Currently the code does not account for the fact that getDomMemoryDef
can be called with ScanLimit == 0, if we reached the limit while
processing an earlier access. Also tighten the check a bit more and bump
the scan limit now that it is handled properly.
In some cases, this brings a 2x speedup in terms of compile-time.
We may have an SGPR->VGPR copy if a totally uniform pointer
calculation is used for a VGPR pointer operand.
Also hack around a bug in MUBUF matching which would incorrectly use
MUBUF for global when flat was requested. This should really be a
predicate on the parent pattern, but the DAG always checked this
manually inside the complex pattern.
If the same stream object is used for multiple compiles, the PAL metadata from eariler compilations will leak into later one. See https://github.com/GPUOpen-Drivers/llpc/issues/882 for how this is happening in LLPC.
No tests were added because multiple compiles will have to happen using the same pass manager, and I do not see a setup for that on the LLVM side. Let me know if there is a good way to test this.
Reviewed By: nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85667
CMake log:
```
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:823 (add_executable):
Target "clangd" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the target was not
found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an IMPORTED target, or
an ALIAS target is missing?
Call Stack (most recent call first):
D:/llvm-project/clang/cmake/modules/AddClang.cmake:150 (add_llvm_executable)
D:/llvm-project/clang/cmake/modules/AddClang.cmake:160 (add_clang_executable)
D:/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/tool/CMakeLists.txt:4 (add_clang_tool)
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:821 (add_executable):
Target "ClangdTests" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the target was
not found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an IMPORTED
target, or an ALIAS target is missing?
Call Stack (most recent call first):
D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:1417 (add_llvm_executable)
D:/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/CMakeLists.txt:32 (add_unittest)
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:527 (add_library):
Target "RemoteIndexProtos" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the
target was not found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an
IMPORTED target, or an ALIAS target is missing?
Call Stack (most recent call first):
D:/llvm-project/clang/cmake/modules/AddClang.cmake:103 (llvm_add_library)
D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/FindGRPC.cmake:105 (add_clang_library)
D:/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/remote/CMakeLists.txt:2 (generate_grpc_protos)
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:527 (add_library):
Target "clangdRemoteIndex" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the
target was not found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an
IMPORTED target, or an ALIAS target is missing?
Call Stack (most recent call first):
D:/llvm-project/clang/cmake/modules/AddClang.cmake:103 (llvm_add_library)
D:/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/remote/CMakeLists.txt:11 (add_clang_library)
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:527 (add_library):
Target "clangdRemoteMarshalling" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the
target was not found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an
IMPORTED target, or an ALIAS target is missing?
Call Stack (most recent call first):
D:/llvm-project/clang/cmake/modules/AddClang.cmake:103 (llvm_add_library)
D:/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/remote/marshalling/CMakeLists.txt:1 (add_clang_library)
CMake Error at D:/llvm-project/llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:823 (add_executable):
Target "clangd-index-server" links to target "Threads::Threads" but the
target was not found. Perhaps a find_package() call is missing for an
IMPORTED target, or an ALIAS target is missing?
```
Reviewed By: kbobyrev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86052
Existing implementation always aborts on syntax errors in a DataLayout
description. While this is meaningful for consuming textual IR modules, it is
inconvenient for users that may need fine-grained control over the layout from,
e.g., command-line options. Propagate errors through the parsing functions and
only abort in the top-level parsing function instead.
Reviewed By: mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85650
The functions `__register_frame`/`__deregister_frame` are not
available on z/OS, so add a guard to not use them.
Reviewed By: lhames, abhina.sreeskantharajan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84787
This fixes existent FIXMEs: we should not error out when unable to
find the number of relocations.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85891
The RISC-V Privileged Specification 1.11 defines `mcountinhibit`, which
has the same numeric CSR value as `mucounteren` from 1.09.1. This patch
enables the use of the old `mucounteren` name.
Patch by Yuichi Sugiyama.
