1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-20 19:42:54 +02:00
Commit Graph

8079 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Alina Sbirlea
2389f24e9d [MemorySSA] Expose the verify as a debug option.
Summary: Expose VerifyMemorySSA as a debug option. If set, passes will call the MSSA->verifyMemorySSA() after calling into the updater's APIs when MemorySSA should be valid.

Reviewers: george.burgess.iv

Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50749

llvm-svn: 339795
2018-08-15 17:34:55 +00:00
Max Kazantsev
ce271f3ebb [AliasSetTracker] Do not treat experimental_guard intrinsic as memory writing instruction
The `experimental_guard` intrinsic has memory write semantics to model the thread-exiting
logic, but does not do any actual writes to memory. Currently, `AliasSetTracker` treats it as a
normal memory write. As result, a loop-invariant load cannot be hoisted out of loop because
the guard may possibly alias with it.

This patch makes `AliasSetTracker` so that it doesn't treat guards as memory writes.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50497
Reviewed By: reames

llvm-svn: 339753
2018-08-15 06:21:02 +00:00
Max Kazantsev
e3a99dbec0 [NFC] Refactoring of LoopSafetyInfo, step 1
Turn structure into class, encapsulate methods, add clarifying comments.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50693
Reviewed By: reames

llvm-svn: 339752
2018-08-15 05:55:43 +00:00
Reid Kleckner
6e852d9c3d [BasicAA] Don't assume tail calls with byval don't alias allocas
Summary:
Calls marked 'tail' cannot read or write allocas from the current frame
because the current frame might be destroyed by the time they run.
However, a tail call may use an alloca with byval. Calling with byval
copies the contents of the alloca into argument registers or stack
slots, so there is no lifetime issue. Tail calls never modify allocas,
so we can return just ModRefInfo::Ref.

Fixes PR38466, a longstanding bug.

Reviewers: hfinkel, nlewycky, gbiv, george.burgess.iv

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50679

llvm-svn: 339636
2018-08-14 01:24:35 +00:00
Philip Reames
abd9dca8c9 [AST] Minor formatting cleanup [NFC]
llvm-svn: 339627
2018-08-13 22:34:14 +00:00
Philip Reames
184824b7f8 [AST] Cleanup code by using MemoryLocation utility [NFC]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50588

llvm-svn: 339625
2018-08-13 22:25:16 +00:00
Craig Topper
ea377d683a [X86] Add constant folding for AVX512 versions of scalar floating point to integer conversion intrinsics.
Summary:
We've supported constant folding for sse versions for many years. This patch adds support for the avx512 versions including unsigned with the default rounding mode. We could probably do more with other roundings modes and SAE in the future.

The test cases are largely based on the sse.ll test cases. But I did add some test cases to ensure the unsigned versions don't accept negative values. Also checked the bounds of f64->i32 conversions to make sure unsigned has a larger positive range than signed.

Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, chandlerc

Reviewed By: RKSimon

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50553

llvm-svn: 339529
2018-08-12 22:09:54 +00:00
Benjamin Kramer
76e09fc091 [InstSimplify] Guard against large shift amounts.
These are always UB, but can happen for large integer inputs. Testing it
is very fragile as -simplifycfg will nuke the UB top-down.

llvm-svn: 339515
2018-08-12 11:43:03 +00:00
George Burgess IV
185ad9b7c5 [MemorySSA] "Fix" lifetime intrinsic handling
MemorySSA currently creates MemoryAccesses for lifetime intrinsics, and
sometimes treats them as clobbers. This may/may not be the best way
forward, but while we're doing it, we should consider
MayAlias/PartialAlias to be clobbers.

