Duncan pointed out a mistake in my fix in r186425 when only one of the allocas
being compared had the target-default alignment. This is essentially his
suggested solution. Thanks!
llvm-svn: 186510
This check does not always work because not all of the GEPs use a constant offset, but it happens often enough to reduce the number of times we use SCEV.
llvm-svn: 186465
For safety, the inliner cannot decrease the allignment on an alloca when
merging it with another.
I've included two variants of the test case for this: one with DataLayout
available, and one without. When DataLayout is not available, if only one of
the allocas uses the default alignment (getAlignment() == 0), then they cannot
be safely merged.
llvm-svn: 186425
a bot.
This reverts the commit which introduced a new implementation of the
fancy SROA pass designed to reduce its overhead. I'll skip the huge
commit log here, refer to r186316 if you're looking for how this all
works and why it works that way.
llvm-svn: 186332
different core implementation strategy.
Previously, SROA would build a relatively elaborate partitioning of an
alloca, associate uses with each partition, and then rewrite the uses of
each partition in an attempt to break apart the alloca into chunks that
could be promoted. This was very wasteful in terms of memory and compile
time because regardless of how complex the alloca or how much we're able
to do in breaking it up, all of the datastructure work to analyze the
partitioning was done up front.
The new implementation attempts to form partitions of the alloca lazily
and on the fly, rewriting the uses that make up that partition as it
goes. This has a few significant effects:
1) Much simpler data structures are used throughout.
2) No more double walk of the recursive use graph of the alloca, only
walk it once.
3) No more complex algorithms for associating a particular use with
a particular partition.
4) PHI and Select speculation is simplified and happens lazily.
5) More precise information is available about a specific use of the
alloca, removing the need for some side datastructures.
Ultimately, I think this is a much better implementation. It removes
about 300 lines of code, but arguably removes more like 500 considering
that some code grew in the process of being factored apart and cleaned
up for this all to work.
I've re-used as much of the old implementation as possible, which
includes the lion's share of code in the form of the rewriting logic.
The interesting new logic centers around how the uses of a partition are
sorted, and split into actual partitions.
Each instruction using a pointer derived from the alloca gets
a 'Partition' entry. This name is totally wrong, but I'll do a rename in
a follow-up commit as there is already enough churn here. The entry
describes the offset range accessed and the nature of the access. Once
we have all of these entries we sort them in a very specific way:
increasing order of begin offset, followed by whether they are
splittable uses (memcpy, etc), followed by the end offset or whatever.
Sorting by splittability is important as it simplifies the collection of
uses into a partition.
Once we have these uses sorted, we walk from the beginning to the end
building up a range of uses that form a partition of the alloca.
Overlapping unsplittable uses are merged into a single partition while
splittable uses are broken apart and carried from one partition to the
next. A partition is also introduced to bridge splittable uses between
the unsplittable regions when necessary.
I've looked at the performance PRs fairly closely. PR15471 no longer
will even load (the module is invalid). Not sure what is up there.
PR15412 improves by between 5% and 10%, however it is nearly impossible
to know what is holding it up as SROA (the entire pass) takes less time
than reading the IR for that test case. The analysis takes the same time
as running mem2reg on the final allocas. I suspect (without much
evidence) that the new implementation will scale much better however,
and it is just the small nature of the test cases that makes the changes
small and noisy. Either way, it is still simpler and cleaner I think.
llvm-svn: 186316
If an outside loop user of the reduction value uses the header phi node we
cannot just reduce the vectorized phi value in the vector code epilog because
we would loose VF-1 reductions.
lp:
p = phi (0, lv)
lv = lv + 1
...
brcond , lp, outside
outside:
usr = add 0, p
(Say the loop iterates two times, the value of p coming out of the loop is one).
We cannot just transform this to:
vlp:
p = phi (<0,0>, lv)
lv = lv + <1,1>
..
brcond , lp, outside
outside:
p_reduced = p[0] + [1];
usr = add 0, p_reduced
(Because the original loop iterated two times the vectorized loop would iterate
one time, but p_reduced ends up being zero instead of one).
