very small but very important bugfix:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->get();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
[...]
should have read:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->getUser();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
Fixes PR14143!
llvm-svn: 166407
This is important for vectors of pointers because only DataLayout,
not the underlying vector type, knows how to calculate the size
of the pointers in the vector. Fixes PR14138.
llvm-svn: 166401
It passes all tests, produces better results than the old code but uses the
wrong pass, LoopDependenceAnalysis, which is old and unmaintained. "Why is it
still in tree?", you might ask. The answer is obviously: "To confuse developers."
Just swapping in the new dependency pass sends the pass manager into an infinte
loop, I'll try to figure out why tomorrow.
llvm-svn: 166399
Requires a lot less code and complexity on loop-idiom's side and the more
precise analysis can catch more cases, like the one I included as a test case.
This also fixes the edge-case miscompilation from PR9481. I'm not entirely
sure that all cases are handled that the old checks handled but LDA will
certainly become smarter in the future.
llvm-svn: 166390
We used a SCEV to detect that A[X] is consecutive. We assumed that X was
the induction variable. But X can be any expression that uses the induction
for example: X = i + 2;
llvm-svn: 166388
This is important for nested-loop reductions such as :
In the innermost loop, the induction variable does not start with zero:
for (i = 0 .. n)
for (j = 0 .. m)
sum += ...
llvm-svn: 166387
If the pointer is consecutive then it is safe to read and write. If the pointer is non-loop-consecutive then
it is unsafe to vectorize it because we may hit an ordering issue.
llvm-svn: 166371
This patch migrates the strcpy optimizations from the simplify-libcalls pass
into the instcombine library call simplifier. Note also that StrCpyChkOpt
has been updated with a few simplifications that were being done in the
simplify-libcalls version of StrCpyOpt, but not in the migrated implementation
of StrCpyOpt. There is no reason to overload StrCpyOpt with fortified and
regular simplifications in the new model since there is already a dedicated
simplifier for __strcpy_chk.
llvm-svn: 166198
a pointer. A very bad idea. Let's not do that. Fixes PR14105.
Note that this wasn't *that* glaring of an oversight. Originally, these
routines were only called on offsets within an alloca, which are
intrinsically positive. But over the evolution of the pass, they ended
up being called for arbitrary offsets, and things went downhill...
llvm-svn: 166095
An obfuscated splat is where the frontend poorly generates code for a splat
using several different shuffles to create the splat, i.e.,
%A = load <4 x float>* %in_ptr, align 16
%B = shufflevector <4 x float> %A, <4 x float> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 0, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%C = shufflevector <4 x float> %B, <4 x float> %A, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 4, i32 undef>
%D = shufflevector <4 x float> %C, <4 x float> %A, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 4>
llvm-svn: 166061
includes extracting ints for copying elsewhere and inserting ints when
copying into the alloca. This should fix the CanSROA assertion coming
out of Clang's regression test suite.
llvm-svn: 165931
cases where we have partial integer loads and stores to an otherwise
promotable alloca to widen[1] those loads and stores to cover the entire
alloca and bitcast them into the appropriate type such that promotion
can proceed.
These partial loads and stores stem from an annoying confluence of ARM's
calling convention and ABI lowering and the FCA pre-splitting which
takes place in SROA. Clang lowers a { double, double } in-register
function argument as a [4 x i32] function argument to ensure it is
placed into integer 32-bit registers (a really unnerving implicit
contract between Clang and the ARM backend I would add). This results in
a FCA load of [4 x i32]* from the { double, double } alloca, and SROA
decomposes this into a sequence of i32 loads and stores. Inlining
proceeds, code gets folded, but at the end of the day, we still have i32
stores to the low and high halves of a double alloca. Widening these to
be i64 operations, and bitcasting them to double prior to loading or
storing allows promotion to proceed for these allocas.
I looked quite a bit changing the IR which Clang produces for this case
to be more friendly, but small changes seem unlikely to help. I think
the best representation we could use currently would be to pass 4 i32
arguments thereby avoiding any FCAs, but that would still require this
fix. It seems like it might eventually be nice to somehow encode the ABI
register selection choices outside of the parameter type system so that
the parameter can be a { double, double }, but the CC register
annotations indicate that this should be passed via 4 integer registers.
This patch does not address the second problem in PR14059, which is the
reverse: when a struct alloca is loaded as a *larger* single integer.
This patch also does not address some of the code quality issues with
the FCA-splitting. Those don't actually impede any optimizations really,
but they're on my list to clean up.
[1]: Pedantic footnote: for those concerned about memory model issues
here, this is safe. For the alloca to be promotable, it cannot escape or
have any use of its address that could allow these loads or stores to be
racing. Thus, widening is always safe.
llvm-svn: 165928
This patch migrates the strcmp and strncmp optimizations from the
simplify-libcalls pass into the instcombine library call simplifier.
llvm-svn: 165915
This patch migrates the strchr and strrchr optimizations from the
simplify-libcalls pass into the instcombine library call simplifier.
llvm-svn: 165875
This patch migrates the strcat and strncat optimizations from the
simplify-libcalls pass into the instcombine library call simplifier.
llvm-svn: 165874
type coercion code, especially when targetting ARM. Things like [1
x i32] instead of i32 are very common there.