Reviewed By: lenary, jrtc27, pzheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85067
This fixes the "Unable to insert indirect branch" fatal error sometimes
seen when generating position-independent code.
Patch by msizanoen1
Reviewed By: jrtc27
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84833
Splitted out from D85519.
Currently we report "PT_DYNAMIC segment offset + size exceeds the size of the file",
this changes it to
"PT_DYNAMIC segment offset (0x1234) + file size (0x5678) exceeds the size of the file (0x68ab)"
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85654
The current demand propagator for addition will mark all input bits at and right of the alive output bit as alive. But carry won't propagate beyond a bit for which both operands are zero (or one/zero in the case of subtraction) so a more accurate answer is possible given known bits.
I derived a propagator by working through truth tables and using a bit-reversed addition to make demand ripple to the right, but I'm not sure how to make a convincing argument for its correctness in the comments yet. Nevertheless, here's a minimal implementation and test to get feedback.
This would help in a situation where, for example, four bytes (<128) packed into an int are added with four others SIMD-style but only one of the four results is actually read.
Known A: 0_______0_______0_______0_______
Known B: 0_______0_______0_______0_______
AOut: 00000000001000000000000000000000
AB, current: 00000000001111111111111111111111
AB, patch: 00000000001111111000000000000000
Committed on behalf of: @rrika (Erika)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72423
Perform lowerShuffleWithVPMOV as part of the v16i8/v8i16 shuffle lowering stages, which are the only types that are currently supported.
We need to expand support for lowering shuffles as truncations to fix the remaining regressions in D66004
Support f128 using VE instructions. Update regression tests.
I've noticed there is no load or store i128 test, so I add them too.
Reviewed By: simoll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86035
With gcc 6.3.0, I hit the following compilation bug.
../lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineVectorOps.cpp:937:2: error: extra ‘;’ [-Werror=pedantic]
};
^
cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
The error is introduced by Commit ae7f08812e09 ("[InstCombine]
Aggregate reconstruction simplification (PR47060)")
If we can't identify alloca used in lifetime marker we
need to assume to worst case scenario.
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84630
This pattern happens in clang C++ exception lowering code, on unwind branch.
We end up having a `landingpad` block after each `invoke`, where RAII
cleanup is performed, and the elements of an aggregate `{i8*, i32}`
holding exception info are `extractvalue`'d, and we then branch to common block
that takes extracted `i8*` and `i32` elements (via `phi` nodes),
form a new aggregate, and finally `resume`'s the exception.
The problem is that, if the cleanup block is effectively empty,
it shouldn't be there, there shouldn't be that `landingpad` and `resume`,
said `invoke` should be a `call`.
Indeed, we do that simplification in e.g. SimplifyCFG `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()`.
But the thing is, all this extra `extractvalue` + `phi` + `insertvalue` cruft,
while it is pointless, does not look like "empty cleanup block".
So the `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()` fails, and the exception is has
higher cost than it could have on unwind branch :S
This doesn't happen *that* often, but it will basically happen once per C++
function with complex CFG that called more than one other function
that isn't known to be `nounwind`.
I think, this is a missing fold in InstCombine, so i've implemented it.
I think, the algorithm/implementation is rather self-explanatory:
1. Find a chain of `insertvalue`'s that fully tell us the initializer of the aggregate.
2. For each element, try to find from which aggregate it was extracted.
If it was extracted from the aggregate with identical type,
from identical element index, great.
3. If all elements were found to have been extracted from the same aggregate,
then we can just use said original source aggregate directly,
instead of re-creating it.
4. If we fail to find said aggregate when looking only in the current block,
we need be PHI-aware - we might have different source aggregate when coming
from each predecessor.
I'm not sure if this already handles everything, and there are some FIXME's,
i'll deal with all that later in followups.
I'd be fine with going with post-commit review here code-wise,
but just in case there are thoughts, i'm posting this.
