As noted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 , we can use this functionality in
visitSelectInstWithICmp() and InstSimplify, but currently we have duplicated
code.
llvm-svn: 276140
Revert "[LoopSimplify] Update LCSSA after separating nested loops."
This reverts commit r275891.
Revert "[LCSSA] Post-process PHI-nodes created by SSAUpdate when constructing LCSSA form."
This reverts commit r275883.
llvm-svn: 276064
This patch updates MemorySSA's use-optimizing walker to be more
accurate and, in some cases, faster.
Essentially, this changed our core walking algorithm from a
cache-as-you-go DFS to an iteratively expanded DFS, with all of the
caching happening at the end. Said expansion happens when we hit a Phi,
P; we'll try to do the smallest amount of work possible to see if
optimizing above that Phi is legal in the first place. If so, we'll
expand the search to see if we can optimize to the next phi, etc.
An iteratively expanded DFS lets us potentially quit earlier (because we
don't assume that we can optimize above all phis) than our old walker.
Additionally, because we don't cache as we go, we can now optimize above
loops.
As an added bonus, this patch adds a ton of verification (if
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are enabled), so finding bugs is easier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21777
llvm-svn: 275940
Summary:
Usually LCSSA survives this transformation, but in some cases (see
attached test) it doesn't: values from the original loop after
separating might be used from the outer loop. Before the transformation
it was the same loop, so LCSSA phis were not required.
This fixes PR28272.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21665
llvm-svn: 275891
Summary:
When a pass tries to keep LCSSA form it's often convenient to be able to update
LCSSA for a set of instructions rather than for the entire loop. This patch makes the
processInstruction from LCSSA externally available under a name
formLCSSAForInstruction.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22378
llvm-svn: 275613
Calling getModRefInfo with a fence resulted in crashes because fences
don't have a memory location. Add a new predicate to Instruction
called isFenceLike which indicates that the instruction mutates memory
but not any single memory location in particular. In practice, it is a
proxy for the set of instructions which "mayWriteToMemory" but cannot be
used with MemoryLocation::get.
This fixes PR28570.
llvm-svn: 275581
While here move simplifyLoop() function to the new header, as
suggested by Chandler in the review.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21404
llvm-svn: 274959
SimplifyCFG had logic to insert calls to llvm.trap for two very
particular IR patterns: stores and invokes of undef/null.
While InstCombine canonicalizes certain undefined behavior IR patterns
to stores of undef, phase ordering means that this cannot be relied upon
in general.
There are much better tools than llvm.trap: UBSan and ASan.
N.B. I could be argued into reverting this change if a clear argument as
to why it is important that we synthesize llvm.trap for stores, I'd be
hard pressed to see why it'd be useful for invokes...
llvm-svn: 273778
r273711 was reverted by r273743. The inliner needs to know about any
call sites in the inlined function. These were obscured if we replaced
a call to undef with an undef but kept the call around.
This fixes PR28298.
llvm-svn: 273753
This patch moves MSSA's caching walker into MemorySSA, and moves the
actual definition of MSSA's caching walker out of MemorySSA.h. This is
done in preparation for the new walker, which should be out for review
soonish.
Also, this patch removes a field from UpwardsMemoryQuery and has a few
lines of diff from clang-format'ing MemorySSA.cpp.
llvm-svn: 273723
reduce the number of comparisons.
Specifically, InstCombine can turn:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
into:
((i | 1) == 5335)
SimplifyCFG was already able to detect the pattern:
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This patch supersedes D21315 and resolves PR27555
(https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27555).
Thanks to David and Chandler for the suggestions!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: majnemer chandlerc halfdan cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21397
llvm-svn: 273639
CodeGen has hooks that allow targets to emit specialized code instead
of calls to memcmp, memchr, strcpy, stpcpy, strcmp, strlen, strnlen.
When ASan/MSan/TSan/ESan is in use, this sidesteps its interceptors, resulting
in uninstrumented memory accesses. To avoid that, make these sanitizers
mark the calls as nobuiltin.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19781
llvm-svn: 273083
Switch from m_Constant to m_APInt per David's request. NFC.
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: majnemer cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21440
llvm-svn: 272977
When moving unsafe allocas to the unsafe stack, dbg.declare intrinsics are
updated to refer to the new location.
This change does the same to dbg.value intrinsics.
llvm-svn: 272968
We should update results of the BranchProbabilityInfo after removing block in JumpThreading. Otherwise
we will get dangling pointer inside BranchProbabilityInfo cache.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20957
llvm-svn: 272891
(i == 5334 || i == 5335)
to:
((i & -2) == 5334)
This transformation has some incorrect side conditions. Specifically, the
transformation is only applied when the right-hand side constant (5334 in
the example) is a power of two not equal and not equal to the negated mask.
These side conditions were added in r258904 to fix PR26323. The correct side
condition is that: ((Constant & Mask) == Constant)[(5334 & -2) == 5334].
It's a little bit hard to see why these transformations are correct and what
the side conditions ought to be. Here is a CVC3 program to verify them for
64-bit values:
ONE : BITVECTOR(64) = BVZEROEXTEND(0bin1, 63);
x : BITVECTOR(64);
y : BITVECTOR(64);
z : BITVECTOR(64);
mask : BITVECTOR(64) = BVSHL(ONE, z);
QUERY( (y & ~mask = y) =>
((x & ~mask = y) <=> (x = y OR x = (y | mask)))
);
Please note that each pattern must be a dual implication (<--> or iff). One
directional implication can create spurious matches. If the implication is
only one-way, an unsatisfiable condition on the left side can imply a
satisfiable condition on the right side. Dual implication ensures that
satisfiable conditions are transformed to other satisfiable conditions and
unsatisfiable conditions are transformed to other unsatisfiable conditions.
Here is a concrete example of a unsatisfiable condition on the left
implying a satisfiable condition on the right:
mask = (1 << z)
(x & ~mask) == y --> (x == y || x == (y | mask))
Substituting y = 3, z = 0 yields:
(x & -2) == 3 --> (x == 3 || x == 2)
The version of this code before r258904 had no side-conditions and
incorrectly justified itself in comments through one-directional
implication.
Thanks to Chandler for the suggestion!
Author: Thomas Jablin (tjablin)
Reviewers: chandlerc majnemer hfinkel cycheng
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21417
llvm-svn: 272873