The ideal fix here is probably to remove all of this reasoning about
lifetimes from MemorySSA + put it into the passes that need to care. But
that's a wayyy broader fix that needs some consensus, and we have
miscompiles + a release branch today, and this should solve the
miscompiles just as well.

differential revision is D43269. Landing without an explicit LGTM (and
without using the special please-autoclose-this syntax) so we can still
use that revision as a place to decide what the right fix here is.

llvm-svn: 339411
2018-08-10 05:14:43 +00:00
Matt Arsenault
1eded7a000 ValueTracking: Start enhancing isKnownNeverNaN
llvm-svn: 339399
2018-08-09 22:40:08 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
a6ed62307e [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with Inf folds from instcombine
llvm-svn: 339396
2018-08-09 22:20:44 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
737ecebced [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fadd with common operand
llvm-svn: 339176
2018-08-07 20:32:55 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
e2f9ad1467 [InstSimplify] fold fadd+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339174
2018-08-07 20:23:49 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
6b39807851 [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339171
2018-08-07 20:14:27 +00:00
Wei Mi
ff8016fcea [SampleFDO] Fix a bug in getOrCompHotCountThreshold/getOrCompColdCountThreshold
getOrCompHotCountThreshold/getOrCompColdCountThreshold introduced in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45377 contain a bad mistake and will only return 1 or 0
instead of the true hot/cold cutoff value. The patch fixes the mistake. But the
mistake seems not causing big performance difference according to internal server
benchmarks testing.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50370

llvm-svn: 339162
2018-08-07 18:13:10 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
b02d3c7019 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with common op fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 339144
2018-08-07 14:36:27 +00:00
Matt Arsenault
9a07397f8c ValueTracking: Handle canonicalize in CannotBeNegativeZero
Also fix apparently missing test coverage for any of the
handling here.

llvm-svn: 339023
2018-08-06 15:16:26 +00:00
Max Kazantsev
9200485f3d Re-enable "[ValueTracking] Teach isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition about AND"
The patch was reverted because of bug detected by sanitizer. The bug is fixed,
respective tests added.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50172

llvm-svn: 339005
2018-08-06 11:14:18 +00:00
Max Kazantsev
caa722d9e7 Revert rL338990 to see if it causes sanitizer failures
Multiple failues reported by sanitizer-x86_64-linux, seem to be caused by this
patch. Reverting to see if they sustain without it.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50172

llvm-svn: 338994
2018-08-06 08:10:28 +00:00
Max Kazantsev
4217d9c40c [ValueTracking] Teach isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition about AND
`isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition` is able to prove non-null basing on `br` or `guard`
by `%p != null` condition, but is unable to do so basing on `(%p != null) && %other_cond`.
This patch allows it to do so.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50172
Reviewed By: reames

llvm-svn: 338990
2018-08-06 06:11:36 +00:00
David Bolvansky
7dcd99ba17 Enrich inline messages
Summary:
This patch improves Inliner to provide causes/reasons for negative inline decisions.
1. It adds one new message field to InlineCost to report causes for Always and Never instances. All Never and Always instantiations must provide a simple message.
2. Several functions that used to return the inlining results as boolean are changed to return InlineResult which carries the cause for negative decision.
3. Changed remark priniting and debug output messages to provide the additional messages and related inline cost.
4. Adjusted tests for changed printing.

Patch by: yrouban (Yevgeny Rouban)


Reviewers: craig.topper, sammccall, sgraenitz, NutshellySima, shchenz, chandlerc, apilipenko, javed.absar, tejohnson, dblaikie, sanjoy, eraman, xbolva00

Reviewed By: tejohnson, xbolva00

Subscribers: xbolva00, llvm-commits, arsenm, mehdi_amini, eraman, haicheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49412

llvm-svn: 338969
2018-08-05 14:53:08 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue
bd266a779f [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (2/2)
This is the second patch of the series which intends to enable jump threading for an inlined method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>. 
The first patch is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL338485.

This patch handles code sequences that merges two values using `shl` and `or`, then extracts one value using `and`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49981

llvm-svn: 338817
2018-08-03 05:39:48 +00:00
Krzysztof Parzyszek
e5e129cd68 [SCEV] Properly solve quadratic equations
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48283

llvm-svn: 338758
2018-08-02 19:13:35 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
ac7ce106a1 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with undef fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338719
2018-08-02 14:33:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
988613b6b6 [ValueTracking] fix maxnum miscompile for cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero (PR37776)
This adds the NAN checks suggested in PR37776:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776

If both operands to maxnum are NAN, that should get constant folded, so we don't 
have to handle that case. This is the same assumption as other FP ops in this
function. Returning 'false' is always conservatively correct.