On RawSpeed, for example, this has the following effect:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 1253 | 1253 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 948 | 1355 | 407 | 42.93% | 42.93% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4382 | 3210 | -1172 | -26.75% | 26.75% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 574 | 458 | -116 | -20.21% | 20.21% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 1154 | 921 | -233 | -20.19% | 20.19% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 29017 | 26397 | -2620 | -9.03% | 9.03% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 166618 | 174705 | 8087 | 4.85% | 4.85% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 51526 | 50678 | -848 | -1.65% | 1.65% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 20865 | 20609 | -256 | -1.23% | 1.23% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 34023 | 33675 | -348 | -1.02% | 1.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 113634 | 114708 | 1074 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 15030 | 14930 | -100 | -0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 219544 | 219024 | -520 | -0.24% | 0.24% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 644562 | 645805 | 1243 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 2139506 | 2135377 | -4129 | -0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 156988 | 156821 | -167 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1206144 | 1207076 | 932 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 5193 | 5190 | -3 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 948580 | 948299 | -281 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 11509 | 11507 | -2 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 97595 | 97597 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 210514 | 210522 | 8 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
So we manage to increase the amount of `invoke` -> `call` conversions in SimplifyCFG by almost a half,
and there is a very apparent decrease in instruction and basic block count.
On vanilla llvm-test-suite:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 744 | 744 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 2705 | 2053 | -652 | -24.10% | 24.10% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 1212 | 1424 | 212 | 17.49% | 17.49% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 21681 | 20139 | -1542 | -7.11% | 7.11% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 14575 | 14361 | -214 | -1.47% | 1.47% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 6815 | 6743 | -72 | -1.06% | 1.06% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 14851 | 14712 | -139 | -0.94% | 0.94% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 27510 | 27332 | -178 | -0.65% | 0.65% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1438173 | 1443371 | 5198 | 0.36% | 0.36% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 2880 | 2872 | -8 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 55187 | 55076 | -111 | -0.20% | 0.20% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 321366 | 320916 | -450 | -0.14% | 0.14% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 886816 | 886493 | -323 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 7663845 | 7661108 | -2737 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 886791 | 887171 | 380 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 553552 | 553733 | 181 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3200512 | 3201202 | 690 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 741794 | 741656 | -138 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 14443 | 14445 | 2 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7978085 | 7977916 | -169 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 73188 | 73189 | 1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 291959 | 291968 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
Roughly similar effect, less instructions and blocks total.
See also: rGe492f0e03b01a5e4ec4b6333abb02d303c3e479e.
Compile-time wise, this appears to be roughly geomean-neutral:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=instructions
And this is a win size-wize in general:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=size-text
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47060
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85787
We can now enable this for AVX1 targets can now assist with canonicalizeShuffleMaskWithHorizOp cleanup.
There's still a few missed opportunities for merging subvector insert/extracts into shuffles, but they shouldn't cause any regressions now.
This reverts commit babb59496b540583c6951813d1e0b3abdea97e7d.
This test addition was queued up with some unrelated changes,
but it seems more likely that we need to fix something internal
to -memcpyopt. Also, I'm not sure if including target-specifc
attributes in a generic regression test dir will cause bot
problems.
Instead of just attempting to fold shuffle(HOP,HOP) for a specific target shuffle, make this part of combineX86ShufflesRecursively so we can perform this on the combined shuffle chain, which is particularly useful for recognising more cases of where we're performing multiple HOPs that can be merged and pre-AVX where we don't have good blend/unary target shuffle support.
Split the isRepeatedTargetShuffleMask into a wrapper variant that takes a MVT describing the mask width, and an internal version that just needs the raw mask element bit size.
This will be necessary for an upcoming change where the horizontal ops element width might not match the shuffle mask element width.
By default, if a universal binary has a slice matching the host
architecture, llvm-objdump will only print that slice, otherwise it'll
print all architectures. Explicitly pass `--arch all` to force it to
always print all architectures, as we want for this test.
