into the new pass manager and fix the latent bugs there.
This lets everything live together nicely, but it isn't really useful
yet. I never finished wiring the AA layer up for the new pass manager,
and so subsequent patches will change this to do that wiring and get AA
stuff more fully integrated into the new pass manager. Turns out this is
necessary even to get functionattrs ported over. =]
llvm-svn: 260836
As the title says. Modelled after similar code in SCEV.
This is useful when analysing induction variables in loops which have been canonicalized by other passes. I wrote the tests as non-loops specifically to avoid the generality introduced in http://reviews.llvm.org/D17174. While that can handle many induction variables without *needing* to exploit nsw, there's no reason not to use it if we've already proven it.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17177
llvm-svn: 260705
This patches teaches LVI to recognize clamp idioms (e.g. select(a > 5, a, 5) will always produce something greater than 5.
The tests end up being somewhat simplistic because trying to exercise the case I actually care about (a loop with a range check on a clamped secondary induction variable) ends up tripping across a couple of other imprecisions in the analysis. Ah, the joys of LVI...
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16827
llvm-svn: 260627
This is a part of the refactoring to unify isSafeToLoadUnconditionally and isDereferenceablePointer functions. In the subsequent change isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute will be modified to use isSafeToLoadUnconditionally instead of isDereferenceableAndAlignedPointer.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16227
llvm-svn: 260520
There's nothing preventing callers of LVI from asking for lattice values representing a Constant. In fact, given that several callers are walking back through PHI nodes and trying to simplify predicates, such queries are actually quite common. This is mostly harmless today, but we start volatiling assertions if we add new calls to getBlockValue in otherwise reasonable places.
Note that this change is not NFC. Specifically:
1) The result returned through getValueAt will now be more precise. In principle, this could trigger any latent infinite optimization loops in callers, but in practice, we're unlikely to see this.
2) The result returned through getBlockValueAt is potentially weakened for non-constants that were previously queried. With the old code, you had the possibility that a later query might bypass the cache and discover some information the original query did not. I can't find a scenario which actually causes this to happen, but it was in principle possible. On the other hand, this may end up reducing compile time when the same value is queried repeatedly.
llvm-svn: 260439
Summary:
`hasNoAliasAttr` is buggy: it checks to see if the called function has
a `noalias` attribute, which is incorrect since functions are not even
allowed to have the `noalias` attribute. The comment on its only
caller, `llvm::isNoAliasFn`, makes it pretty clear that the intention
to do the `noalias` check on the return value, and not the callee.
Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to test this upstream -- fixing
this does not change the observable behavior of any of the passes that
use this. This is not very surprising, since `noalias` does not tell
anything about the contents of the allocated memory (so, e.g., you
still cannot fold loads). I'll be happy to be proven wrong though.
Reviewers: chandlerc, reames
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17037
llvm-svn: 260298
In general, memory restrictions on a called function (e.g. readnone)
cannot be transferred to a CallSite that has operand bundles. It is
possible to make this inference smarter, but lets fix the behavior to be
correct first.
llvm-svn: 260193
Summary:
Passes that call `getAnalysisIfAvailable<T>` also need to call
`addUsedIfAvailable<T>` in `getAnalysisUsage` to indicate to the
legacy pass manager that it uses `T`. This contract was being
violated by passes that used `createLegacyPMAAResults`. This change
fixes this by exposing a helper in AliasAnalysis.h,
`addUsedAAAnalyses`, that is complementary to createLegacyPMAAResults
and does the right thing when called from `getAnalysisUsage`.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17010
llvm-svn: 260183
Summary:
createLegacyPMAAResults is only called by CGSCC and Module passes, so
the call to getAnalysisIfAvailable<SCEVAAWrapperPass>() never
succeeds (SCEVAAWrapperPass is a function pass).
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17009
llvm-svn: 260182
IndVarSimplify assumes scAddRecExpr to be expanded in literal form instead of
canonical form by calling disableCanonicalMode after it creates SCEVExpander.
When CanonicalMode is disabled, SCEVExpander::expand should always return PHI
node for scAddRecExpr. r259736 broke the assumption.
The fix is to let SCEVExpander::expand skip the reuse Value logic if
CanonicalMode is false.
In addition, Besides IndVarSimplify, LSR pass also calls disableCanonicalMode
before doing rewrite. We can remove the original check of LSRMode in reuse
Value logic and use CanonicalMode instead.
llvm-svn: 260174
Summary:
Unrolling Analyzer is already pretty complicated, and it becomes harder and harder to exercise it with usual IR tests, as with them we can only check the final decision: whether the loop is unrolled or not. This change factors this framework out from LoopUnrollPass to analyses, which allows to use unit tests.