Copying from the bug report:

Currently, we have this for "when is cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero 
(mustBePositiveOrNaN) true for maxnum":
               L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------


The cases with (Neg & NaN) are wrong. We should have:

                L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |     |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50081

llvm-svn: 338716
2018-08-02 13:46:20 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
ad52478c5e [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with same arg fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338652
2018-08-01 23:05:55 +00:00
David Bolvansky
28d06c0be1 Revert "Enrich inline messages", tests fail
llvm-svn: 338496
2018-08-01 08:02:40 +00:00
David Bolvansky
b35f0af3c7 Enrich inline messages
Summary:
This patch improves Inliner to provide causes/reasons for negative inline decisions.
1. It adds one new message field to InlineCost to report causes for Always and Never instances. All Never and Always instantiations must provide a simple message.
2. Several functions that used to return the inlining results as boolean are changed to return InlineResult which carries the cause for negative decision.
3. Changed remark priniting and debug output messages to provide the additional messages and related inline cost.
4. Adjusted tests for changed printing.

Patch by: yrouban (Yevgeny Rouban)


Reviewers: craig.topper, sammccall, sgraenitz, NutshellySima, shchenz, chandlerc, apilipenko, javed.absar, tejohnson, dblaikie, sanjoy, eraman, xbolva00

Reviewed By: tejohnson, xbolva00

Subscribers: xbolva00, llvm-commits, arsenm, mehdi_amini, eraman, haicheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49412

llvm-svn: 338494
2018-08-01 07:37:16 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue
6675af6a42 [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (1/2)
This patch intends to enable jump threading when a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int> is inlined.
For example, jump threading does not happen for the if statement in func.

std::pair<int, bool> callee(int v) {
  int a = dummy(v);
  if (a) return std::make_pair(dummy(v), true);
  else return std::make_pair(v, v < 0);
}

int func(int v) {
  std::pair<int, bool> rc = callee(v);
  if (rc.second) {
    // do something
  }

SROA executed before the method inlining replaces std::pair by i64 without splitting in both callee and func since at this point no access to the individual fields is seen to SROA.
After inlining, jump threading fails to identify that the incoming value is a constant due to additional instructions (like or, and, trunc).

This series of patch add patterns in InstructionSimplify to fold extraction of members of std::pair. To help jump threading, actually we need to optimize the code sequence spanning multiple BBs.
These patches does not handle phi by itself, but these additional patterns help NewGVN pass, which calls instsimplify to check opportunities for simplifying instructions over phi, apply phi-of-ops optimization to result in successful jump threading. 
SimplifyDemandedBits in InstCombine, can do more general optimization but this patch aims to provide opportunities for other optimizers by supporting a simple but common case in InstSimplify.

This first patch in the series handles code sequences that merges two values using shl and or and then extracts one value using lshr.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48828

llvm-svn: 338485
2018-08-01 04:40:32 +00:00
David Bolvansky
5e6da01e64 Revert Enrich inline messages
llvm-svn: 338389
2018-07-31 14:47:22 +00:00
David Bolvansky
c42a835009 Enrich inline messages
Summary:
This patch improves Inliner to provide causes/reasons for negative inline decisions.
1. It adds one new message field to InlineCost to report causes for Always and Never instances. All Never and Always instantiations must provide a simple message.
2. Several functions that used to return the inlining results as boolean are changed to return InlineResult which carries the cause for negative decision.
3. Changed remark priniting and debug output messages to provide the additional messages and related inline cost.
4. Adjusted tests for changed printing.

