Summary:
Implements PR889
Removing the virtual table pointer from Value saves 1% of RSS when doing
LTO of llc on Linux. The impact on time was positive, but too noisy to
conclusively say that performance improved. Here is a link to the
spreadsheet with the original data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F4FHir0qYnV0MEp2sYYp_BuvnJgWlWPhWOwZ6LbW7W4/edit?usp=sharing
This change makes it invalid to directly delete a Value, User, or
Instruction pointer. Instead, such code can be rewritten to a null check
and a call Value::deleteValue(). Value objects tend to have their
lifetimes managed through iplist, so for the most part, this isn't a big
deal. However, there are some places where LLVM deletes values, and
those places had to be migrated to deleteValue. I have also created
llvm::unique_value, which has a custom deleter, so it can be used in
place of std::unique_ptr<Value>.
I had to add the "DerivedUser" Deleter escape hatch for MemorySSA, which
derives from User outside of lib/IR. Code in IR cannot include MemorySSA
headers or call the MemoryAccess object destructors without introducing
a circular dependency, so we need some level of indirection.
Unfortunately, no class derived from User may have any virtual methods,
because adding a virtual method would break User::getHungOffOperands(),
which assumes that it can find the use list immediately prior to the
User object. I've added a static_assert to the appropriate OperandTraits
templates to help people avoid this trap.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mehdi_amini, pete, dberlin, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: krytarowski, eraman, george.burgess.iv, mzolotukhin, Prazek, nlewycky, hans, inglorion, pcc, tejohnson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31261
llvm-svn: 303362
Summary:
There are several places in the codebase that try to calculate a maximum value in a Statistic object. We currently do this in one of two ways:
MaxNumFoo = std::max(MaxNumFoo, NumFoo);
or
MaxNumFoo = (MaxNumFoo > NumFoo) ? MaxNumFoo : NumFoo;
The first version reads from MaxNumFoo one time and uncontionally rwrites to it. The second version possibly reads it twice depending on the result of the first compare. But we have no way of knowing if the value was changed by another thread between the reads and the writes.
This patch adds a method to the Statistic object that can ensure that we only store if our value is the max and the previous max didn't change after we read it. If it changed we'll recheck if our value should still be the max or not and try again.
This spawned from an audit I'm trying to do of all places we uses the implicit conversion to unsigned on the Statistics objects. See my previous thread on llvm-dev https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/llvm-dev/yfvxiorKrDQ
Reviewers: dberlin, chandlerc, hfinkel, dblaikie
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33301
llvm-svn: 303318
LLVM makes several assumptions about address space 0. However,
alloca is presently constrained to always return this address space.
There's no real way to avoid using alloca, so without this
there is no way to opt out of these assumptions.
The problematic assumptions include:
- That the pointer size used for the stack is the same size as
the code size pointer, which is also the maximum sized pointer.
- That 0 is an invalid, non-dereferencable pointer value.
These are problems for AMDGPU because alloca is used to
implement the private address space, which uses a 32-bit
index as the pointer value. Other pointers are 64-bit
and behave more like LLVM's notion of generic address
space. By changing the address space used for allocas,
we can change our generic pointer type to be LLVM's generic
pointer type which does have similar properties.
llvm-svn: 299888
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
so we can stop using DW_OP_bit_piece with the wrong semantics.
The entire back story can be found here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161114/405934.html
The gist is that in LLVM we've been misinterpreting DW_OP_bit_piece's
offset field to mean the offset into the source variable rather than
the offset into the location at the top the DWARF expression stack. In
order to be able to fix this in a subsequent patch, this patch
introduces a dedicated DW_OP_LLVM_fragment operation with the
semantics that we used to apply to DW_OP_bit_piece, which is what we
actually need while inside of LLVM. This patch is complete with a
bitcode upgrade for expressions using the old format. It does not yet
fix the DWARF backend to use DW_OP_bit_piece correctly.
Implementation note: We discussed several options for implementing
this, including reserving a dedicated field in DIExpression for the
fragment size and offset, but using an custom operator at the end of
the expression works just fine and is more efficient because we then
only pay for it when we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27361
rdar://problem/29335809
llvm-svn: 288683
Now that PointerType is no longer a SequentialType, all SequentialTypes
have an associated number of elements, so we can move that information to
the base class, allowing for a number of simplifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27122
llvm-svn: 288464
As proposed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106640.html
This is for a couple of reasons:
- Values of type PointerType are unlike the other SequentialTypes (arrays
and vectors) in that they do not hold values of the element type. By moving
PointerType we can unify certain aspects of how the other SequentialTypes
are handled.