The goal of this logic is to ensure that when we are picking an alloca
type, we look through such wrapper aggregates and across any zero-length
aggregate elements to find the simplest type possible to form a type
partition.
This logic should (generally speaking) rarely fire. It only ends up
kicking in when an alloca is accessed using two different types (for
instance, i32 and float), and the underlying alloca type has wrapper
aggregates around it. I noticed a significant amount of this occurring
looking at stepanov_abstraction generated code for arm, and suspect it
happens elsewhere as well.
Note that this doesn't yet address truly heinous IR productions such as
PR14059 is concerning. Those result in mismatched *sizes* of types in
addition to mismatched access and alloca types.
llvm-svn: 165870
DeadArgumentElimination pass can replace one LLVM function with another,
invalidating a pointer stored in debug info metadata entry for this function.
To fix this, we collect debug info descriptors for functions before
running a DeadArgumentElimination pass and "patch" pointers in metadata nodes
if we replace a function.
llvm-svn: 165490
are in fact identity operations. We detect these and kill their
partitions so that even splitting is unaffected by them. This is
particularly important because Clang relies on emitting identity memcpy
operations for struct copies, and these fold away to constants very
often after inlining.
Fixes the last big performance FIXME I have on my plate.
llvm-svn: 165285
We conservatively only check the first use to avoid walking long use chains.
This catches the common case of having both a load and a store to a pointer
supplied by a PHI node.
llvm-svn: 165232
cpyDest can be mutated in some cases, which would then cause a crash later if
indeed the memory was underaligned. This brought down several buildbots, so
I guess the underaligned case is much more common than I thought!
llvm-svn: 165228
Currently, we re-visit allocas when something changes about the way they
might be *split* to allow better scalarization to take place. However,
we weren't handling the case when the *promotion* is what would change
the behavior of SROA. When an address derived from an alloca is stored
into another alloca, we consider the first to have escaped. If the
second is ever promoted to an SSA value, we will suddenly be able to run
the SROA pass on the first alloca.
This patch adds explicit support for this form if iteration. When we
detect a store of a pointer derived from an alloca, we flag the
underlying alloca for reprocessing after promotion. The logic works hard
to only do this when there is definitely going to be promotion and it
might remove impediments to the analysis of the alloca.
Thanks to Nick for the great test case and Benjamin for some sanity
check review.
llvm-svn: 165223
was less aligned than the old. In the testcase this results in an overaligned
memset: the memset alignment was correct for the original memory but is too much
for the new memory. Fix this by either increasing the alignment of the new
memory or bailing out if that isn't possible. Should fix the gcc-4.7 self-host
buildbot failure.
llvm-svn: 165220
Sorry for this being broken so long. =/
As part of this, switch all of the existing tests to be Little Endian,
which is the behavior I was asserting in them anyways! Add in a new
big-endian test that checks the interesting behavior there.
Another part of this is to tighten the rules abotu when we perform the
full-integer promotion. This logic now rejects cases where there fully
promoted integer is a non-multiple-of-8 bitwidth or cases where the
loads or stores touch bits which are in the allocated space of the
alloca but are not loaded or stored when accessing the integer. Sadly,
these aren't really observable today as the rest of the pass will
already ensure the invariants hold. However, the latter situation is
likely to become a potential concern in the future.
Thanks to Benjamin and Duncan for early review of this patch. I'm still
looking into whether there are further endianness issues, please let me
know if anyone sees BE failures persisting past this.
llvm-svn: 165219
a memcpy to reflect that '0' has a different meaning when applied to
a load or store. Now we correctly use underaligned loads and stores for
the test case added.
llvm-svn: 165101
necessary during rewriting. As part of this, fix a real think-o here
where we might have left off an alignment specification when the address
is in fact underaligned. I haven't come up with any way to trigger this,
as there is always some other factor that reduces the alignment, but it
certainly might have been an observable bug in some way I can't think
of. This also slightly changes the strategy for placing explicit
alignments on loads and stores to only do so when the alignment does not
match that required by the ABI. This causes a few redundant alignments
to go away from test cases.
I've also added a couple of tests that really push on the alignment that
we end up with on loads and stores. More to come here as I try to fix an
underlying bug I have conjectured and produced test cases for, although
it's not clear if this bug is the one currently hitting dragonegg's
gcc47 bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 165100
scheduled for processing on the worklist eventually gets deleted while
we are processing another alloca, fixing the original test case in
PR13990.
To facilitate this, add a remove_if helper to the SetVector abstraction.
It's not easy to use the standard abstractions for this because of the
specifics of SetVectors types and implementation.
Finally, a nice small test case is included. Thanks to Benjamin for the
fantastic reduced test case here! All I had to do was delete some empty
basic blocks!
llvm-svn: 165065
alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.
llvm-svn: 164937
