Currently nodes_iterator may dereference to a NodeType* or a NodeType&. Make them all dereference to NodeType*, which is NodeRef later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23704
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23705
llvm-svn: 279326
Specifically, this is done near the end of "SimplifyICmpInst" using
computeKnownBits() as the broader solution. There are even vector
tests (yay!) for this in test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll.
I considered putting an assert here instead of just deleting, but
then we could assert every possible fold in InstSimplify in
InstCombine, so...less is more?
llvm-svn: 279300
The intended transform is:
// Simplify icmp eq (or (ptrtoint P), (ptrtoint Q)), 0
// -> and (icmp eq P, null), (icmp eq Q, null).
P and Q are both pointer types, but may have different types. We need
two calls to getNullValue() to make the icmps.
llvm-svn: 279271
CGSCC use a WeakVH to track call sites. RAUW a call within a function
can result in that WeakVH getting confused about whether or not the call
site is still around.
llvm-svn: 279268
Of course, we really need to refactor and fix all of the cmp predicates,
but this one is interesting because without it, we later perform an
information-losing transform of icmp (shl 1, Y), C, and we can't recover
the better fold.
llvm-svn: 279263
The new version has several advantages:
1) IMSHO it's more readable and neater
2) It handles loads and stores properly
3) It can handle any number of incoming blocks rather than just two. I'll be taking advantage of this in a followup patch.
With this change we can now finally sink load-modify-store idioms such as:
if (a)
return *b += 3;
else
return *b += 4;
=>
%z = load i32, i32* %y
%.sink = select i1 %a, i32 5, i32 7
%b = add i32 %z, %.sink
store i32 %b, i32* %y
ret i32 %b
When this works for switches it'll be even more powerful.
llvm-svn: 279229
Summary: Reduce store size to avoid leading and trailing zeros.
Reviewers: kcc, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23648
llvm-svn: 279178
Clean up the existing code by:
1. Renaming variables
2. Adding local variables
3. Making it vector-safe
This is still guarded by a ConstantInt check, so no functional change is intended.
But this should be ready to go: if we move the ConstantInt check down, all of
these folds should do the right thing for vector types.
llvm-svn: 279150
We abort building vectorizable trees in some cases (e.g., if the maximum
recursion depth is reached, if the region size is too large, etc.). If this
happens for a reduction, we can be left with a root entry that needs to be
gathered. For these cases, we need make sure we actually set VectorizedValue to
the resulting vector.
This patch ensures we properly set VectorizedValue, and it also ensures the
insertelement sequence generated for the gathers is inserted at the correct
location.
Reference: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28330
Differential Revison: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23410
llvm-svn: 279125
It causes a regression on our internal benchmark. Introduce cvp-dont-process flag and set it off by default while investigating the regression.
llvm-svn: 279082
Summary:
We are going to combine poisoning of red zones and scope poisoning.
PR27453
Reviewers: kcc, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23623
llvm-svn: 279020
Summary: I later (after r278573) found that LoopIterator.h has some overlapping with LoopBodyTraits. It's good to use LoopBodyTraits because a *Traits struct is algorithm independent.
Reviewers: anemet, nadav, mkuper
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23529
llvm-svn: 278996
Use m_APInt for the xor constant, but this is all still guarded by the initial
ConstantInt check, so no vector types should make it in here.
llvm-svn: 278957
1. Change variable names
2. Use local variables to reduce code
3. Use ? instead of if/else
4. Use the APInt variable instead of 'RHS' so the removal of the FIXME code will be direct
llvm-svn: 278944
Refactored so that a LSRUse owns its fixups, as oppsed to letting the
LSRInstance own them. This makes it easier to rate formulas for
LSRUses, since the fixups are available directly. The Offsets vector
has been removed since it was no longer necessary.
New target hook isFoldableMemAccessOffset(), which is used during formula
rating.
For SystemZ, this is useful to express that loads and stores with
float or vector types with a big/negative offset should be avoided in
loops. Without this, LSR will generate a lot of negative offsets that
would require extra instructions for loading the address.
Updated tests:
test/CodeGen/SystemZ/loop-01.ll
Reviewed by: Quentin Colombet and Ulrich Weigand.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19152
llvm-svn: 278927
This is a mechanical change of comments in switches like fallthrough,
fall-through, or fall-thru to use the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro instead.
llvm-svn: 278902
minimal and boring form than the old pass manager's version.
This pass does the very minimal amount of work necessary to inline
functions declared as always-inline. It doesn't support a wide array of
things that the legacy pass manager did support, but is alse ... about
20 lines of code. So it has that going for it. Notably things this
doesn't support:
- Array alloca merging
- To support the above, bottom-up inlining with careful history
tracking and call graph updates
- DCE of the functions that become dead after this inlining.
- Inlining through call instructions with the always_inline attribute.
Instead, it focuses on inlining functions with that attribute.
The first I've omitted because I'm hoping to just turn it off for the
primary pass manager. If that doesn't pan out, I can add it here but it
will be reasonably expensive to do so.
The second should really be handled by running global-dce after the
inliner. I don't want to re-implement the non-trivial logic necessary to
do comdat-correct DCE of functions. This means the -O0 pipeline will
have to be at least 'always-inline,global-dce', but that seems
reasonable to me. If others are seriously worried about this I'd like to
hear about it and understand why. Again, this is all solveable by
factoring that logic into a utility and calling it here, but I'd like to
wait to do that until there is a clear reason why the existing
pass-based factoring won't work.
The final point is a serious one. I can fairly easily add support for
this, but it seems both costly and a confusing construct for the use
case of the always inliner running at -O0. This attribute can of course
still impact the normal inliner easily (although I find that
a questionable re-use of the same attribute). I've started a discussion
to sort out what semantics we want here and based on that can figure out
if it makes sense ta have this complexity at O0 or not.
One other advantage of this design is that it should be quite a bit
faster due to checking for whether the function is a viable candidate
for inlining exactly once per function instead of doing it for each call
site.
Anyways, hopefully a reasonable starting point for this pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23299
llvm-svn: 278896
This is off for now while testing can take place to make sure that in
fact we do sufficient stack coloring to fully obviate the manual alloca
array merging.
Some context on why we should be using stack coloring rather than
merging allocas in this way:
LLVM relies very heavily on analyzing pointers as coming from different
allocas in order to make aliasing decisions. These are some of the most
powerful aliasing signals available in LLVM. So merging allocas is an
extremely destructive operation on the LLVM IR -- it takes away highly
valuable and hard to reconstruct information.
As a consequence, inlined functions which happen to have array allocas
that this pattern matches will fail to be properly interleaved unless
SROA manages to hoist everything to an SSA register. Instead, the
inliner will have added an unnecessary dependence that one inlined
function execute after the other because they will have been rewritten
to refer to the same memory.
All that said, folks will reasonably want some time to experiment here
and make sure there are no significant regressions. A flag should give
us an easy knob to test.
For more context, see the thread here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/103277.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103285.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23052
llvm-svn: 278892
IndVarSimplify::sinkUnusedInvariants calls
BasicBlock::getFirstInsertionPt on the ExitBlock and moves instructions
before it. This can return end(), so it's not safe to dereference. Add
an iterator-based overload to Instruction::moveBefore to avoid the UB.
llvm-svn: 278886
IsOperandBundleUse conveniently indicates whether
std::next(F->arg_begin(),UseIndex) will get to (or past) end(). Check
it first to avoid dereferencing end().
llvm-svn: 278884
