It is unsafe to hoist a load before a function call which may throw, the
throw might prevent a pointer dereference.
Likewise, it is unsafe to sink a store after a call which may throw.
The caller might be able to observe the difference.
This fixes PR27858.
llvm-svn: 270828
Summary:
If an index for a vector or array type is out-of-range GEP constant
folding tries to factor it into preceding dimensions. The code however
does not consider addressing of structure field padding which should not
qualify as out-of-range index.
As demonstrated by the testcase, this can occur if the indexing
performed on a vector type and the preceding index is an array type.
SROA generates GEPs for example involving padding bytes as it slices an
alloca.
My fix disables this folding if the element type is a vector type. I
believe that this is the only way we can end up with padding. (We have
no access to DataLayout so I am not sure if there is actual robust way
of actually checking the presence of padding.)
Reviewers: majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Gerolf
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20663
llvm-svn: 270826
It turns out that too many passes are relying on alias analysis results
for control dependencies. Until we fix that by introducing a more accurate
modelling of control dependencies, special case assume in MemorySSA instead.
Also introduce tests to ensure we don't regress the FunctionAttrs or LICM
passes.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20658
llvm-svn: 270823
After this change, we do the expected thing for cases like
```
Check0Passed = /* range check IRCE can optimize */
Check1Passed = /* range check IRCE can optimize */
if (!(Check0Passed && Check1Passed))
throw_Exception();
```
llvm-svn: 270804
Getting accurate locations for loops is important, because those locations are
used by the frontend to generate optimization remarks. Currently, optimization
remarks for loops often appear on the wrong line, often the first line of the
loop body instead of the loop itself. This is confusing because that line might
itself be another loop, or might be somewhere else completely if the body was
inlined function call. This happens because of the way we find the loop's
starting location. First, we look for a preheader, and if we find one, and its
terminator has a debug location, then we use that. Otherwise, we look for a
location on an instruction in the loop header.
The fallback heuristic is not bad, but will almost always find the beginning of
the body, and not the loop statement itself. The preheader location search
often fails because there's often not a preheader, and even when there is a
preheader, depending on how it was formed, it sometimes carries the location of
some preceeding code.
I don't see any good theoretical way to fix this problem. On the other hand,
this seems like a straightforward solution: Put the debug location in the
loop's llvm.loop metadata. A companion Clang patch will cause Clang to insert
llvm.loop metadata with appropriate locations when generating debugging
information. With these changes, our loop remarks have much more accurate
locations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19738
llvm-svn: 270771
There was a typo in r267758. It caused invalid accesses when
given something like "void @free(...)", as NumParams == 0, and
we then try to look at the 0th parameter.
Turns out, most of these were untested; add both attribute
and missing-prototype checks for all libc libfuncs.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20543
llvm-svn: 270750
This is probably correct for all uses except cross-module IR linking,
where we need to move the comdat from the source module to the
destination module.
Fixes PR27870.
Reviewers: majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20631
llvm-svn: 270743
By making pointer extraction from a vector more expensive in the cost model,
we avoid the vectorization of a loop that is very likely to be memory-bound:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
There are still bugs related to this, so we may need a more general solution
to avoid vectorizing obviously memory-bound loops when we don't have HW gather
support.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20601
llvm-svn: 270729
A volatile load has side effects beyond what callers expect readonly to
signify. For example, it is not safe to reorder two function calls
which each perform a volatile load to the same memory location.
llvm-svn: 270671
Similar in spirit to D20497 :
If all elements of a constant vector are known non-zero, then we can say that the
whole vector is known non-zero.
