This allows us to fold fma's that multiply with 0.0. Also, the
multiply by 1.0 case is handled there as well. The fneg/fabs cases
are not handled by SimplifyFMulInst, so we need to keep them.
Reviewers: spatel, anemet, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67351
llvm-svn: 371518
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371484
If we're vectorizing a load in a predicated block, check to see if the load can be speculated rather than predicated. This allows us to generate a normal vector load instead of a masked.load.
To do so, we must prove that all bytes accessed on any iteration of the original loop are dereferenceable, and that all loads (across all iterations) are properly aligned. This is equivelent to proving that hoisting the load into the loop header in the original scalar loop is safe.
Note: There are a couple of code motion todos in the code. My intention is to wait about a day - to be sure this sticks - and then perform the NFC motion without furthe review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66688
llvm-svn: 371452
This is similar to the existing fold for splats added with:
rL365379
If we can adjust the shuffle mask to include another element
in an identity mask (if it changes vector length, that's an
extract/insert subvector operation in the backend), then that
can eliminate extractelement/insertelement pairs in IR.
All targets are expected to lower shuffles with identity masks
efficiently.
llvm-svn: 371340
Summary:
This patch introduces initial `AAValueSimplify` which simplifies a value in a context.
example
- (for function returned) If all the return values are the same and constant, then we can replace callsite returned with the constant.
- If an internal function takes the same value(constant) as an argument in the callsite, then we can replace the argument with that constant.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66967
llvm-svn: 371291
Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use function attributes.
See discussion on D61634 for background. This is an enabler for fixing
handling of these options for LTO, for example.
This change should not affect behavior, as the provided function is not
yet used to build a specifically per-function TLI, but rather enables
that migration.
Most of the changes were very mechanical, e.g. passing a Function to the
legacy analysis pass's getTLI interface, or in Module level cases,
adding a callback. This is similar to the way the per-function TTI
analysis works.
There was one place where we were looking for builtins but not in the
context of a specific function. See FindCXAAtExit in
lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp. I'm somewhat concerned my workaround
could provide the wrong behavior in some corner cases. Suggestions
welcome.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: arsenm, dschuff, jvesely, nhaehnle, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, jfb, asbirlea, gchatelet, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66428
llvm-svn: 371284
Add the new method `LibCallSimplifier::substituteInParent()` that calls
`LibCallSimplifier::replaceAllUsesWith()' and
`LibCallSimplifier::eraseFromParent()` back to back, simplifying the
resulting code.
llvm-svn: 371264
Summary:
Here we try to avoid issues with "explicit branch" with SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain
which can check on undef. Msan by design reports branches on uninitialized
memory and undefs, so we have false report here.
In general msan does not like when we convert
```
// If at least one of them is true we can MSAN is ok if another is undefs
if (a || b)
return;
```
into
```
// If 'a' is undef MSAN will complain even if 'b' is true
if (a)
return;
if (b)
return;
```
Example
Before optimization we had something like this:
```
while (true) {
bool maybe_undef = doStuff();
while (true) {
char c = getChar();
if (c != 10 && c != 13)
continue
break;
}
// we know that c == 10 || c == 13 if we get here,
// so msan know that branch is not affected by maybe_undef
if (maybe_undef || c == 10 || c == 13)
continue;
return;
}
```
SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain will convert that into
```
while (true) {
bool maybe_undef = doStuff();
while (true) {
char c = getChar();
if (c != 10 && c != 13)
continue;
break;
}
// however msan will complain here:
if (maybe_undef)
continue;
// we know that c == 10 || c == 13, so either way we will get continue
switch(c) {
case 10: continue;
case 13: continue;
}
return;
}
```
Reviewers: eugenis, efriedma
Reviewed By: eugenis, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67205
llvm-svn: 371138
A follow-up for r329011.
This may be changed to produce @llvm.sub.with.overflow in a later patch,
but for now just make things more consistent overall.
A few observations stem from this:
* There does not seem to be a similar one-instruction fold for uadd-overflow
* I'm not sure we'll want to canonicalize `B u> A` as `usub.with.overflow`,
so since the `icmp` here no longer refers to `sub`,
reconstructing `usub.with.overflow` will be problematic,
and will likely require standalone pass (similar to DivRemPairs).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Zqs
Name: (A - B) u> A --> B u> A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ugt i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %B, %A
Name: (A - B) u<= A --> B u<= A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ule i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ule i8 %B, %A
Name: C u< (C - D) --> C u< D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %D
Name: C u>= (C - D) --> C u>= D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %D
llvm-svn: 371101
If we have:
bb5:
br i1 %arg3, label %bb6, label %bb7
bb6:
%tmp = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp, align 4
br label %bb9
bb7:
%tmp8 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp8, align 4
br label %bb9
bb9: ; preds = %bb4, %bb6, %bb7
...
We can't sink stores directly into bb9.
This patch creates new BB that is successor of %bb6 and %bb7
and sinks stores into that block.
SplitFooterBB is the parameter to the pass that controls
that behavior.
Change-Id: I7fdf50a772b84633e4b1b860e905bf7e3e29940f
Differential: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66234
llvm-svn: 371089
Summary:
Avoid visiting an instruction more than once by using a map.
This is similar to https://reviews.llvm.org/rL361416.
Reviewers: davidxl
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67198
llvm-svn: 371086
This patch merges the sancov module and funciton passes into one module pass.
