and expose it as a utility class rather than as free function wrappers.
The simple free-function interface works well for the bugpoint-specific
pass's uses of code extraction, but in an upcoming patch for more
advanced code extraction, they simply don't expose a rich enough
interface. I need to expose various stages of the process of doing the
code extraction and query information to decide whether or not to
actually complete the extraction or give up.
Rather than build up a new predicate model and pass that into these
functions, just take the class that was actually implementing the
functions and lift it up into a proper interface that can be used to
perform code extraction. The interface is cleaned up and re-documented
to work better in a header. It also is now setup to accept the blocks to
be extracted in the constructor rather than in a method.
In passing this essentially reverts my previous commit here exposing
a block-level query for eligibility of extraction. That is no longer
necessary with the more rich interface as clients can query the
extraction object for eligibility directly. This will reduce the number
of walks of the input basic block sequence by quite a bit which is
useful if this enters the normal optimization pipeline.
llvm-svn: 156163
extraction into a public interface. Also clean it up and apply it more
consistently such that we check for landing pads *anywhere* in the
extracted code, not just in single-block extraction.
This will be used to guide decisions in passes that are planning to
eventually perform a round of code extraction.
llvm-svn: 156114
Allow the "SplitCriticalEdge" function to split the edge to a landing pad. If
the pass is *sure* that it thinks it knows what it's doing, then it may go ahead
and specify that the landing pad can have its critical edge split. The loop
unswitch pass is one of these passes. It will split the critical edges of all
edges coming from a loop to a landing pad not within the loop. Doing so will
retain important loop analysis information, such as loop simplify.
llvm-svn: 155817
Take this opportunity to generalize the indirectbr bailout logic for
loop transformations. CFG transformations will never get indirectbr
right, and there's no point trying.
llvm-svn: 154386
simplification has been performed. This is a bit less efficient
(requires another ilist walk of the basic blocks) but shouldn't matter
in practice. More importantly, it's just too much work to keep track of
all the various ways the return instructions can be mutated while
simplifying them. This fixes yet another crasher, reported by Daniel
Dunbar.
llvm-svn: 154179
dead code, including dead return instructions in some cases. Otherwise,
we end up having a bogus poniter to a return instruction that blows up
much further down the road.
It turns out that this pattern is both simpler to code, easier to update
in the face of enhancements to the inliner cleanup, and likely cheaper
given that it won't add dead instructions to the list.
Thanks to John Regehr's numerous test cases for teasing this out.
llvm-svn: 154157
This allows us to keep passing reduced masks to SimplifyDemandedBits, but
know about all the bits if SimplifyDemandedBits fails. This allows instcombine
to simplify cases like the one in the included testcase.
llvm-svn: 154011
blocks in the function cloner. This removes the last case of trivially
dead code that I've been seeing in the wild getting inlined, analyzed,
re-inlined, optimized, only to be deleted. Nukes a FIXME from the
cleanup tests.
llvm-svn: 153572
aggressively. There are lots of dire warnings about this being expensive
that seem to predate switching to the TrackingVH-based value remapper
that is automatically updated on RAUW. This makes it easy to not just
prune single-entry PHIs, but to fully simplify PHIs, and to recursively
simplify the newly inlined code to propagate PHINode simplifications.
This introduces a bit of a thorny problem though. We may end up
simplifying a branch condition to a constant when we fold PHINodes, and
we would like to nuke any dead blocks resulting from this so that time
isn't wasted continually analyzing them, but this isn't easy. Deleting
basic blocks *after* they are fully cloned and mapped into the new
function currently requires manually updating the value map. The last
piece of the simplification-during-inlining puzzle will require either
switching to WeakVH mappings or some other piece of refactoring. I've
left a FIXME in the testcase about this.
llvm-svn: 153410
to instead rely on much more generic and powerful instruction
simplification in the function cloner (and thus inliner).
This teaches the pruning function cloner to use instsimplify rather than
just the constant folder to fold values during cloning. This can
simplify a large number of things that constant folding alone cannot
begin to touch. For example, it will realize that 'or' and 'and'
instructions with certain constant operands actually become constants
regardless of what their other operand is. It also can thread back
through the caller to perform simplifications that are only possible by
looking up a few levels. In particular, GEPs and pointer testing tend to
fold much more heavily with this change.
This should (in some cases) have a positive impact on compile times with
optimizations on because the inliner itself will simply avoid cloning
a great deal of code. It already attempted to prune proven-dead code,
but now it will be use the stronger simplifications to prove more code
dead.
llvm-svn: 153403
fire if anything ever invalidates the assumption of a terminator
instruction being unchanged throughout the routine.
I've convinced myself that the current definition of simplification
precludes such a transformation, so I think getting some asserts
coverage that we don't violate this agreement is sufficient to make this
code safe for the foreseeable future.
Comments to the contrary or other suggestions are of course welcome. =]
The bots are now happy with this code though, so it appears the bug here
has indeed been fixed.
llvm-svn: 153401
list. This is a bad idea. ;] I'm hopeful this is the bug that's showing
up with the MSVC bots, but we'll see.
It is definitely unnecessary. InstSimplify won't do anything to
a terminator instruction, we don't need to even include it in the
iteration range. We can also skip the now dead terminator check,
although I've made it an assert to help document that this is an
important invariant.
