This class is used by LSR and a number of places in the codegen.
This is the first step in de-coupling LSR from TLI, and creating
a new interface in between them.
llvm-svn: 165455
have an alloca or a parameter, since then the alloca test should make sense
to readers, while before it probably appears too specific. No functionality
change.
llvm-svn: 165306
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
the rewrite visitor to make the fact that the speculation is completely
independent a bit more clear.
I promise that this is just a cut/paste of the one visitor and adding
the annonymous namespace wrappings. The diff may look completely
preposterous, it does in git for some reason.
llvm-svn: 165284
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
preserves the values of the relocated entries, unlikely remove_if. This
allows walking them and erasing them.
Also flesh out the predicate we are using for this to support the
various constraints actually imposed on a UnaryPredicate -- without this
we can't compose it with std::not1.
Thanks to Sean Silva for the review here and noticing the issue with
std::remove_if.
llvm-svn: 165073
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
We require that the indices into the use lists are stable in order to
build fast lookup tables to locate a particular partition use from an
operand of a PHI or select. This is (obviously in hind sight)
incompatible with erasing elements from the array. Really, we don't want
to erase anyways. It is expensive, and a rare operation. Instead, simply
weaken the contract of the PartitionUse structure to allow null Use
pointers to represent dead uses. Now we can clear out the pointer to
mark things as dead, and all it requires is adding some 'continue'
checks to the various loops.
I'm still reducing a test case for this, as the test case I have is
huge. I think this one I can get a nice test case for though, as it was
much more deterministic.
llvm-svn: 165032
being separate was that it can grow the use list. As a consequence, we
can't use the iterator-pair interface, we need an index based interface.
Expose such an interface from the AllocaPartitioning, and use it in the
speculator.
This should at least fix a use-after-free bug found by Duncan, and may
fix some of the other crashers.
I don't have a nice deterministic test case yet, but if I get a good
one, I'll add it.
llvm-svn: 165027
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
could probably be factored still further to hoist this logic into
a generic helper, but currently I don't have particularly clean ideas
about how to handle that.
This at least allows us to drop custom load rewriting from the
speculation logic, which in turn allows the existing load rewriting
logic to fire. In theory, this could enable vector promotion or other
tricks after speculation occurs, but I've not dug into such issues. This
is primarily just cleaning up the factoring of the code and the
resulting logic.
llvm-svn: 164933
a pair of instructions, one for the used pointer and the second for the
user. This simplifies the representation and also makes it more dense.
This was noticed because of the miscompile in PR13926. In that case, we
were running up against a fundamental "bad idea" in the speculation of
PHI and select instructions: the speculation and rewriting are
interleaved, which requires phi speculation to also perform load
rewriting! This is bad, and causes us to miss opportunities to do (for
example) vector rewriting only exposed after PHI speculation, etc etc.
It also, in the old system, required us to insert *new* load uses into
the current partition's use list, which would then be ignored during
rewriting because we had already extracted an end iterator for the use
list. The appending behavior (and much of the other oddities) stem from
the strange de-duplication strategy in the PartitionUse builder.
Amusingly, all this went without notice for so long because it could
only be triggered by having *different* GEPs into the same partition of
the same alloca, where both different GEPs were operands of a single
PHI, and where the GEP which was not encountered first also had multiple
uses within that same PHI node... Hence the insane steps required to
reproduce.
So, step one in fixing this fundamental bad idea is to make the
PartitionUse actually contain a Use*, and to make the builder do proper
deduplication instead of funky de-duplication. This is enough to remove
the appending behavior, and fix the miscompile in PR13926, but there is
more work to be done here. Subsequent commits will lift the speculation
into its own visitor. It'll be a useful step toward potentially
extracting all of the speculation logic into a generic utility
transform.
The existing PHI test case for repeated operands has been made more
extreme to catch even these issues. This test case, run through the old
pass, will exactly reproduce the miscompile from PR13926. ;] We were so
close here!
llvm-svn: 164925
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.
Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.
Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]
llvm-svn: 164891
rewriter in SROA to carry a proper alignment. This involves
interrogating various sources of alignment, etc. This is a more complete
and principled fix to PR13920 as well as related bugs pointed out by Eli
in review and by inspection in the area.
Also by inspection fix the integer and vector promotion paths to create
aligned loads and stores. I still need to work up test cases for
these... Sorry for the delay, they were found purely by inspection.
llvm-svn: 164689
This should really, really fix PR13916. For real this time. The
underlying bug is... a bit more subtle than I had imagined.
The setup is a code pattern that leads to an @llvm.memcpy call with two
equal pointers to an alloca in the source and dest. Now, not any pattern
will do. The alloca needs to be formed just so, and both pointers should
be wrapped in different bitcasts etc. When this precise pattern hits,
a funny sequence of events transpires. First, we correctly detect the
potential for overlap, and correctly optimize the memcpy. The first
time. However, we do simplify the set of users of the alloca, and that
causes us to run the alloca back through the SROA pass in case there are
knock-on simplifications. At this point, a curious thing has happened.