The change itself is supposed to be NFC, except adding a couple of tests.
I plan to add more tests as I add new functionality and find/fix bugs.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: zzheng, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16623
llvm-svn: 260169
sanitizer issue. The PredicatedScalarEvolution's copy constructor
wasn't copying the Generation value, and was leaving it un-initialized.
Original commit message:
[SCEV][LAA] Add no wrap SCEV predicates and use use them to improve strided pointer detection
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260112
Summary:
This change adds no wrap SCEV predicates with:
- support for runtime checking
- support for expression rewriting:
(sext ({x,+,y}) -> {sext(x),+,sext(y)}
(zext ({x,+,y}) -> {zext(x),+,sext(y)}
Note that we are sign extending the increment of the SCEV, even for
the zext case. This is needed to cover the fairly common case where y would
be a (small) negative integer. In order to do this, this change adds two new
flags: nusw and nssw that are applicable to AddRecExprs and permit the
transformations above.
We also change isStridedPtr in LAA to be able to make use of
these predicates. With this feature we should now always be able to
work around overflow issues in the dependence analysis.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, sanjoy, llvm-commits, rengolin, jmolloy, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15412
llvm-svn: 260085
In r252595, I inadvertently changed the condition to "Cost <= Threshold",
which caused a significant size regression in Chrome. This commit rectifies
that.
llvm-svn: 259915
When SCEV expansion tries to reuse an existing value, it is needed to ensure
that using the Value at the InsertPt will not break LCSSA. The fix adds a
check that InsertPt is either inside the candidate Value's parent loop, or
the candidate Value's parent loop is nullptr.
llvm-svn: 259815
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
The original commit triggered regressions in Polly tests. The regressions
exposed two problems which have been fixed in current version.
1. Polly will generate a new function based on the old one. To generate an
instruction for the new function, it builds SCEV for the old instruction,
applies some tranformation on the SCEV generated, then expands the transformed
SCEV and insert the expanded value into new function. Because SCEV expansion
may reuse value cached in ExprValueMap, the value in old function may be
inserted into new function, which is wrong.
In SCEVExpander::expand, there is a logic to check the cached value to
be used should dominate the insertion point. However, for the above
case, the check always passes. That is because the insertion point is
in a new function, which is unreachable from the old function. However
for unreachable node, DominatorTreeBase::dominates thinks it will be
dominated by any other node.
The fix is to simply add a check that the cached value to be used in
expansion should be in the same function as the insertion point instruction.
2. When the SCEV is of scConstant type, expanding it directly is cheaper than
reusing a normal value cached. Although in the cached value set in ExprValueMap,
there is a Constant type value, but it is not easy to find it out -- the cached
Value set is not sorted according to the potential cost. Existing reuse logic
in SCEVExpander::expand simply chooses the first legal element from the cached
value set.
The fix is that when the SCEV is of scConstant type, don't try the reuse
logic. simply expand it.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259736
Current SCEV expansion will expand SCEV as a sequence of operations
and doesn't utilize the value already existed. This will introduce
redundent computation which may not be cleaned up throughly by
following optimizations.
This patch introduces an ExprValueMap which is a map from SCEV to the
set of equal values with the same SCEV. When a SCEV is expanded, the
set of values is checked and reused whenever possible before generating
a sequence of operations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12090
llvm-svn: 259662
This regresses a test in LoopVectorize, so I'll need to go away and think about how to solve this in a way that isn't broken.
From the writeup in PR26071:
What's happening is that ComputeKnownZeroes is telling us that all bits except the LSB are zero. We're then deciding that only the LSB needs to be demanded from the icmp's inputs.
This is where we're wrong - we're assuming that after simplification the bits that were known zero will continue to be known zero. But they're not - during trivialization the upper bits get changed (because an XOR isn't shrunk), so the icmp fails.
The fault is in demandedbits - its contract does clearly state that a non-demanded bit may either be zero or one.
llvm-svn: 259649
Due to staleness in a patch I committed yesterday, the debug output was reporting overdefined cases as being undefined. Confusing to say the least. The mistake appears to have only effected the debug output thankfully.
llvm-svn: 259594
I introduced a declaration in 259583 to keep the diff readable. This change just moves the definition up to remove the declaration again.
llvm-svn: 259585
This patch uses the newly introduced 'intersect' utility (from 259461: [LVI] Introduce an intersect operation on lattice values) to simplify existing code in LVI.
While not introducing any new concepts, this change is probably not NFC. The common 'intersect' function is more powerful that the ad-hoc implementations we'd had in a couple of places. Given that, we may see optimizations triggering a bit more often.
llvm-svn: 259583
differentiate between indirect references to functions an direct calls.
