Summary: make_scope_exit() is described in C++ proposal p0052r2, which uses RAII to do cleanup works at scope exit.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22796
llvm-svn: 278251
We are seeing r276077 drastically increasing compiler time for our larger
benchmarks in PGO profile generation build (both clang based and IR based
mode) -- it can be 20x slower than without the patch (like from 30 secs to
780 secs)
The increased time are all in pass LCSSA. The problematic code is about
PostProcessPHIs after use-rewrite. Note that the InsertedPhis from ssa_updater
is accumulating (never been cleared). Since the inserted PHIs are added to the
candidate for each rewrite, The earlier ones will be repeatedly added. Later
when adding the new PHIs to the work-list, we don't check the duplication
either. This can result in extremely long work-list that containing tons of
duplicated PHIs.
This patch fixes the issue by hoisting the code out of the loop.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23344
llvm-svn: 278250
If the value produced by the bitcast hasn't been referenced yet, we can simply
reuse the input register avoiding an unnecessary COPY instruction.
llvm-svn: 278245
Floating point instructions use general purpose registers, so the few
instructions that can put floating point immediates into registers are,
in fact, integer instruction. Use them explicitly instead of having
pseudo-instructions specifically for dealing with floating point values.
Simplify the constant loading instructions (from sdata) to have only two:
one for 32-bit values and one for 64-bit values: CONST32 and CONST64.
llvm-svn: 278244
Summary:
A particular coroutine usage pattern, where a coroutine is created, manipulated and
destroyed by the same calling function, is common for coroutines implementing
RAII idiom and is suitable for allocation elision optimization which avoid
dynamic allocation by storing the coroutine frame as a static `alloca` in its
caller.
coro.free and coro.alloc intrinsics are used to indicate which code needs to be suppressed
when dynamic allocation elision happens:
```
entry:
%elide = call i8* @llvm.coro.alloc()
%need.dyn.alloc = icmp ne i8* %elide, null
br i1 %need.dyn.alloc, label %coro.begin, label %dyn.alloc
dyn.alloc:
%alloc = call i8* @CustomAlloc(i32 4)
br label %coro.begin
coro.begin:
%phi = phi i8* [ %elide, %entry ], [ %alloc, %dyn.alloc ]
%hdl = call i8* @llvm.coro.begin(i8* %phi, i32 0, i8* null,
i8* bitcast ([2 x void (%f.frame*)*]* @f.resumers to i8*))
```
and
```
%mem = call i8* @llvm.coro.free(i8* %hdl)
%need.dyn.free = icmp ne i8* %mem, null
br i1 %need.dyn.free, label %dyn.free, label %if.end
dyn.free:
call void @CustomFree(i8* %mem)
br label %if.end
if.end:
...
```
If heap allocation elision is performed, we replace coro.alloc with a static alloca on the caller frame and coro.free with null constant.
Also, we need to make sure that if there are any tail calls referencing the coroutine frame, we need to remote tail call attribute, since now coroutine frame lives on the stack.
Documentation and overview is here: http://llvm.org/docs/Coroutines.html.
Upstreaming sequence (rough plan)
1.Add documentation. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22603)
2.Add coroutine intrinsics. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22659)
3.Add empty coroutine passes. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22847)
4.Add coroutine devirtualization + tests.
ab) Lower coro.resume and coro.destroy (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22998)
c) Do devirtualization (https://reviews.llvm.org/D23229)
5.Add CGSCC restart trigger + tests. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D23234)
6.Add coroutine heap elision + tests. <= we are here
7.Add the rest of the logic (split into more patches)
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, majnemer
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23245
llvm-svn: 278242
In debug mode extra macros are enabled for several C++ algorithms. Some of them
may cause unfortunate build failures.
This commit adds a redundant operator() to work around one of those troublesome
macros which was hit accidentally by change r278012.
llvm-svn: 278241
Teach LVI how to gather information from conditions in the form of (cond1 && cond2). Our out-of-tree front-end emits range checks in this form.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23200
llvm-svn: 278231
Instead of returning bool and setting LVILatticeValue reference argument return LVILattice value. Use overdefined value to denote the case when we didn't gather any information from the condition.
This change was separated from the review "[LVI] Handle conditions in the form of (cond1 && cond2)" (https://reviews.llvm.org/D23200#inline-199531). Once getValueFromCondition returns LVILatticeValue we can cache the result in Visited map.
llvm-svn: 278224
This is a resubmission of previously reverted r277592. It was hitting overly strong assertion in getConstantRange which was relaxed in r278217.
Use LVI to prove that adds do not wrap. The change is motivated by https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28620 bug and it's the first step to fix that problem.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23059
llvm-svn: 278220
isUndefOrEqual and isUndefOrInRange treated all -ve shuffle mask values as UNDEF, now it has to be SM_SentinelUndef (-1)
We already have asserts to check that lowered SHUFFLE_VECTOR indices are in the range -1 <= index < 2*masksize (or masksize for unary shuffles)
llvm-svn: 278218
The problem was triggered by my recent change in CVP (D23059). Current code expected that integer constants are represented by constantrange LVILatticeVal and never represented as LVILatticeVal with constant tag. That is true for ConstantInt constants, although ConstantExpr integer type constants are legally represented as constant LVILatticeVal.
