The SimplifyCFG pass looks at basic blocks that contain only phi nodes,
followed by an unconditional branch. In a lot of cases, such a block (BB) can
be merged into their successor (Succ).
This merging is performed by TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock. It does
this by taking all phi nodes in the succesor block Succ and expanding them to
include the predecessors of BB. Furthermore, any phi nodes in BB are moved to
Succ and expanded to include the predecessors of Succ as well.
Before attempting this merge, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs checks to see if
all phi nodes can be properly merged. All functional changes are made to
this function, only comments were updated in
TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock.
In the original code, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs looks quite convoluted
and more like stack of checks added to handle different kinds of situations
than a comprehensive check. In particular the first check in the function did
some value checking for the case that BB and Succ have a common predecessor,
while the last check in the function simply rejected all cases where BB and
Succ have a common predecessor. The first check was still useful in the case
that BB did not contain any phi nodes at all, though, so it was not completely
useless.
Now, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs is restructured to to look a lot more
similar to the code that actually performs the merge. Both functions now look
at the same phi nodes in about the same order. Any conflicts (phi nodes with
different values for the same source) that could arise from merging or moving
phi nodes are detected. If no conflicts are found, the merge can happen.
Apart from only restructuring the checks, two main changes in functionality
happened.
Firstly, the old code rejected blocks with common predecessors in most cases.
The new code performs some extra checks so common predecessors can be handled
in a lot of cases. Wherever common predecessors still pose problems, the
blocks are left untouched.
Secondly, the old code rejected the merge when values (phi nodes) from BB were
used in any other place than Succ. However, it does not seem that there is any
situation that would require this check. Even more, this can be proven.
Consider that BB is a block containing of a single phi node "%a" and a branch
to Succ. Now, since the definition of %a will dominate all of its uses, BB
will dominate all blocks that use %a. Furthermore, since the branch from BB to
Succ is unconditional, Succ will also dominate all uses of %a.
Now, assume that one predecessor of Succ is not dominated by BB (and thus not
dominated by Succ). Since at least one use of %a (but in reality all of them)
is reachable from Succ, you could end up at a use of %a without passing
through it's definition in BB (by coming from X through Succ). This is a
contradiction, meaning that our original assumption is wrong. Thus, all
predecessors of Succ must also be dominated by BB (and thus also by Succ).
This means that moving the phi node %a from BB to Succ does not pose any
problems when the two blocks are merged, and any use checks are not needed.
llvm-svn: 51478
and bitcode support for the extractvalue and insertvalue
instructions and constant expressions.
Note that this does not yet include CodeGen support.
llvm-svn: 51468
BB1:
vr1025 = copy vr1024
..
BB2:
vr1024 = op
= op vr1025
<loop eventually branch back to BB1>
Even though vr1025 is copied from vr1024, it's not safe to coalesced them since live range of vr1025 intersects the def of vr1024. This happens when vr1025 is assigned the value of the previous iteration of vr1024 in the loop.
llvm-svn: 51394
If local spiller optimization turns some instruction into an identity copy, it will be removed. If the output register happens to be dead (and source is obviously killed), transfer the kill / dead information to last use / def in the same MBB.
llvm-svn: 51306
type and the other operand is a constant into integer comparisons.
This happens surprisingly frequently (e.g. 10 times in 471.omnetpp),
which are things like this:
%tmp8283 = sitofp i32 %tmp82 to double
%tmp1013 = fcmp ult double %tmp8283, 0.0
Clearly comparing tmp82 against i32 0 is cheaper here.
this also triggers 8 times in gobmk, including this one:
%tmp375376 = sitofp i32 %tmp375 to double
%tmp377 = fcmp ogt double %tmp375376, 8.150000e+01
which is comparing an integer against 81.5 :).
llvm-svn: 51268
intersecting bits. This triggers all over the place, for example in lencode,
with adds of stuff like:
%tmp580 = mul i32 %tmp579, 2
%tmp582 = and i32 %b8, 1
and
%tmp28 = shl i32 %abs.i, 1
%sign.0 = select i1 %tmp23, i32 1, i32 0
and
%tmp344 = shl i32 %tmp343, 2
%tmp346 = and i32 %tmp96, 3
etc.
llvm-svn: 51263
test/Verifier/2002-11-05-GetelementptrPointers.ll, which was incorrect.
Instead, fix getIndexedType to not follow pointer types, as
PointerType is a subclass of CompositeType.
llvm-svn: 51171
use-before-def. The problem comes up in code with multiple PHIs where
one PHI is being rewritten in terms of the other, but the other needs
to be casted first. LLVM rules requre the cast instruction to be
inserted after any PHI instructions, but when instructions were
inserted to replace the second PHI value with a function of the first,
they were ended up going before the cast instruction. Avoid this
problem by remembering the location of the cast instruction, when one
is needed, and inserting the expansion of the new value after it.
This fixes a bug that surfaced in 255.vortex on x86-64 when
instcombine was removed from the middle of the loop optimization
passes.
llvm-svn: 51169
is bitcast to return a floating point value. The result of the instruction may
not be used by the program afterwards, and LLVM will happily remove all
instructions except the call. But, on some platforms, if a value is returned as
a floating point, it may need to be removed from the stack (like x87). Thus, we
can't get rid of the bitcast even if there isn't a use of the value.
llvm-svn: 51134