The reason for this is because we ran into an out of memory error when
attempting to run asan fuzzer on some protobufs (pc.cc files). I traced the OOM
error to the destructor of SanitizerCoverage where we only call
appendTo[Compiler]Used which calls appendToUsedList. I'm not sure where precisely
in appendToUsedList causes the OOM, but I am able to confirm that it's calling
this function *repeatedly* that causes the OOM. (I hacked sancov a bit such that
I can still create and destroy a new sancov on every function run, but only call
appendToUsedList after all functions in the module have finished. This passes, but
when I make it such that appendToUsedList is called on every sancov destruction,
we hit OOM.)
I don't think the OOM is from just adding to the SmallSet and SmallVector inside
appendToUsedList since in either case for a given module, they'll have the same
max size. I suspect that when the existing llvm.compiler.used global is erased,
the memory behind it isn't freed. I could be wrong on this though.
This patch works around the OOM issue by just calling appendToUsedList at the
end of every module run instead of function run. The same amount of constants
still get added to llvm.compiler.used, abd we make the pass usage and logic
simpler by not having any inter-pass dependencies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66988
llvm-svn: 370971
Summary:
Instead of building attributes for internal functions which we do not
update as long as we assume they are dead, we now do not create
attributes until we assume the internal function to be live. This
improves the number of required iterations, as well as the number of
required updates, in real code. On our tests, the results are mixed.
Reviewers: sstefan1, uenoku
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66914
llvm-svn: 370924
Summary:
We create attributes on-demand so we need to check the white list
on-demand. This also unifies the location at which we create,
initialize, and eventually invalidate new abstract attributes.
The tests show mixed results, a few more call site attributes are
determined which can cause more iterations.
Reviewers: uenoku, sstefan1
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66913
llvm-svn: 370922
Summary:
Before we tried to rule out non-exact definitions early but that lead to
on-demand attributes created for them anyway. As a consequence we needed
to look at the definition in the initialize of each attribute again.
This patch centralized this lookup and tightens the condition under
which we give up on non-exact definitions.
Reviewers: uenoku, sstefan1
Subscribers: hiraditya, bollu, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67115
llvm-svn: 370917
SROA pass processes debug info incorrecly if applied twice.
Specifically, after SROA works first time, instcombine converts dbg.declare
intrinsics into dbg.value. Inlining creates new opportunities for SROA,
so it is called again. This time it does not handle correctly previously
inserted dbg.value intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64595
llvm-svn: 370906
When I dug into this, it turns out to be *much* more involved than I'd realized and doesn't actually simplify anything.
The general purpose of the leader table is that we want to find the most-dominating definition quickly. The problem for equivalance folding is slightly different; we want to find the most dominating *value* whose definition block dominates our use quickly.
To make this change, we'd end up having to restructure the leader table (either the sorting thereof, or maybe even introducing multiple leader tables per value) and that complexity is just not worth it.
llvm-svn: 370824
Add the no-capture argument attribute deduction to the Attributor
fixpoint framework.
The new string attributed "no-capture-maybe-returned" is introduced to
allow deduction of no-capture through functions that "capture" an
argument but only by "returning" it. It is only used by the Attributor
for testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59922
llvm-svn: 370817
This extends the existing logic for propagating constant expressions in an analogous manner for what we do across basic blocks. The core point is that we chose some order of operands, and canonicalize uses towards that one.
The heuristic used is inspired by the one used across blocks; in a follow up change, I'd plan to common them so that the cross block version uses the slightly stronger ordering herein.
As noted by the TODOs in the code, there's a good amount of room for improving the existing code and making it more powerful. Some follow up work planned.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66977
llvm-svn: 370791
Summary:
Fold-tail currently supports reduction last-vector-value live-out's,
but has yet to support last-scalar-value live-outs, including
non-header phi's. As it relies on AllowedExit in order to detect
them and bail out we need to add the non-header PHI nodes to
AllowedExit, otherwise we end up with miscompiles.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43166
Reviewers: fhahn, Ayal
Reviewed By: fhahn, Ayal
Subscribers: anna, hiraditya, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67074
llvm-svn: 370721
Now that we allow tail-folding, not only when we optimise for size, make
sure we do not run in this assert.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66932
llvm-svn: 370711
The loop vectorizer was running in an assert when it tried to fold the tail and
had to emit runtime memory disambiguation checks.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66803
llvm-svn: 370707
bitcast <N x i8> (shuf X, undef, <N, N-1,...0>) to i{N*8} --> bswap (bitcast X to i{N*8})
In PR43146:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43146
...we have a more complicated case where SLP is making a mess of bswap. This patch won't
do anything for that currently, but we need to improve bswap recognition in instcombine,
SLP, and/or a standalone pass to avoid that problem.
This is limited using the data-layout so we don't try to do this transform with actual
vector types. The backend does not appear to have folds to convert in either direction,
so we don't want to mess up something that is actually better lowered as a shuffle.
On x86, we're trading something like this:
vmovd %edi, %xmm0
vpshufb LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[3,2,1,0,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u,u]
vmovd %xmm0, %eax
For:
movl %edi, %eax
bswapl %eax
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66965
llvm-svn: 370659
Summary:
Back-end currently expands mempcpy, but middle-end should work with memcpy instead of mempcpy to enable more memcpy-optimization.
GCC backend emits mempcpy, so LLVM backend could form it too, if we know mempcpy libcall is better than memcpy + n.
https://godbolt.org/z/dOCG96
Reviewers: efriedma, spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hjl.tools, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65737
llvm-svn: 370593