Patch by: yrouban (Yevgeny Rouban)


Reviewers: craig.topper, sammccall, sgraenitz, NutshellySima, shchenz, chandlerc, apilipenko, javed.absar, tejohnson, dblaikie, sanjoy, eraman, xbolva00

Reviewed By: tejohnson, xbolva00

Subscribers: xbolva00, llvm-commits, arsenm, mehdi_amini, eraman, haicheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49412

llvm-svn: 338387
2018-07-31 14:25:24 +00:00
John Brawn
96b2d39585 [MemDep] Use PhiValuesAnalysis to improve alias analysis results
This is being done in order to make GVN able to better optimize certain inputs.
MemDep doesn't use PhiValues directly, but does need to notifiy it when things
get invalidated.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48489

llvm-svn: 338384
2018-07-31 14:19:29 +00:00
David Bolvansky
e66d9fb924 [InstSimplify] Fold another Select with And/Or pattern
Summary: Proof: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/L5J

Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49975

llvm-svn: 338383
2018-07-31 14:17:15 +00:00
Fangrui Song
121474a01b Remove trailing space
sed -Ei 's/[[:space:]]+$//' include/**/*.{def,h,td} lib/**/*.{cpp,h}

llvm-svn: 338293
2018-07-30 19:41:25 +00:00
John Brawn
f36d8dfcf7 [BasicAA] Use PhiValuesAnalysis if available when handling phi alias
By using PhiValuesAnalysis we can get all the values reachable from a phi, so
we can be more precise instead of giving up when a phi has phi operands. We
can't make BaseicAA directly use PhiValuesAnalysis though, as the user of
BasicAA may modify the function in ways that PhiValuesAnalysis can't cope with.

For this optional usage to work correctly BasicAAWrapperPass now needs to be not
marked as CFG-only (i.e. it is now invalidated even when CFG is preserved) due
to how the legacy pass manager handles dependent passes being invalidated,
namely the depending pass still has a pointer to the now-dead dependent pass.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44564