This doesn't do a whole lot yet other than change the print out produced
by the analysis, but it lays the groundwork for a very major change I'm
working on next: teaching the call graph to actually be a call graph,
modeling *both* the indirect reference graph and the call graph
simultaneously. More details on that in the next patch though.
The rest of this is essentially a bunch of over-engineering that won't
be interesting until the next patch. But this also isolates essentially
all of the churn necessary to introduce the edge abstraction from the
very important behavior change necessary in order to separately model
the two graphs. So it should make review of the subsequent patch a bit
easier at the cost of making this patch seem poorly motivated. ;]
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16038
llvm-svn: 259463
LVI has several separate sources of facts - edge local conditions, recursive queries, assumes, and control independent value facts - which all apply to the same value at the same location. The existing implementation was very conservative about exploiting all of these facts at once.
This change introduces an "intersect" function specifically to abstract the action of picking a good set of facts from all of the separate facts given. At the moment, this function is relatively simple (i.e. mostly just reuses the bits which were already there), but even the minor additions reveal the inherent power. For example, JumpThreading is now capable of doing an inductive proof that a particular value is always positive and removing a half range check.
I'm currently only using the new intersect function in one place. If folks are happy with the direction of the work, I plan on making a series of small changes without review to replace mergeIn with intersect at all the appropriate places.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14476
llvm-svn: 259461
This routine was returning Undefined for most queries. This was utterly wrong. Amusingly, we do not appear to have any callers of this which are actually trying to exploit unreachable code or this would have broken the world.
A better approach would be to explicit describe the intersection of facts. That's blocked behind http://reviews.llvm.org/D14476 and I wanted to fix the current bug.
llvm-svn: 259446
I'll submit a test case shortly which covers this, but it's causing clang self host problems in the builders so I wanted to get it removed.
llvm-svn: 259432
Teach LVI to handle select instructions in the exact same way it handles PHI nodes. This is useful since various parts of the optimizer convert PHI nodes into selects and we don't want these transformations to cause inferior optimization.
Note that this patch does nothing to exploit the implied constraint on the inputs represented by the select condition itself. That will be a later patch and is blocked on http://reviews.llvm.org/D14476
llvm-svn: 259429
Summary:
If the normal destination of the invoke or the parent block of the call site is unreachable-terminated, there is little point in inlining the call site unless there is literally zero cost. Unlike my previous change (D15289), this change specifically handle the call sites followed by unreachable in the same basic block for call or in the normal destination for the invoke. This change could be a reasonable first step to conservatively inline call sites leading to an unreachable-terminated block while BFI / BPI is not yet available in inliner.
Reviewers: manmanren, majnemer, hfinkel, davidxl, mcrosier, dblaikie, eraman
Subscribers: dblaikie, davidxl, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16616
llvm-svn: 259403
- ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges duplicates some
logic already present in ConstantRange, use ConstantRange for those
bits.
- In some cases ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges
returns `false` to mean "definitely false" (e.g. see the
`LHSRange.getSignedMin().sge(RHSRange.getSignedMax())` case for
`ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT`), but for `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges`,
`false` actually means "don't know". Get rid of this extra bit of
code to avoid confusion.
llvm-svn: 259401
When the caller has optsize attribute, we reduce the inlinining threshold
to OptSizeThreshold (=75) if it is not already lower than that. We don't do
the same for minsize and I suspect it was not intentional. This also addresses
a FIXME regarding checking optsize attribute explicitly instead of using the
right wrapper.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16493
llvm-svn: 259120
The Query structure is constructed often and is relevant for compiletime
performance. We can replace the SmallPtrSet for assumption exclusions in
this structure with a fixed size array because we know the maximum
number of elements. This improves typical clang -O3 -emit-llvm compiletime
by 1.2% in my measurements.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16204
llvm-svn: 259025
This patch is part of the work to make PPCLoopDataPrefetch
target-independent
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92758).
As it was discussed in the above thread, getPrefetchDistance is
currently using instruction count which may change in the future.
llvm-svn: 258995
ObjC ARC Optimizer.
The main implication of this is:
1. Ensuring that we treat it conservatively in terms of optimization.
2. We put the ASM marker on it so that the runtime can recognize
objc_unsafeClaimAutoreleasedReturnValue from releaseRV.
<rdar://problem/21567064>
Patch by Michael Gottesman!
llvm-svn: 258970
Summary:
NVVM doesn't have a standard library, as currently implemented, so this
just isn't going to work. I'd like to revisit this, since it's hiding
opportunities for optimization, but correctness comes first.
Thank you to hfinkel for pointing me in the right direction here.
Reviewers: tra
Subscribers: echristo, jhen, llvm-commits, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16604
llvm-svn: 258884
