In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
llvm-svn: 296003
Summary: The discriminator has been encoded, and only the base discriminator should be used during profile matching.
Reviewers: dblaikie, davidxl
Reviewed By: dblaikie, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30218
llvm-svn: 295999
Since LoopInfo is not available in machine passes as universally as in IR
passes, using the same approach for OptimizationRemarkEmitter as we did for IR
will run LoopInfo and DominatorTree unnecessarily. (LoopInfo is not used
lazily by ORE.)
To fix this, I am modifying the approach I took in D29836. LazyMachineBFI now
uses its client passes including MachineBFI itself that are available or
otherwise compute them on the fly.
So for example GreedyRegAlloc, since it's already using MBFI, will reuse that
instance. On the other hand, AsmPrinter in Justin's patch will generate DT,
LI and finally BFI on the fly.
(I am of course wondering now if the simplicity of this approach is even
preferable in IR. I will do some experiments.)
Testing is provided by an updated version of D29837 which requires Justin's
patch to bring ORE to the AsmPrinter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30128
llvm-svn: 295996
Introduce a common ValueHandler for call returns and formal arguments, and
inherit two different versions for handling the differences (at the moment the
only difference is the way physical registers are marked as used).
llvm-svn: 295973
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295972
Add support for lowering calls with parameters than can fit into regs. Use the
same ValueHandler that we used for function returns, but rename it to match its
new, extended purpose.
llvm-svn: 295971
This patch adjusts the most relaxed predicate of immediate operands to accept
immediate forms such as ~(0xf0000000|0x000f00000). Previously these forms
would be accepted by GAS and rejected by IAS.
This partially resolves PR/30383.
Thanks to Sean Bruno for reporting the issue!
Reviewers: slthakur, seanbruno
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29218
llvm-svn: 295965
The ARMConstantIslandPass didn't have support for handling accesses to
constant island objects through ARM::t2LDRBpci instructions. This adds
support for that.
This fixes PR31997.
llvm-svn: 295964
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295956
result
Summary:
If the same value is used several times as an extra value, SLP
vectorizer takes it into account only once instead of actual number of
using.
For example:
```
int val = 1;
for (int y = 0; y < 8; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < 8; x++) {
val = val + input[y * 8 + x] + 3;
}
}
```
We have 2 extra rguments: `1` - initial value of horizontal reduction
and `3`, which is added 8*8 times to the reduction. Before the patch we
added `1` to the reduction value and added once `3`, though it must be
added 64 times.
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30262
llvm-svn: 295949
AVX versions of the converts work on f32/f64 types, while AVX512 version work on vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29988
llvm-svn: 295940
Implement isLegalToVectorizeLoadChain for AMDGPU to avoid
producing private address spaces accesses that will need to be
split up later. This was doing the wrong thing in the case
where the queried chain was an even number of elements.
A possible <4 x i32> store was being split into
store <2 x i32>
store i32
store i32
rather than
store <2 x i32>
store <2 x i32>
when legal.
llvm-svn: 295933
There were some older intrinsics that only existed for less than a month in 2012 that still exist in some out of tree test files that start with this string, but aren't able to be handled by the current upgrade code and fire an assert. Now we'll go back to treating them as not intrinsics at all and just passing them through to output.
Fixes PR32041, sort of.
llvm-svn: 295930
The manual is unclear on the details of this. It's not
clear to me if denormals are not allowed with clamp,
or if that is only omod. Not allowing denorms for
fp16 or fp64 isn't useful so I also question if that
is really a restriction. Same with whether this is valid
without IEEE mode enabled.
llvm-svn: 295905
Notably, no regression tests change when we remove these calls, and these are expensive calls.
The motivation comes from the general acknowledgement that the compiler is getting slower:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109188.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/108279.html
And specifically the test case attached to PR32037:
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Profiling the middle-end (opt) part of the compile:
$ ./opt -O2 row_common.bc -o /dev/null
...visitAdd and visitSub are near the top of the instcombine list, and the calls to SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits()
are high within each of those. Those calls account for 1%+ of the opt time in either debug or release profiles. And
that's the rough win I see from this patch when testing opt built release from r295864 on an iMac with Haswell 4GHz
(model 4790K).
It seems unlikely that we'd be able to eliminate add/sub or change their operands given that add/sub normally affect
all bits, and the PR32037 example shows no IR difference after this change using -O2.
Also worth noting - the code comment in visitAdd:
// This handles stuff like (X & 254)+1 -> (X&254)|1
...isn't true. That transform is handled later with a call to haveNoCommonBitsSet().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30270
llvm-svn: 295898
This should avoid reporting any stack needs to be allocated in the
case where no stack is truly used. An unused stack slot is still
left around in other cases where there are real stack objects
but no spilling occurs.
llvm-svn: 295891
Summary:
Depends on D29606 and D29682
Makes us pass GVN's edge.ll (we also will pass a few other testcases
they just need cleaning up).
Thoughts on the Predicate* hiearchy of classes especially welcome :)
(it's not clear to me how best to organize it, and currently, the getBlock* seems ... uglier than maybe wasting a field somewhere or something).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29747
llvm-svn: 295889
Add updater to passes that now need it.
Move around code in MemorySSA to expose needed functions.
Summary: Mostly cleanup
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30221
llvm-svn: 295887
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