llvm-svn: 338242
2018-07-30 11:52:08 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
f7803947ad [InstSimplify] fold funnel shifts with 0-shift amount
llvm-svn: 338218
2018-07-29 16:36:38 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
64526ca2e5 [InstSimplify] refactor intrinsic simplifications; NFCI
llvm-svn: 338215
2018-07-29 14:42:08 +00:00
David Bolvansky
b0f43a074e [InstCombine] Fold Select with AND/OR condition
Summary:
Fold
```
%A = icmp ne i8 %X, %V1
%B = icmp ne i8 %X, %V2
%C = or i1 %A, %B
%D = select i1 %C, i8 %X, i8 %V1
ret i8 %D
  =>
ret i8 %X

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38334
Proof: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/plI8

Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri

Reviewed By: lebedev.ri

Subscribers: craig.topper, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49919

llvm-svn: 338191
2018-07-28 06:55:51 +00:00
Fangrui Song
5b79d9323c Replace LLVM_ALIGNAS with alignas as a follow-up of r337330
The minimum required GCC version was raised to 4.8 (which started to support alignas) in r284497.

llvm-svn: 338099
2018-07-27 05:38:14 +00:00
Keno Fischer
a21d54a8e0 [SCEV] Don't expand Wrap predicate using inttoptr in ni addrspaces
Summary:
In non-integral address spaces, we're not allowed to introduce inttoptr/ptrtoint
intrinsics. Instead, we need to expand any pointer arithmetic as geps on the
base pointer. Luckily this is a common task for SCEV, so all we have to do here
is hook up the corresponding helper function and add test case.

Fixes PR38290

Reviewers: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49832

llvm-svn: 338073
2018-07-26 21:55:06 +00:00
Keno Fischer
412c4ff76f [SCEV] Add an expandAddToGEP overload for a single operand. NFC.
Only wanting to pass a single SCEV operand to use as the offset of
the GEP is a common operation. Right now this requires creating a
temporary stack array at every call site. Add an overload
that encapsulates that pattern and simplify the call sites.

Suggested-By: sanjoy (in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49832)
llvm-svn: 338072
2018-07-26 21:55:03 +00:00
Roman Tereshin
5ebe27360f [SCEV] Add [zs]ext{C,+,x} -> (D + [zs]ext{C-D,+,x})<nuw><nsw> transform
as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's

if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's

(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)

This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:

1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
 a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
  C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
  second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
  move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
  operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
 produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
  AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
  Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
  (respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
  which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
  e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
  transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.

Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:

 double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
   double x = 0.0;
   double y = 0.0;
   for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
     x += a[i];
     y += a[i + 1];
   }
   return x * y;
 }

If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})

it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).

How it all works:

Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:

        i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
   ...
ZZZZ...0000

then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.

Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:

         j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00  // this is X = (x + y + ...)

Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).

So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:

0000...00CC  = D
CCCC...CC00  = (C - D)

and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:

CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
-----------  // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00

The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:

YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
-----------  <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC

Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.

Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:

0001 0101  // 21
XXXX XX00  // 12x
YYYY Y000  // 8y

0001 0101  // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00  // 12x + 8y

0000 0001  // D
0001 0100  // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00  // 12x + 8y

0000 0001  // D
WWWW WW00  // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y

therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>

This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:

    i
10 1110...0011  // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00  // this is X = (x + y + ...)

Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.

We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:

    i
00 0010...0011  = D
10 1100...0000  = (C - D)

Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:

XX1 1            = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
 10 1100...0000  = (C - D)
 XX X1XX...XX00  = X
--- -----------
 XX X0XX...XX00

Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:

0    X
 00 0010...0011  = D
 sX X0XX...XX00  = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
 sX XXXX   XX11

As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.

The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.

Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853

llvm-svn: 337943
2018-07-25 18:01:41 +00:00
Xinliang David Li
6b022c62db Add an option to specify the name of
an function whose CFG is to be viewed/printed.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49447

llvm-svn: 337940
2018-07-25 17:22:12 +00:00
Stanislav Mekhanoshin
1ac228fe82 Fix llvm::ComputeNumSignBits with some operations and llvm.assume
Currently ComputeNumSignBits does early exit while processing some
of the operations (add, sub, mul, and select). This prevents the
function from using AssumptionCacheTracker if passed.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49759

llvm-svn: 337936
2018-07-25 16:39:24 +00:00
Roman Tereshin
9cbf4aa413 [SCEV] Add zext(C + x + ...) -> D + zext(C-D + x + ...)<nuw><nsw> transform
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x + ...)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x + ...), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such expressions.

This enables better canonicalization of expressions like

  1 + zext(5 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)  and
      zext(6 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)

which get both transformed to

  2 + zext(4 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)

This pattern is common in address arithmetics and the transformation
makes it easier for passes like LoadStoreVectorizer to prove that 2 or
more memory accesses are consecutive and optimize (vectorize) them.

Reviewed By: mzolotukhin

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853

llvm-svn: 337859
2018-07-24 21:48:56 +00:00
Manoj Gupta
77af1405b0 ConstantFolding: Avoid a crash.
Summary:
Check if the parent basic block and caller exists
before calling CS.getCaller when constant folding
strip.invariant.group instrinsic.

This avoids a crash when the function containing the intrinsic
is being inlined. The instruction is checked for any simplifiction
but has not yet been added to a basic block.

Reviewers: Prazek, rsmith, efriedma

Reviewed By: efriedma

Subscribers: eraman, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49690

llvm-svn: 337742
2018-07-23 21:20:00 +00:00
Alexandros Lamprineas
54884c39b2 [MemorySSAUpdater] Update Phi operands after trivial Phi elimination
Bug fix for PR37445. The underlying problem and its fix are similar to PR37808.
The bug lies in MemorySSAUpdater::getPreviousDefRecursive(), where PhiOps is
computed before the call to tryRemoveTrivialPhi() and it ends up being out of
date, pointing to stale data. We have now turned each of the PhiOps into a
TrackingVH<MemoryAccess>.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49425

llvm-svn: 337680
2018-07-23 10:56:30 +00:00
Jiading Gai
f36038e8c8 Test commit, fix a minor typo.
llvm-svn: 337657
2018-07-22 20:04:42 +00:00
Xin Tong
27af3ca9d1 [ORE] Move loop invariant ORE checks outside the PM loop.
Summary:
This takes 22ms out of ~20s compiling sqlite3.c because we call it
for every unit of compilation and every pass.

Reviewers: paquette, anemet

Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49586

llvm-svn: 337654
2018-07-22 05:27:41 +00:00
Chen Zheng
25ac3ae21d [InstrSimplify] fold sdiv if two operands are negated and non-overflow
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49382

llvm-svn: 337642
2018-07-21 12:27:54 +00:00