NPM passes just use the normal versions of these analyses instead.
Also pin any tests with -analyze to legacy PM.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87857
Extend the handling of memory intrinsics to also include non-
target-specific intrinsics, in particular masked loads and stores.
Invent "isHandledNonTargetIntrinsic" to distinguish between intrin-
sics that should be handled natively from intrinsics that can be
passed to TTI.
Add code that handles masked loads and stores and update the
testcase to reflect the results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87340
SimplifyCFG's options should always be overridden by command line flags,
but they mistakenly weren't in the default constructor.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87718
This pass is like DeadCodeEliminationPass, but only does one pass
through a function instead of iterating on users of eliminated
instructions.
DeadCodeEliminationPass should be used in all cases.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87933
This matches the legacy PM name and makes all tests in
Transforms/LoopSimplifyCFG pass under NPM.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87948
If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
This commit was originally because it was suspected to cause a crash,
but a reproducer did not surface.
A crash that was exposed by this change was fixed in 1d8f2e52925b.
This reverts the revert commit 0581c0b0eeba03da590d1176a4580cf9b9e8d1e3.
InstCombine likes to canonicalize comparisons of the form
X == C || X == C+1 into (X & -2) == C'. Make sure LVI can still
recover the value range from this. Can of course also be useful
for proper mask comparisons.
For the sake of clarity, the implementation goes through KnownBits
to compute the range.
We do similar factorization folds in SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws,
but that drops no-wrap properties. Propagating those optimally may
help solve:
https://llvm.org/PR47430
The propagation is all-or-nothing for these patterns: when all
3 incoming ops have nsw or nuw, the 2 new ops should have the
same no-wrap property:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Dv8wsU
This also solves:
https://llvm.org/PR47584
The test (currently crashing) is reduced from the example provided
in the post-commit discussion in D87149.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87965
The output here may not be optimal (yet), but it should be
consistent for commuted operands (it was not before) and
correct. We can do better by checking FMF and NaN if needed.
Code in InstSimplify generally assumes that we have already
folded code like this, so it was not handling 2 constant
inputs by commuting consistently.
If the mask of a pdep or pext instruction is a shift masked (i.e. one contiguous block of ones) we need at most one and and one shift to represent the operation without the intrinsic. One all platforms I know of, this is faster than the pdep/pext.
The cost modelling for multiple contiguous blocks might be worth exploring in a follow up, but it's not relevant for my current use case. It would almost certainly be a win on AMDs where these are really really slow though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87861
We cannot iterate on scalable vector, the number of elements is unknown at compile-time.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87918
If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
This switches to using DSE + MemorySSA by default again, after
fixing the issues reported after the first commit.
Notable fixes fc8200633122, a0017c2bc258.
This reverts commit 3a59628f3cc26eb085acfc9cbdc97243ef71a6c5.
This reverts commit 05d4c4ebc2fb006b8a2bd05b24c6aba10dd2eef8.
mstorsjo reports a miscompile after this change in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188#2281093. Reverting until I can
investigate this.
I believe the intention of this test added in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71687 was to test LoopFullUnrollPass with
clang's -fno-unroll-loops, not its interaction with optnone. Loop
unrolling passes don't run under optnone/-O0.
Also added back unintentionally removed -disable-loop-unrolling from
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85578.
Reviewed By: echristo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86485
Enable canonicalization of SPF_ABS and SPF_NABS to the abs intrinsic.
To be conservative, the one-use check on the comparison is retained,
this may be relaxed if all goes well.
It's pretty likely that this will uncover places that missing
handling for the abs() intrinsic. Please report any seen performance
regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87188
Summary: Allow unroll and jam loops forced by user.
LoopUnrollAndJamPass is still disabled by default in the NPM pipeline,
and can be controlled by -enable-npm-unroll-and-jam.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87786
The other assume tests seem to be dealing with equalities in
particular. Test implication for the condition itself, especially
the negated case from PR47496.
As discussed in:
https://llvm.org/PR47558
...there are several potential fixes/follow-ups visible
in the test case, but this is the quickest and safest
fix of the perf regression.
When a spill definition is before CoroBegin, we cannot spill it to the frame immediately after the definition. We have to spill it after the frame is ready.
The current implementation handles it properly for any other kinds of instructions except for PhINode and InvokeInst, which could also be defined before CoroBegin.
This patch fixes it by moving the CoroBegin dominance check earlier, so that it covers all cases.
Added a test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87810
This is one (small) part of improving PR41312:
https://llvm.org/PR41312
As shown there and in the smaller tests here, if we have some member of the
reduction values that does not match the others, we want to push it to the
end (bring the matching members forward and together).
In the regression tests, we have 5 candidates for the 4 slots of the reduction.
If the one "wrong" compare is grouped with the others, it prevents forming the
ideal v4i1 compare reduction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87772
Reapply after fixing SimplifyWithOpReplaced() to never return
the original value, which would lead to an infinite loop in this
transform.
-----
For selects of the type X == Y ? A : B, check if we can simplify A
by using the X == Y equality and replace the operand if that's
possible. We already try to do this in InstSimplify, but will only
fold if the result of the simplification is the same as B, in which
case the select can be dropped entirely. Here the select will be
retained, just one operand simplified.
As we are performing an actual replacement here, we don't have
problems with refinement / poison values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87480