- PointerType will have no place in the SequentialType hierarchy once
pointee types are removed, so this is a necessary step towards removing
pointee types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26595
llvm-svn: 288462
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
Preserving lifetime markers isn't as important as allowing promotion,
so just drop the lifetime markers if necessary.
This also fixes an assertion failure where other parts of SROA assumed
that lifetime markers never block promotion.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=29139.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24854
llvm-svn: 288074
SROA doesn't preserve the llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata when it
transforms loads/stores. This patch fixes a couple occurences of this
issue.
(Partially addresses PR28981).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23549
llvm-svn: 281960
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
pointing to the same addr space. This can prevent SROA from creating a bitcast
between pointers with different addr spaces.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19697
llvm-svn: 268424
This is required to use this function from isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16231
llvm-svn: 267692
The original commit was reverted because of a buildbot problem with LazyCallGraph::SCC handling (not related to the OptBisect handling).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267231
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
Summary:
Fixes PR26774.
If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation"
section and jump directly to "This patch".
Motivation:
I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the
optimizer has license to discard. So transforming:
```
void f(unsigned x) {
unsigned t = 5 / x;
(void)t;
}
```
to
```
void f(unsigned x) { }
```
is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined
else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard
undefined behavior).
Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done
by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also
involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is
`undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by
definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef`
value).
Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume
that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the
behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same
function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat
linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a
differently optimized version of the same source level function.
For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is
actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in
it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original
function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and
at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with
a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two
atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only
if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine
this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the
comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a
refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the
unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since
the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the
unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate
transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function
does not write to memory.
Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking
differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic
examples that involved neither.
This patch:
This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as
`GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type
allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at
link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see
such a function.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634
llvm-svn: 265762
commit ae14bf6488e8441f0f6d74f00455555f6f3943ac
Author: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
Date: Fri Mar 11 17:15:50 2016 +0000
Remove PreserveNames template parameter from IRBuilder
Summary:
Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
discard Value names in release builds.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263258
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
until we can figure out what to do about clang and Release build testing.
This reverts commit 263258.
llvm-svn: 263321
Summary:
Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
discard Value names in release builds.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 263258
Summary:
Following r263086, we are replacing this by a runtime check.
More cleanup will follow on the IRBuilder itself, but I submitted
this patch separately as SROA has a fancy "prefixInserter" class
that needs extra-love.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18022
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 263256
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
of, and I misdiagnosed for months and months.
Andrea has had a patch for this forever, but I just couldn't see how
it was fixing the root cause of the problem. It didn't make sense to me,
even though the patch was perfectly good and the analysis of the actual
failure event was *fantastic*.
Well, I came back to it today because the patch has sat for *far* too
long and needs attention and decided I wouldn't let it go until I really
understood what was going on. After quite some time in the debugger,
I finally realized that in fact I had just missed an important case with
my previous attempt to fix PR22093 in r225149. Not only do we need to
handle loads that won't be split, but stores-of-loads that we won't
split. We *do* actually have enough logic in the presplitting to form
new slices for split stores.... *unless* we decided not to split them!
I'm so sorry that it took me this long to come to the realization that
this is the issue. It seems so obvious in hind sight (of course).
Anyways, the fix becomes *much* smaller and more focused. The fact that
we're left doing integer smashing is related to the FIXME in my original
commit: fundamentally, we're not aggressive about pre-splitting for
loads and stores to the same alloca. If we want to get aggressive about
this, it'll need both what Andrea had put into the proposed fix, but
also a *lot* more logic to essentially iteratively pre-split the alloca
until we can't do any more. As I said in that commit log, its really
unclear that this is the right call. Instead, the integer blending and
letting targets lower this to narrower stores seems slightly better. But
we definitely shouldn't really go down that path just to fix this bug.
Again, tons of thanks are owed to Andrea and others at Sony for working
on this bug. I really should have seen what was going on here and
re-directed them sooner. =////
llvm-svn: 263121
We already have the instruction extracted into 'I', just cast that to
a store the way we do for loads. Also, we don't enter the if unless SI
is non-null, so don't test it again for null.
I'm pretty sure the entire test there can be nuked, but this is just the
trivial cleanup.
llvm-svn: 263112
