Also, make the same change in and-of-icmps and remove a hack for detecting that case.
Finally, add some FIXME comments because the code duplication here is awful.
This should fix the remaining IR problem noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32524
llvm-svn: 299851
We currently only fold scalar add of constants into selects. This improves this to support vectors too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31683
llvm-svn: 299847
Summary: I noticed in the select folding code that we copied fast math flags, but did not do the same for the similar handling in phi nodes. This patch fixes that to do the same thing as select
Reviewers: spatel, davide, majnemer, hfinkel
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31690
llvm-svn: 299838
Summary:
Resolve indirect branch target when possible.
This potentially eliminates more basicblocks and result in better evaluation for phi and other things.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30322
llvm-svn: 299830
In isUseTriviallyOptimizableToLiveOnEntry, pointsToConstantMemory needs to be
called on the load's pointer operand, not on the result of the load (which
might not even be a pointer).
llvm-svn: 299823
coro-split-after-phi.ll test was flaky due to non-determinism in
the coroutine frame construction that was sorting the spill
vector using a pointer to a def as a part of the key.
The sorting was intended to make sure that spills for the same def
are kept together, however, we populate the vector by processing
defs in order, so the spill entires will end up together anyways.
This change removes spill sorting and restores the determinism
in the test.
llvm-svn: 299809
Summary:
Fix a bug where we were inserting a spill in between the PHIs in the beginning of the block.
Consider this fragment:
```
begin:
%phi1 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ 2, %alt ]
%phi2 = phi i32 [ 1, %entry ], [ 3, %alt ]
%sp1 = call i8 @llvm.coro.suspend(token none, i1 false)
switch i8 %sp1, label %suspend [i8 0, label %resume
i8 1, label %cleanup]
resume:
call i32 @print(i32 %phi1)
```
Unless we are spilling the argument or result of the invoke, we were always inserting the spill immediately following the instruction.
The fix adds a check that if the spilled instruction is a PHI Node, select an appropriate insert point with `getFirstInsertionPt()` that
skips all the PHI Nodes and EH pads.
Reviewers: majnemer, rnk
Reviewed By: rnk
Subscribers: qcolombet, EricWF, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31799
llvm-svn: 299771
This patch reapplies r298620. The original patch was reverted because of two
issues. First, the patch exposed a bug in InstCombine that caused the Chromium
builds to fail (PR32414). This issue was fixed in r299017. Second, the patch
introduced a bug in the vectorizer's scalars analysis that caused test suite
builds to fail on SystemZ. The scalars analysis was too aggressive and marked a
memory instruction scalar, even though it was going to be vectorized. This
issue has been fixed in the current patch and several new test cases for the
scalars analysis have been added.
llvm-svn: 299770
Summary:
getModRefInfo is meant to answer the question "what impact does this
instruction have on a given memory location" (not even another
instruction).
Long debate on this on IRC comes to the conclusion the answer should be "nothing special".
That is, a noalias volatile store does not affect a memory location
just by being volatile. Note: DSE and GVN and memdep currently
believe this, because memdep just goes behind AA's back after it says
"modref" right now.
see line 635 of memdep. Prior to this patch we would get modref there, then check aliasing,
and if it said noalias, we would continue.
getModRefInfo *already* has this same AA check, it just wasn't being used because volatile was
lumped in with ordering.
(I am separately testing whether this code in memdep is now dead except for the invariant load case)
Reviewers: jyknight, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31726
llvm-svn: 299741
The new codepath has been in the tree for years, and there isn't any
reason to use two codepaths here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30596
llvm-svn: 299723
Summary:
Prior to this while it would delete the dead DIGlobalVariables, it would
leave dead DICompileUnits and everything referenced therefrom. For a bit
bitcode file with thousands of compile units those dead nodes easily
outnumbered the real ones. Clean that up.
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31720
llvm-svn: 299692
memorydefs, not just stores. Along the way, we audit and fixup issues
about how we were tracking memory leaders, and improve the verifier
to notice more memory congruency issues.
llvm-svn: 299682
Summary:
LSV wants to know the maximum size that can be loaded to a vector register.
On X86, this always matches the maximum register width. Implement this
accordingly and add a test to make sure that LSV can vectorize up to the
maximum permissible width on X86.
Reviewers: delena, arsenm
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31504
llvm-svn: 299589
This test case depends on the loop being vectorized without forcing the
vectorization factor. If the profitability ever changes in the future (due to
cost model improvements), the test may no longer work as intended. Instead of
checking the resulting IR, we should just check the instruction costs. The
costs will be computed regardless if vectorization is profitable.
llvm-svn: 299545
This is a latent bug that's been hanging around for a while. For a loop-invariant
pointer, expandBounds would return the range {Ptr, Ptr}, but this was interpreted
as a half-open range, not a closed range. So we ended up planting incorrect
bounds checks. Even worse, they were tautological, so we ended up incorrectly
executing the optimized loop.
llvm-svn: 299526
Fix a bug in ARC contract pass where an iterator that pointed to a
deleted instruction was dereferenced.
It appears that tryToContractReleaseIntoStoreStrong was incorrectly
assuming that a call to objc_retain would not immediately follow a call
to objc_release.
rdar://problem/25276306
llvm-svn: 299507
Currently we only fold with ConstantInt RHS. This generalizes to any Constant RHS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31610
llvm-svn: 299466
This patch optimizes two memory intrinsic operations: memset and memcpy based
on the profiled size of the operation. The high level transformation is like:
mem_op(..., size)
==>
switch (size) {
case s1:
mem_op(..., s1);
goto merge_bb;
case s2:
mem_op(..., s2);
goto merge_bb;
...
default:
mem_op(..., size);
goto merge_bb;
}
merge_bb:
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28966
llvm-svn: 299446
Otherwise, yamlize in YAMLTraits.h might be wrongly defined.
This makes some AMDGPU tests fail when LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB is set.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30508
llvm-svn: 299415
Summary:
Add a hook for simplification of shufflevector's with the following rules:
- Constant folding - NFC, as it was already being done by the default handler.
- If only one of the operands is constant, constant fold the shuffle if the
mask does not select elements from the variable operand - to show the hook is firing and affecting the test-cases.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, sanjoy, nlopes, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31525
llvm-svn: 299393
Summary:
Depends on D30928.
This adds support for coercion of stores and memory instructions that do not require insertion to process.
Another few tests down.
I added the relevant tests from rle.ll
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30929
llvm-svn: 299330
Disable bypassing if one of the operands looks like a hash value. Slow
division often occurs in hashtable implementations and fast division is
never taken there because a hash value is extremely unlikely to have
enough upper bits set to zero.
A value is considered to be hash-like if it is produced by
1) XOR operation
2) Multiplication by a constant wider than the shorter type
3) PHI node with all incoming values being hash-like
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28200
llvm-svn: 299329
