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
This reverts commits r347776 and r347778.
The first one, r347776, caused significant compile time regressions
for certain input files, see PR39836 for details.
llvm-svn: 347867
This commit caused failures because it failed to correctly handle cases where
we hoist a phi, then hoist a use of that phi, then have to rehoist that use. We
need to make sure that we rehoist the use to _after_ the hoisted phi, which we
do by always rehoisting to the immediate dominator instead of just rehoisting
everything to the original preheader.
An option is also added to control whether control flow is hoisted, which is
off in this commit but will be turned on in a subsequent commit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52827
llvm-svn: 347776
This patch fixes PR39695.
The original LoopSink only considers memory alias in loop body. But PR39695 shows that instructions following sink candidate in preheader should also be checked. This is a conservative patch, it simply adds whole preheader block to alias set. It may lose some optimization opportunity, but I think that is very rare because: 1 in the most common case st/ld to the same address, the load should already be optimized away. 2 usually preheader is not very large.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54659
llvm-svn: 347325
The general approach taken is to make note of loop invariant branches, then when
we see something conditional on that branch, such as a phi, we create a copy of
the branch and (empty versions of) its successors and hoist using that.
This has no impact by itself that I've been able to see, as LICM typically
doesn't see such phis as they will have been converted into selects by the time
LICM is run, but once we start doing phi-to-select conversion later it will be
important.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52827
llvm-svn: 347190
This patch relaxes overconservative checks on whether or not we could write
memory before we execute an instruction. This allows us to hoist guards out of
loops even if they are not in the header block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50891
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
llvm-svn: 346643
This patch makes LICM use `ICFLoopSafetyInfo` that is a smarter version
of LoopSafetyInfo that leverages power of Implicit Control Flow Tracking
to keep track of throwing instructions and give less pessimistic answers
to queries related to throws.
The ICFLoopSafetyInfo itself has been introduced in rL344601. This patch
enables it in LICM only.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50377
Reviewed By: apilipenko
llvm-svn: 346201
There are places where we need to merge multiple LocationSizes of
different sizes into one, and get a sensible result.
There are other places where we want to optimize aggressively based on
the value of a LocationSizes (e.g. how can a store of four bytes be to
an area of storage that's only two bytes large?)
This patch makes LocationSize hold an 'imprecise' bit to note whether
the LocationSize can be treated as an upper-bound and lower-bound for
the size of a location, or just an upper-bound.
This concludes the series of patches leading up to this. The most recent
of which is r344108.
Fixes PR36228.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44748
llvm-svn: 344114
AliasSetTracker has special case handling for memset, memcpy and memmove which pre-existed argmemonly on functions and readonly and writeonly on arguments. This patch generalizes it using the AA infrastructure to any call correctly annotated.
The motivation here is to cut down on confusion, not performance per se. For most instructions, there is a direct mapping to alias set. However, this is not guaranteed by the interface and was not in fact true for these three intrinsics *and only these three intrinsics*. I kept getting myself confused about this invariant, so I figured it would be good to clearly distinguish between a instructions and alias sets. Calls happened to be an easy target.
The nice side effect is that custom implementations of memset/memcpy/memmove - including wrappers discovered by IPO - can now be optimized the same as builts by LICM.
Note: The actual removal of the memset/memtransfer specific handling will happen in a follow on NFC patch. It was originally part of this one, but separate for ease of review and rebase.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50730
llvm-svn: 341713
Teach LICM to hoist stores out of loops when the store writes to a location otherwise unused in the loop, writes a value which is invariant, and is guaranteed to execute if the loop is entered.
Worth noting is that this transformation is partially overlapping with the existing promotion transformation. Reasons this is worthwhile anyway include:
* For multi-exit loops, this doesn't require duplication of the store.
* It kicks in for case where we can't prove we exit through a normal exit (i.e. we may throw), but can prove the store executes before that possible side exit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50925
llvm-svn: 340974
In the PR, LoopSink was trying to sink into a catchswitch block, which
doesn't have a valid insertion point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51307
llvm-svn: 340900
Once the invariant_start is reached, we know that no instruction *after* it can modify the memory. So, if we can prove the location isn't read *between entry into the loop and the execution of the invariant_start*, we can execute the invariant_start before entering the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51181
llvm-svn: 340617
This patch teaches LICM to hoist guards from the loop if they are guaranteed to execute and
if there are no side effects that could prevent that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50501
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 340256
