with BasicAA's DecomposeGEPExpression, which recently began
using a TargetData. This fixes PR8968, though the testcase
is awkward to reduce.
Also, update several off GetUnderlyingObject's users
which happen to have a TargetData handy to pass it in.
llvm-svn: 124134
phi nodes. It is called from MergeBlockIntoPredecessor which is
called from GVN, which claims to preserve these.
I'm skeptical that this is the actual problem behind PR8954, but
this is a stab in the right direction.
llvm-svn: 123222
I still think that LVI should be handling this, but that capability is some ways off in the future,
and this matters for some significant benchmarks.
llvm-svn: 122378
this was a tree of hashtables, and a query recursed into the table for the immediate dominator ad infinitum
if the initial lookup failed. This led to really bad performance on tall, narrow CFGs.
We can instead replace it with what is conceptually a multimap of value numbers to leaders (actually
represented by a hashtable with a list of Value*'s as the value type), and then
determine which leader from that set to use very cheaply thanks to the DFS numberings maintained by
DominatorTree. Because there are typically few duplicates of a given value, this scan tends to be
quite fast. Additionally, we use a custom linked list and BumpPtr allocation to avoid any unnecessary
allocation in representing the value-side of the multimap.
This change brings with it a 15% (!) improvement in the total running time of GVN on 403.gcc, which I
think is pretty good considering that includes all the "real work" being done by MemDep as well.
The one downside to this approach is that we can no longer use GVN to perform simple conditional progation,
but that seems like an acceptable loss since we now have LVI and CorrelatedValuePropagation to pick up
the slack. If you see conditional propagation that's not happening, please file bugs against LVI or CVP.
llvm-svn: 119714
systematically, CollapsePhi will always return null here. Note
that CollapsePhi did an extra check, isSafeReplacement, which
the SimplifyInstruction logic does not do. I think that check
was bogus - I guess we will soon find out! (It was originally
added in commit 41998 without a testcase).
llvm-svn: 119456
"%z = %x and %y". If GVN can prove that %y equals %x, then it turns
this into "%z = %x and %x". With the new code, %z will be replaced
with %x everywhere (and then deleted). Previously %z would be value
numbered too, which is a waste of time. Also, while a clever value
numbering algorithm would give %z the same value number as %x, our
current one doesn't do so (at least I don't think it does). The new
logic has an essentially equivalent effect to what you would get if
%z was given the same value number as %x, i.e. it should make value
numbering smarter. While there, get hold of target data once at the
start rather than a gazillion times all over the place.
llvm-svn: 118923
references. For example, this allows gvn to eliminate the load in
this example:
void foo(int n, int* p, int *q) {
p[0] = 0;
p[1] = 1;
if (n) {
*q = p[0];
}
}
llvm-svn: 118714
must be called in the pass's constructor. This function uses static dependency declarations to recursively initialize
the pass's dependencies.
Clients that only create passes through the createFooPass() APIs will require no changes. Clients that want to use the
CommandLine options for passes will need to manually call the appropriate initialization functions in PassInitialization.h
before parsing commandline arguments.
I have tested this with all standard configurations of clang and llvm-gcc on Darwin. It is possible that there are problems
with the static dependencies that will only be visible with non-standard options. If you encounter any crash in pass
registration/creation, please send the testcase to me directly.
llvm-svn: 116820
perform initialization without static constructors AND without explicit initialization
by the client. For the moment, passes are required to initialize both their
(potential) dependencies and any passes they preserve. I hope to be able to relax
the latter requirement in the future.
llvm-svn: 116334
Anyone interested in more general PRE would be better served by implementing it separately, to get real
anticipation calculation, etc.
llvm-svn: 115337
Splitting critical edges at the merge point only addressed part of the issue; it is also possible for non-post-domination
to occur when the path from the load to the merge has branches in it. Unfortunately, full anticipation analysis is
time-consuming, so for now approximate it. This is strictly more conservative than real anticipation, so we will miss
some cases that real PRE would allow, but we also no longer insert loads into paths where they didn't exist before. :-)
This is a very slight net positive on SPEC for me (0.5% on average). Most of the benchmarks are largely unaffected, but
when it pays off it pays off decently: 181.mcf improves by 4.5% on my machine.
llvm-svn: 114785
I'm sure it is harmless. Original commit message:
If PrototypeValue is erased in the middle of using the SSAUpdator
then the SSAUpdator may access freed memory. Instead, simply pass
in the type and name explicitly, which is all that was used anyway.
llvm-svn: 112810