This code fails with CVP change in:
@b = global i32 0, align 4
define void @test6(i32 %a) {
bb:
%add = add i32 %a, ptrtoint (i32* @b to i32)
ret void
}
Currently getConstantRange code is not executed by any of the upstream passes. I'm going to add a test case to test/Transforms/CorrelatedValuePropagation/add.ll once I resubmit the CVP change.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23194
llvm-svn: 278217
If the input vector to INSERT_SUBVECTOR is another INSERT_SUBVECTOR, and this inserted subvector replaces the last insertion, then insert into the common source vector.
i.e.
INSERT_SUBVECTOR( INSERT_SUBVECTOR( Vec, SubOld, Idx ), SubNew, Idx ) --> INSERT_SUBVECTOR( Vec, SubNew, Idx )
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23330
llvm-svn: 278211
Created a Thumb2 predicated pattern matcher that uses Thumb2 and
HasT2ExtractPack and used it to redefine the patterns for sxta{b|h}
and uxta{b|h}. Also used the similar patterns to fill in isel pattern
gaps for the corresponding instructions in the ARM backend.
The patch is mainly changes to tests since most of this functionality
appears not to have been tested.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23273
llvm-svn: 278207
a sufficiently low alignment for the IR load created.
There is no test case because we don't have any test cases for the *IR*
produced by the autoupgrade, only the x86 assembly, and it happens that
the x86 assembly for this intrinsic as it is tested in the autoupgrade
path just happens to not produce a separate load instruction where we
might have observed the alignment.
I'm going to follow up on the original commit to suggest getting
IR-level testing in addition to the asm level testing here so that we
can see and test these kinds of issues. We might never get an x86
instruction out with an alignment constraint, but we could stil
miscompile code by folding against the alignment marked on (or inferred
for in this case) the load.
llvm-svn: 278203
Hal pointed out that the semantic of our intrinsic and the libc
call are slightly different. Add a comment while I'm here to
explain why we can't emit an intrinsic. Thanks Hal!
llvm-svn: 278200
This adds an InlineParams struct which is populated from the command line options by getInlineParams and passed to getInlineCost for the call analyzer to use.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22120
llvm-svn: 278189
Summary:
The inliner not being a function pass requires the work-around of
generating the OptimizationRemarkEmitter and in turn BFI on demand.
This will go away after the new PM is ready.
BFI is only computed inside ORE if the user has requested hotness
information for optimization diagnostitics (-pass-remark-with-hotness at
the 'opt' level). Thus there is no additional overhead without the
flag.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, eraman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22694
llvm-svn: 278185
I needed a reader-writer lock for a downstream project and noticed that
llvm has one. Function.cpp is the only file in-tree that refers to it.
To anyone reading this: are you using RWMutex in out-of-tree code? Maybe
it's not worth keeping around any more...
Since we're not actually using RWMutex *here*, remove the #include (and
a few other stale headers while we're at it).
llvm-svn: 278178
In case there are compilers that support neither __FUNCSIG__ or
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__, we fall back to __func__ as a last resort,
which should be guaranteed by C++11 and C99.
llvm-svn: 278176
Summary:
This hopefully fixes PR28825. The problem now was that a value from the
original loop was used in a subloop, which became a sibling after separation.
While a subloop doesn't need an lcssa phi node, a sibling does, and that's
where we broke LCSSA. The most natural way to fix this now is to simply call
formLCSSA on the original loop: it'll do what we've been doing before plus
it'll cover situations described above.
I think we don't need to run formLCSSARecursively here, and we have an assert
to verify this (I've tried testing it on LLVM testsuite + SPECs). I'd be happy
to be corrected here though.
I also changed a run line in the test from '-lcssa -loop-unroll' to
'-lcssa -loop-simplify -indvars', because it exercises LCSSA
preservation to the same extent, but also makes less unrelated
transformation on the CFG, which makes it easier to verify.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23288
llvm-svn: 278173
This patch adds -emscripten-cxx-exceptions-whitelist option to
WebAssemblyLowerEmscriptenExceptions pass. This options is the list of
function names in which Emscripten-style exception handling is enabled.
This is to support emscripten's EXCEPTION_CATCHING_WHITELIST which
exists because of the performance impact of emscripten's non-zero-cost
EH method.
Patch by Heejin Ahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23292
llvm-svn: 278171
MSVC doesn't have this, it only has __FUNCSIG__. So this adds
a new macro called LLVM_PRETTY_FUNCTION which evaluates to the
right thing on any platform.
llvm-svn: 278170
For now put them all in the entry block. This should be correct but may give
poor runtime performance. Hopefully MachineSinking combined with
isReMaterializable can solve those issues, but if not the interface is sound
enough to support alternatives.
llvm-svn: 278168
The patch is to fix the bug in PR28705. It was caused by setting wrong return
value for SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion. The return values of findExistingExpansion
have different meanings when the function is used in different ways so it is easy to make
mistake. The fix creates two new interfaces to replace SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion,
and specifies where each interface is expected to be used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22942
llvm-svn: 278161
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