I'm still a bit queasy about this because there is an implicit
assumption that the terminator instruction cannot be RAUW'ed by the
simplification code. While that appears to be true at the moment, I see
no guarantee that would ensure it remains true in the future. I'm
looking at the cleanest way to solve that...
llvm-svn: 153399
bit simpler by handling a common case explicitly.
Also, refactor the implementation to use a worklist based walk of the
recursive users, rather than trying to use value handles to detect and
recover from RAUWs during the recursive descent. This fixes a very
subtle bug in the previous implementation where degenerate control flow
structures could cause mutually recursive instructions (PHI nodes) to
collapse in just such a way that From became equal to To after some
amount of recursion. At that point, we hit the inf-loop that the assert
at the top attempted to guard against. This problem is defined away when
not using value handles in this manner. There are lots of comments
claiming that the WeakVH will protect against just this sort of error,
but they're not accurate about the actual implementation of WeakVHs,
which do still track RAUWs.
I don't have any test case for the bug this fixes because it requires
running the recursive simplification on unreachable phi nodes. I've no
way to either run this or easily write an input that triggers it. It was
found when using instruction simplification inside the inliner when
running over the nightly test-suite.
llvm-svn: 153393
Do not call SplitBlockPredecessors on a loop preheader when one of the
predecessors is an indirectbr. Otherwise, you will hit this assert:
!isa<IndirectBrInst>(Preds[i]->getTerminator()) && "Cannot split an edge from an IndirectBrInst"
llvm-svn: 153134
Only record IVUsers that are dominated by simplified loop
headers. Otherwise SCEVExpander will crash while looking for a
preheader.
I previously tried to work around this in LSR itself, but that was
insufficient. This way, LSR can continue to run if some uses are not
in simple loops, as long as we don't attempt to analyze those users.
Fixes <rdar://problem/11049788> Segmentation fault: 11 in LoopStrengthReduce
llvm-svn: 152892
Renamed methods caseBegin, caseEnd and caseDefault with case_begin, case_end, and case_default.
Added some notes relative to case iterators.
llvm-svn: 152532
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120130/136146.html
Implemented CaseIterator and it solves almost all described issues: we don't need to mix operand/case/successor indexing anymore. Base iterator class is implemented as a template since it may be initialized either from "const SwitchInst*" or from "SwitchInst*".
ConstCaseIt is just a read-only iterator.
CaseIt is read-write iterator; it allows to change case successor and case value.
Usage of iterator allows totally remove resolveXXXX methods. All indexing convertions done automatically inside the iterator's getters.
Main way of iterator usage looks like this:
SwitchInst *SI = ... // intialize it somehow
for (SwitchInst::CaseIt i = SI->caseBegin(), e = SI->caseEnd(); i != e; ++i) {
BasicBlock *BB = i.getCaseSuccessor();
ConstantInt *V = i.getCaseValue();
// Do something.
}
If you want to convert case number to TerminatorInst successor index, just use getSuccessorIndex iterator's method.
If you want initialize iterator from TerminatorInst successor index, use CaseIt::fromSuccessorIndex(...) method.
There are also related changes in llvm-clients: klee and clang.
llvm-svn: 152297
are optimization hints, but at -O0 we're not optimizing. This becomes a problem
when the alwaysinline attribute is abused.
rdar://10921594
llvm-svn: 151429
The purpose of refactoring is to hide operand roles from SwitchInst user (programmer). If you want to play with operands directly, probably you will need lower level methods than SwitchInst ones (TerminatorInst or may be User). After this patch we can reorganize SwitchInst operands and successors as we want.
What was done:
1. Changed semantics of index inside the getCaseValue method:
getCaseValue(0) means "get first case", not a condition. Use getCondition() if you want to resolve the condition. I propose don't mix SwitchInst case indexing with low level indexing (TI successors indexing, User's operands indexing), since it may be dangerous.
2. By the same reason findCaseValue(ConstantInt*) returns actual number of case value. 0 means first case, not default. If there is no case with given value, ErrorIndex will returned.
3. Added getCaseSuccessor method. I propose to avoid usage of TerminatorInst::getSuccessor if you want to resolve case successor BB. Use getCaseSuccessor instead, since internal SwitchInst organization of operands/successors is hidden and may be changed in any moment.
4. Added resolveSuccessorIndex and resolveCaseIndex. The main purpose of these methods is to see how case successors are really mapped in TerminatorInst.
4.1 "resolveSuccessorIndex" was created if you need to level down from SwitchInst to TerminatorInst. It returns TerminatorInst's successor index for given case successor.
4.2 "resolveCaseIndex" converts low level successors index to case index that curresponds to the given successor.
Note: There are also related compatability fix patches for dragonegg, klee, llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, safecode, clang.
llvm-svn: 149481
present in the bottom of the CFG triangle, as the transformation isn't
ever valuable if the branch can't be eliminated.
Also, unify some heuristics between SimplifyCFG's multiple
if-converters, for consistency.
This fixes rdar://10627242.
llvm-svn: 147630
code can incorrectly move the load across a store. This never
happens in practice today, but only because the current
heuristics accidentally preclude it.
llvm-svn: 147623
