to ensure we don't mess up any of the overrides. Necessary for cleaning
up the Value use iterators and enabling range-based traversing of use
lists.
llvm-svn: 202958
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
business.
This header includes Function and BasicBlock and directly uses the
interfaces of both classes. It has to do with the IR, it even has that
in the name. =] Put it in the library it belongs to.
This is one step toward making LLVM's Support library survive a C++
modules bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 202814
remove_if that its predicate is adaptable. We don't actually need this,
we can write a generic adapter for any predicate.
This lets us remove some very wrong std::function usages. We should
never be using std::function for predicates to algorithms. This incurs
an *indirect* call overhead for every evaluation of the predicate, and
makes it very hard to inline through.
llvm-svn: 202742
operand_values. The first provides a range view over operand Use
objects, and the second provides a range view over the Value*s being
used by those operands.
The naming is "STL-style" rather than "LLVM-style" because we have
historically named iterator methods STL-style, and range methods seem to
have far more in common with their iterator counterparts than with
"normal" APIs. Feel free to bikeshed on this one if you want, I'm happy
to change these around if people feel strongly.
I've switched code in SROA and LCG to exercise these mostly to ensure
they work correctly -- we don't really have an easy way to unittest this
and they're trivial.
llvm-svn: 202687
the default.
Based on the patch by Matt Arsenault, D1764!
I switched one place to use the more direct pointer type to compute the
desired address space, and I reworked the memcpy rewriting section to
reflect significant refactorings that this patch helped inspire.
Thanks to several of the folks who helped review and improve the patch
as well.
llvm-svn: 202247
to work independently for the slice side and the other side.
This allows us to only compute the minimum of the two when we actually
rewrite to a memcpy that needs to take the minimum, and preserve higher
alignment for one side or the other when rewriting to loads and stores.
This fix was inspired by seeing the result of some refactoring that
makes addrspace handling better.
llvm-svn: 202242
D1764, which in turn set off the other refactorings to make
'getSliceAlign()' a sensible thing.
There are two possible inputs to the required alignment of a memory
transfer intrinsic: the alignment constraints of the source and the
destination. If we are *only* introducing a (potentially new) offset
onto one side of the transfer, we don't need to consider the alignment
constraints of the other side. Use this to simplify the logic feeding
into alignment computation for unsplit transfers.
Also, hoist the clamp of the magical zero alignment for these intrinsics
to the more customary one alignment early. This lets several other
conditions melt away.
No functionality changed. There is a further improvement this exposes
which *will* change functionality, but that's arriving in a separate
patch.
llvm-svn: 202232
rewriting logic: don't pass custom offsets for the adjusted pointer to
the new alloca.
We always passed NewBeginOffset here. Sometimes we spelled it
BeginOffset, but only when they were in fact equal. Whats worse, the API
is set up so that you can't reasonably call it with anything else -- it
assumes that you're passing it an offset relative to the *original*
alloca that happens to fall within the new one. That's the whole point
of NewBeginOffset, it's the clamped beginning offset.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 202231
alignment of the slice being rewritten, not any arbitrary offset.
Every caller is really just trying to compute the alignment for the
whole slice, never for some arbitrary alignment. They are also just
passing a type when they have one to see if we can skip an explicit
alignment in the IR by using the type's alignment. This makes for a much
simpler interface.
Another refactoring inspired by the addrspace patch for SROA, although
only loosely related.
llvm-svn: 202230
consistency with memcpy rewriting, and fix a latent bug in the alignment
management for memset.
The alignment issue is that getAdjustedAllocaPtr is computing the
*relative* offset into the new alloca, but the alignment isn't being set
to the relative offset, it was using the the absolute offset which is
into the old alloca.
I don't think its possible to write a test case that actually reaches
this code where the resulting alignment would be observably different,
but the intent was clearly to use the relative offset within the new
alloca.
llvm-svn: 202229
rather than passing them as arguments.
While I generally prefer actual arguments, in this case the readability
loss is substantial. By using members we avoid repeatedly calculating
the offsets, and once we're using members it is useful to ensure that
those names *always* refer to the original-alloca-relative new offset
for a rewritten slice.
No functionality changed. Follow-up refactoring, all toward getting the
address space patch merged.
llvm-svn: 202228
slice being rewritten.
We had the same code scattered across most of the visits. Instead,
compute the new offsets and the slice size once when we start to visit
a particular slice, and use the member variables from then on. This
reduces quite a bit of code duplication.
No functionality changed. Refactoring inspired to make it easier to
apply the address space patch to SROA.
llvm-svn: 202227
checking in SROA.
The primary change is to just rely on uge for checking that the offset
is within the allocation size. This removes the explicit checks against
isNegative which were terribly error prone (including the reversed logic
that led to PR18615) and prevented us from supporting stack allocations
larger than half the address space.... Ok, so maybe the latter isn't
*common* but it's a silly restriction to have.
Also, we used to try to support a PHI node which loaded from before the
start of the allocation if any of the loaded bytes were within the
allocation. This doesn't make any sense, we have never really supported
loading or storing *before* the allocation starts. The simplified logic
just doesn't care.
