be better not to run the pass, but it isn't
always possible to suppress the transformations heuristically.
Where the front-end has insight into such cases it is beneficial
to attach loop metadata to disable the pass - this change adds the
llvm.licm.disable metadata to enable that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64557
llvm-svn: 368296
For consistency with normal instructions and clarity when reading IR,
it's best to print the %0, %1, ... names of function arguments in
definitions.
Also modifies the parser to accept IR in that form for obvious reasons.
llvm-svn: 367755
This patch adds a function attribute, nofree, to indicate that a function does
not, directly or indirectly, call a memory-deallocation function (e.g., free,
C++'s operator delete).
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49165
llvm-svn: 365336
Summary:
The getClobberingMemoryAccess API checks for clobbering accesses in a loop by walking the backedge. This may check if a memory access is being
clobbered by the loop in a previous iteration, depending how smart AA got over the course of the updates in MemorySSA (it does not occur when built from scratch).
If no clobbering access is found inside the loop, it will optimize to an access outside the loop. This however does not mean that access is safe to sink.
Given:
```
for i
load a[i]
store a[i]
```
The access corresponding to the load can be optimized to outside the loop, and the load can be hoisted. But it is incorrect to sink it.
In order to sink the load, we'd need to check no Def clobbers the Use in the same iteration. With this patch we currently restrict sinking to either
Defs not existing in the loop, or Defs preceding the load in the same block. An easy extension is to ensure the load (Use) post-dominates all Defs.
Caught by PR42294.
This issue also shed light on the converse problem: hoisting stores in this same scenario would be illegal. With this patch we restrict
hoisting of stores to the case when their corresponding Defs are dominating all Uses in the loop.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63582
llvm-svn: 363982
When an outer loop gets deleted by a different pass, before LICM visits
it, we cannot clean up its sub-loops in AliasSetMap, because at the
point we receive the deleteAnalysisLoop callback for the outer loop, the loop
object is already invalid and we cannot access its sub-loops any longer.
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy, chandlerc
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61904
llvm-svn: 360704
This reverts commit 3b137a495686bd6018d115ea82fb8bb7718349fd.
As reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/D60846, this is causing
miscompiles.
llvm-svn: 360260
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Before this patch, if any Use existed in the loop, with a defining
access in the loop, we conservatively decide to not move the store.
What this approach was missing, is that ordered loads are not Uses, they're Defs
in MemorySSA. So, even when the clobbering walker does not find that
volatile load to interfere, we still cannot hoist a store past a
volatile load.
Resolves PR41140.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59564
llvm-svn: 356588
This patch fixes an issue where we would compute an unnecessarily small alignment during scalar promotion when no store is not to be guaranteed to execute, but we've proven load speculation safety. Since speculating a load requires proving the existing alignment is valid at the new location (see Loads.cpp), we can use the alignment fact from the load.
For non-atomics, this is a performance problem. For atomics, this is a correctness issue, though an *incredibly* rare one to see in practice. For atomics, we might not be able to lower an improperly aligned load or store (i.e. i32 align 1). If such an instruction makes it all the way to codegen, we *may* fail to codegen the operation, or we may simply generate a slow call to a library function. The part that makes this super hard to see in practice is that the memory location actually *is* well aligned, and instcombine knows that. So, to see a failure, you have to have a) hit the bug in LICM, b) somehow hit a depth limit in InstCombine/ValueTracking to avoid fixing the alignment, and c) then have generated an instruction which fails codegen rather than simply emitting a slow libcall. All around, pretty hard to hit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58809
llvm-svn: 355217
This should have been part of r355110, but my brain isn't quite awake yet, despite the coffee. Per the original submit comment... Doing scalar promotion w/o being able to prove the alignment of the hoisted load or sunk store is a bug. Update tests to actually show the alignment so that impact of the patch which fixes this can be seen.
llvm-svn: 355111
Doing scalar promotion w/o being able to prove the alignment of the hoisted load or sunk store is a bug. Update tests to actually show the alignment so that impact of the patch which fixes this can be seen.
llvm-svn: 355110
Summary:
If there is no clobbering access for a store inside the loop, that store
can only be hoisted if there are no interfearing loads.
A more general verification introduced here: there are no loads that are
not optimized to an access outside the loop.
Addresses PR40586.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57967
llvm-svn: 353734
Summary:
MemorySSA needs updating each time an instruction is moved.
LICM and control flow hoisting re-hoists instructions, thus needing another update when re-moving those instructions.
Pending cleanup: the MSSA update is duplicated, should be moved inside moveInstructionBefore.
Reviewers: jnspaulsson
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57176
llvm-svn: 352092
Summary:
Step 2 in using MemorySSA in LICM:
Use MemorySSA in LICM to do sinking and hoisting, all under "EnableMSSALoopDependency" flag.
Promotion is disabled.
Enable flag in LICM sink/hoist tests to test correctness of this change. Moved one test which
relied on promotion, in order to test all sinking tests.
Reviewers: sanjoy, davide, gberry, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40375
llvm-svn: 350879
In some cases the order that we hoist instructions in means that when rehoisting
(which uses the same order as hoisting) we can rehoist to a block A, then a
block B, then block A again. This currently causes an assertion failure as it
expects that when changing the hoist point it only ever moves to a block that
dominates the hoist point being moved from.
Fix this by moving the re-hoist point when it doesn't dominate the dominator of
hoisted instruction, or in other words when it wouldn't dominate the uses of
the instruction being rehoisted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55266
llvm-svn: 350408
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
This commit caused a large compile-time slowdown in some cases when NDEBUG is
off due to the dominator tree verification it added. Fix this by only doing
dominator tree and loop info verification when something has been hoisted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52827
llvm-svn: 347889