It seems like we could extend this to FP scalar/vector too, but isKnownNonZero()
says it only works for integers and pointers for now.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20544
llvm-svn: 270562
This changes IRCE to optimize uses, and not branches. This change is
NFCI since the uses we do inspect are in practice only ever going to be
the condition use in conditional branches; but this flexibility will
later allow us to analyze more complex expressions than just a direct
branch on a range check.
llvm-svn: 270500
When an aggregate contains an opaque type its size cannot be
determined. This triggers an "Invalid GetElementPtrInst indices for type" assert
in function checkGEPType. The fix suppresses the conversion in this case.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20319
llvm-svn: 270479
Summary:
This patch turns on LoopUnrollAnalyzer by default. To mitigate compile
time regressions, I chose very conservative thresholds for now. Later we
can make them more aggressive, but it might require being smarter in
which loops we're optimizing. E.g. currently the biggest issue is that
with more agressive thresholds we unroll many cold loops, which
increases compile time for no performance benefit (performance of those
loops is improved, but it doesn't matter since they are cold).
Test results for compile time(using 4 samples to reduce noise):
```
MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/ecbdes/ecbdes 5.19%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/medley/reg_detect/reg_detect 4.19%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 3.39%
MultiSource/Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.47%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3_1/fhourstones3_1 -6.06%
```
I didn't see any performance changes in the testsuite, but it improves
some internal tests.
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20482
llvm-svn: 270478
We could try harder to handle non-splat vector constants too,
but that seems much rarer to me.
Note that the div test isn't resolved because there's a check
for isIntegerTy() guarding that transform.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20497
llvm-svn: 270369
A cleanuppad is not cheap, they turn into many instructions and result
in additional spills and fills. It is not worth keeping a cleanuppad
around if all it does is hold a lifetime.end instruction.
N.B. We first try to merge the cleanuppad with another cleanuppad to
avoid dropping the lifetime and debug info markers.
llvm-svn: 270314
I had used `std::remove_if` under the assumption that it moves the
predicate matching elements to the end, but actaully the elements
remaining towards the end (after the iterator returned by
`std::remove_if`) are indeterminate. Fix the bug (and make the code
more straightforward) by using a temporary SmallVector, and add a test
case demonstrating the issue.
llvm-svn: 270306
Check that the incoming blocks of phi nodes are identical, and block
function merging if they are not.
rdar://problem/26255167
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20462
llvm-svn: 270250
Before r257832, the threshold used by SimpleInliner was explicitly specified or generated from opt levels and passed to the base class Inliner's constructor. There, it was first overridden by explicitly specified -inline-threshold. The refactoring in r257832 did not preserve this behavior for all opt levels. This change brings back the original behavior.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20452
llvm-svn: 270153
Sequences of range checks expressed using guards, like
guard((I - 2) u< L)
guard((I - 1) u< L)
guard((I + 0) u< L)
guard((I + 1) u< L)
guard((I + 2) u< L)
can sometimes be combined into a smaller sequence:
guard((I - 2) u< L AND (I + 2) u< L)
if we can prove that (I - 2) u< L AND (I + 2) u< L implies all of checks
expressed in the previous sequence.
This change teaches GuardWidening to do this kind of merging when
feasible.
llvm-svn: 270151
This patch fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27703.
If there is a sequence of one or more load instructions, each loaded value is used as address of later load instruction, bitcast is necessary to change the value type, don't optimize it.
llvm-svn: 270135
Summary:
Implement guard widening in LLVM. Description from GuardWidening.cpp:
The semantics of the `@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic lets LLVM
transform it so that it fails more often that it did before the
transform. This optimization is called "widening" and can be used hoist
and common runtime checks in situations like these:
```
%cmp0 = 7 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
%cmp1 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp1) [ "deopt"(...) ]
...
```
to
```
%cmp0 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
...
```
If `%cmp0` is false, `@llvm.experimental.guard` will "deoptimize" back
to a generic implementation of the same function, which will have the
correct semantics from that point onward. It is always _legal_ to
deoptimize (so replacing `%cmp0` with false is "correct"), though it may
not always be profitable to do so.
NB! This pass is a work in progress. It hasn't been tuned to be
"production ready" yet. It is known to have quadriatic running time and
will not scale to large numbers of guards
Reviewers: reames, atrick, bogner, apilipenko, nlewycky
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20143
llvm-svn: 269997
Summary: Set default branch weight to 1:1 if one of the branch has profile missing when simplifying CFG.
Reviewers: spatel, davidxl
Subscribers: danielcdh, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20307
llvm-svn: 269995