If we happen to have an i8 alloca, we have direct i8 pointer values. So
we don't bother creating a cast, we rewrite the arguments to the memcpy
to dircetly refer to the alloca.
Now, in an unrelated area of the pass, we have clever logic which
ensures that when visiting each User of a particular pointer derived
from an alloca, we only visit that User once, and directly inspect all
of its operands which refer to that particular pointer value. However,
the mechanism used to detect memcpy's with the potential to overlap
relied upon getting visited once per *Use*, not once per *User*. This is
always true *unless* the same exact value is both source and dest. It
turns out that almost nothing actually produces that pattern though.
We can hand craft test cases that more directly test this behavior of
course, and those are included. Also, note that there is a significant
missed optimization here -- we prove in many cases that there is
a non-volatile memcpy call with identical source and dest addresses. We
shouldn't prevent splitting the alloca in that case, and in fact we
should just remove such memcpy calls eagerly. I'll address that in
a subsequent commit.
llvm-svn: 164669
only a missed optimization opportunity if the store is over-aligned, but a
miscompile if the store's new type has a higher natural alignment than the
memcpy did. Fixes PR13920!
llvm-svn: 164641
reason we were getting two of the same alloca is because of a memmove/memcpy
which had the same alloca in both the src and dest. Now we detect that case
directly. This has the same testcase as before, but fixes a clang test
CodeGenObjC/exceptions.m which runs clang -O2.
llvm-svn: 164636
Chandler, it's not obvious that it's okay that this alloca gets into the list
twice to begin with. Please review and see whether this is the fix you really
want, but I wanted to get a fix checked in quickly.
llvm-svn: 164634
to chains or cycles between PHIs and/or selects. Also add a couple of
really nice test cases reduced from Kostya's reports in PR13905 and
PR13906. Both are fixed by this patch.
llvm-svn: 164596
David (I think), but I would appreciate folks verifying that this fixes
the big crasher.
I'm still working on a reduced test case, but because this was causing
problems I wanted to get the fix checked in quickly.
llvm-svn: 164585
integer promotion analogous to vector promotion. When there is an
integer alloca being accessed both as its integer type and as a narrower
integer type, promote the narrower access to "insert" and "extract" the
smaller integer from the larger one, and make the integer alloca
a candidate for promotion.
In the new formulation, we don't care about target legal integer or use
thresholds to control things. Instead, we only perform this promotion to
an integer type which the frontend has already emitted a load or store
for. This bounds the scope and prevents optimization passes from
coalescing larger and larger entities into a single integer.
llvm-svn: 164479
across the uses of the alloca. It's entirely possible for negative
numbers to come up here, and in some rare cases simply doing the 2's
complement arithmetic isn't the correct decision. Notably, we can't zext
the index of the GEP. The definition of GEP is that these offsets are
sign extended or truncated to the size of the pointer, and then wrapping
2's complement arithmetic used.
This patch fixes an issue that comes up with *no* input from the
buildbots or bootstrap afaict. The only place where it manifested,
disturbingly, is Clang's own regression test suite. A reduced and
targeted collection of tests are added to cope with this. Note that I've
tried to pin down the potential cases of overflow, but may have missed
some cases. I've tried to add a few cases to test this, but its hard
because LLVM has quite limited support for >64bit constructs.
llvm-svn: 164475
selects with a constant condition. This resulted in the operands
remaining live through the SROA rewriter. Most of the time, this just
caused some dead allocas to persist and get zapped by later passes, but
in one case found by Joerg, it caused a crash when we tried to *promote*
the alloca despite it having this dead use. We already have the
mechanisms in place to handle this, just wire select up to them.
llvm-svn: 164427
This is a follow-up from r163302, which added a transformation to
SimplifyCFG that turns some switches into loads from lookup tables.
It was pointed out that some targets, such as GPUs and deeply embedded
targets, might not find this appropriate, but SimplifyCFG doesn't have
enough information about the target to decide this.
This patch adds the reverse transformation to CodeGenPrep: it turns
loads from lookup tables back into switches for targets where we do not
build jump tables (assuming these are also the targets where lookup
tables are inappropriate).
Hopefully we will eventually get to have target information in
SimplifyCFG, and then this CodeGenPrep transformation can be removed.
llvm-svn: 164206
from the dragonegg build bots when we turned on the full version of the
pass. Included a much reduced test case for this pesky bug, despite
bugpoint's uncooperative behavior.
Also, I audited all the similar code I could find and didn't spot any
other cases where this mistake cropped up.
llvm-svn: 164178
working on FCA splitting. Instead of refusing to form a common type when
there are uses of a subsection of the alloca as well as a use of the
entire alloca, just skip the subsection uses and continue looking for
a whole-alloca use with a type that we can use.
This produces slightly prettier IR I think, and also fixes the other
failure in the test.
llvm-svn: 164146