We would have to execute VF-1 iterations in the scalar remainder loop in such
cases. For now, just disable vectorization.
PR16522
llvm-svn: 186256
In general, one should always complete CFG modifications first, update
CFG-based analyses, like Dominatores and LoopInfo, then generate
instruction sequences.
LoopVectorizer was creating a new loop, calling SCEVExpander to
generate checks, then updating LoopInfo. I just changed the order.
llvm-svn: 186241
Address calculation for gather/scather in vectorized code can incur a
significant cost making vectorization unbeneficial. Add infrastructure to add
cost.
Tests and cost model for targets will be in follow-up commits.
radar://14351991
llvm-svn: 186187
against a constant."
This reverts commit r186107. It didn't handle wrapping arithmetic in the
loop correctly and thus caused the following C program to count from
0 to UINT64_MAX instead of from 0 to 255 as intended:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
unsigned char first = 0, last = 255;
do { printf("%d\n", first); } while (first++ != last);
}
Full test case and instructions to reproduce with just the -indvars pass
sent to the original review thread rather than to r186107's commit.
llvm-svn: 186152
Before we could vectorize PHINodes scanning successors was a good way of finding candidates. Now we can vectorize the phinodes which is simpler.
llvm-svn: 186139
Patch by Michele Scandale!
Adds a special handling of the case where, during the loop exit
condition rewriting, the exit value is a constant of bitwidth lower
than the type of the induction variable: instead of introducing a
trunc operation in order to match correctly the operand types, it
allows to convert the constant value to an equivalent constant,
depending on the initial value of the induction variable and the trip
count, in order have an equivalent comparison between the induction
variable and the new constant.
llvm-svn: 186107
We can vectorize them because in the case where we wrap in the address space the
unvectorized code would have had to access a pointer value of zero which is
undefined behavior in address space zero according to the LLVM IR semantics.
(Thank you Duncan, for pointing this out to me).
Fixes PR16592.
llvm-svn: 186088
predecessors of the two blocks it is attempting to merge supply the
same incoming values to any phi in the successor block. This change
allows merging in the case where there is one or more incoming values
that are undef. The undef values are rewritten to match the non-undef
value that flows from the other edge. Patch by Mark Lacey.
llvm-svn: 186069
Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all,
TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker.
Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But
given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have
the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back
parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute.
Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture
escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed
allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily
conservative since:
1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not
access the caller's stack via its arguments.
2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with
the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping
allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed
indirectly by A.
With the changes introduced by this patch:
1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do
nothing and bail early.
2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we
do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments:
i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces
significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created
by the TRE algorithm.
ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas
with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping
nocapture allocas.
3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not):
i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail
marker.
ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function,
attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function.
Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky.
rdar://14324281.
llvm-svn: 186057
A special case list can now specify categories for specific globals,
which can be used to instruct an instrumentation pass to treat certain
functions or global variables in a specific way, such as by omitting
certain aspects of instrumentation while keeping others, or informing
the instrumentation pass that a specific uninstrumentable function
has certain semantics, thus allowing the pass to instrument callers
according to those semantics.
For example, AddressSanitizer now uses the "init" category instead of
global-init prefixes for globals whose initializers should not be
instrumented, but which in all other respects should be instrumented.
The motivating use case is DataFlowSanitizer, which will have a
number of different categories for uninstrumentable functions, such
as "functional" which specifies that a function has pure functional
semantics, or "discard" which indicates that a function's return
value should not be labelled.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1092
llvm-svn: 185978
The following transforms are valid if -C is a power of 2:
(icmp ugt (xor X, C), ~C) -> (icmp ult X, C)
(icmp ult (xor X, C), -C) -> (icmp uge X, C)
These are nice, they get rid of the xor.
llvm-svn: 185915