We continue to allow loading past the end of the allocation in part to
support cases where there is a PHI and some loads are larger than others
and the larger ones reach past the end of the allocation. We could solve
this a different and more conservative way, but I'm still somewhat
paranoid about this.
llvm-svn: 202224
their inputs come from std::stable_sort and they are not total orders.
I'm not a huge fan of this, but the really bad std::stable_sort is right
at the beginning of Reassociate. After we commit to stable-sort based
consistent respect of source order, the downstream sorts shouldn't undo
that unless they have a total order or they are used in an
order-insensitive way. Neither appears to be true for these cases.
I don't have particularly good test cases, but this jumped out by
inspection when looking for output instability in this pass due to
changes in the ordering of std::sort.
llvm-svn: 202196
implemented this way a long time ago and due to the overwhelming bugs
that surfaced, moved to a much more relaxed variant. Richard Smith would
like to understand the magnitude of this problem and it seems fairly
harmless to keep some flag-controlled logic to get the extremely strict
behavior here. I'll remove it if it doesn't prove useful.
llvm-svn: 202193
just "load". This helps avoid pointless de-duping with order-sensitive
numbers as we already have unique names from the original load. It also
makes the resulting IR quite a bit easier to read.
llvm-svn: 202140
the pointer adjustment code. This is the primary code path that creates
totally new instructions in SROA and being able to lump them based on
the pointer value's name for which they were created causes
*significantly* fewer name collisions and general noise in the debug
output. This is particularly significant because it is making it much
harder to track down instability in the output of SROA, as name
de-duplication is a totally harmless form of instability that gets in
the way of seeing real problems.
The new fancy naming scheme tries to dig out the root "pre-SROA" name
for pointer values and associate that all the way through the pointer
formation instructions. Digging out the root is important to prevent the
multiple iterative rounds of SROA from just layering too much cruft on
top of cruft here. We already track the layers of SROAs iteration in the
alloca name prefix. We don't need to duplicate it here.
Should have no functionality change, and shouldn't have any really
measurable impact on NDEBUG builds, as most of the complex logic is
debug-only.
llvm-svn: 202139
using OldPtr more heavily. Lots of this code was written before the
rewriter had an OldPtr member setup ahead of time. There are already
asserts in place that should ensure this doesn't change any
functionality.
llvm-svn: 202135
the break statement, not just think it to yourself....
No idea how this worked at all, much less survived most bots, my
bootstrap, and some bot bootstraps!
The Polly one didn't survive, and this was filed as PR18959. I don't
have a reduced test case and honestly I'm not seeing the need. What we
probably need here are better asserts / debug-build behavior in
SmallPtrSet so that this madness doesn't make it so far.
llvm-svn: 202129
sorting it. This helps uncover latent reliance on the original ordering
which aren't guaranteed to be preserved by std::sort (but often are),
and which are based on the use-def chain orderings which also aren't
(technically) guaranteed.
Only available in C++11 debug builds, and behind a flag to prevent noise
at the moment, but this is generally useful so figured I'd put it in the
tree rather than keeping it out-of-tree.
llvm-svn: 202106
the destination operand or source operand of a memmove.
It so happens that it was impossible for SROA to try to rewrite
self-memmove where the operands are *identical*, because either such
a think is volatile (and we don't rewrite) or it is non-volatile, and we
don't even register it as a use of the alloca.
However, making the 'IsDest' test *rely* on this subtle fact is... Very
confusing for the reader. We should use the direct and readily available
test of the Use* which gives us concrete information about which operand
is being rewritten.
No functionality changed, I hope! ;]
llvm-svn: 202103
ordering.
The fundamental problem that we're hitting here is that the use-def
chain ordering is *itself* not a stable thing to be relying on in the
rewriting for SROA. Further, we use a non-stable sort over the slices to
arrange them based on the section of the alloca they're operating on.
With a debugging STL implementation (or different implementations in
stage2 and stage3) this can cause stage2 != stage3.
The specific aspect of this problem fixed in this commit deals with the
rewriting and load-speculation around PHIs and Selects. This, like many
other aspects of the use-rewriting in SROA, is really part of the
"strong SSA-formation" that is doen by SROA where it works very hard to
canonicalize loads and stores in *just* the right way to satisfy the
needs of mem2reg[1]. When we have a select (or a PHI) with 2 uses of the
same alloca, we test that loads downstream of the select are
speculatable around it twice. If only one of the operands to the select
needs to be rewritten, then if we get lucky we rewrite that one first
and the select is immediately speculatable. This can cause the order of
operand visitation, and thus the order of slices to be rewritten, to
change an alloca from promotable to non-promotable and vice versa.
The fix is to defer all of the speculation until *after* the rewrite
phase is done. Once we've rewritten everything, we can accurately test
for whether speculation will work (once, instead of twice!) and the
order ceases to matter.
This also happens to simplify the other subtlety of speculation -- we
need to *not* speculate anything unless the result of speculating will
make the alloca fully promotable by mem2reg. I had a previous attempt at
simplifying this, but it was still pretty horrible.
There is actually already a *really* nice test case for this in
basictest.ll, but on multiple STL implementations and inputs, we just
got "lucky". Fortunately, the test case is very small and we can
essentially build it in exactly the opposite way to get reasonable
coverage in both directions even from normal STL implementations.
llvm-svn: 202092
