Michel Dänzer reported that r288051, "[StructurizeCFG] Use range-based
for loops", introduced a bug into rebuildSSA, wherein we were iterating
over an instruction's use list while modifying it, without taking care
to do this correctly.
llvm-svn: 288200
The flag was introduced because the optimization controlled by the flag initially caused regressions. All the regressions were fixed some time ago and the flag has been false for quite a while.
llvm-svn: 288154
Enable scalar hoisting at -Oz as it is safe to hoist scalars to a place
where they are partially needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27111
llvm-svn: 288141
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
Summary:
As far as I can tell, doing our own computations in
NearestCommonDominator is a false optimization -- DomTree will build up
what appears to be exactly this data when it decides it's worthwhile.
Moreover, by building the cache ourselves, we cannot take advantage of
the cache that the domtree might have available.
In addition, I am not convinced of the correctness of the original code.
In particular, setting ResultIndex = 1 on the first addBlock instead of
setting it to 0 is quite fishy. Similarly, it's not clear to me that
setting IndexMap[Node] = 0 for every node as we walk up the tree finding
a common parent is correct. But rather than ponder over these
questions, I'd rather just make the code do the obviously-correct thing.
This patch also changes the NearestCommonDominator API a bit, improving
the names and getting rid of the boolean parameter in addBlock -- see
http://jlebar.com/2011/12/16/Boolean_parameters_to_API_functions_considered_harmful..html
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: aemerson, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26998
llvm-svn: 288050
Summary:
The iterative algorithm for Loop Unswitching may render some of the branches unreachable in the unswitched loops.
Given the exponential nature of the algorithm, this is quite an overhead.
This patch fixes this problem by selectively unswitching only those branches within a loop that are reachable from the loop header.
Reviewers: Michael Zolothukin, Anna Thomas, Weiming Zhao.
Subscribers: llvm-commits.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26299
llvm-svn: 287925
Summary:
No need to copy the RPOT vector before using it. Switch from std::map
to SmallDenseMap. Get rid of an unused variable (TempVisited). Get rid
of a typedef, RNVector, which is now used only once.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26997
llvm-svn: 287721
Summary:
"addRequired" and "addPreserved" look very similar when squished up next
to each other -- without the newline this code looked to me like it was
addRequired'ing DominatorTreeWrapperPass twice.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26996
llvm-svn: 287720
Summary: Lets us get rid of one member variable too.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26992
llvm-svn: 287716
We visit and/or, we try to derive a lattice value for the
instruction even if one of the operands is overdefined.
If the non-overdefined value is still 'unknown' just return and wait
for ResolvedUndefsIn to "plug in" the correct value. This simplifies
the logic a bit. While I'm here add tests for missing cases.
llvm-svn: 287709
Allow using an instruction other than a mul or phi as the base for
root-finding. For example, the included testcase includes a loop
which requires using a getelementptr as the base for root-finding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26529
llvm-svn: 287588
This patch updates a bunch of places where add_dependencies was being explicitly called to add dependencies on intrinsics_gen to instead use the DEPENDS named parameter. This cleanup is needed for a patch I'm working on to add a dependency debugging mode to the build system.
llvm-svn: 287206
Summary:
For flat loop, even if it is hot, it is not a good idea to unroll in runtime, thus we set a lower partial unroll threshold.
For hot loop, we set a higher unroll threshold and allows expensive tripcount computation to allow more aggressive unrolling.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: sanjoy, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26527
llvm-svn: 287186
In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 286999
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
Summary:
Unfolding selects was previously done with the help of a vector
of pointers that was then sorted to be able to remove duplicates.
As this sorting depends on the memory addresses, it was
non-deterministic. A SetVector is used now so that duplicates are
removed without the need of sorting first.
Reviewers: mgrang, efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26450
llvm-svn: 286807
All existing callers were manually extracting information out of an existing
GEP instruction and passing it to getGEPExpr(). Simplify the interface by
changing it to take a GEPOperator instead.
llvm-svn: 286751
No testcase included because I can't figure out how to reduce it.
(It's easy to write a testcase where rotation clones an assume,
but that doesn't actually seem to trigger the crash in opt on
its own; maybe an issue with the laziness?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26434
llvm-svn: 286410
Summary:
Unrolled Loop Size calculations moved to a function.
Constant representing number of optimized instructions
when "back edge" becomes "fall through" replaced with
variable.
Some comments added.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21719
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 286389
Scalar Evolution asserts when not all the operands of an Add Recurrence
Expression are loop invariants. Loop Strength Reduction should only
create affine Add Recurrences, so that both the start and the step of
the expression are loop invariants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26185
llvm-svn: 286347
Summary: For functions with profile data, we are confident that loop sink will be optimal in sinking code.
Reviewers: davidxl, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26155
llvm-svn: 286325
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: rengolin, haicheng, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, jmolloy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26391
llvm-svn: 286236
Summary:
In some specific scenarios with well understood operand bundle types
(like `"deopt"`) it may be possible to go ahead and convert recursion to
iteration, but TailRecursionElimination does not have that logic today
so avoid doing the right thing for now.
I need some input on whether `"funclet"` operand bundles should also
block tail recursion elimination. If not, I'll allow TRE across calls
with `"funclet"` operand bundles and add a test case.
Reviewers: rnk, majnemer, nlewycky, ahatanak
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26270
llvm-svn: 286147
Argument evaluation order is one of the edge cases where Clang differs
from GCC, yielding different IR depending on which compiler LLVM was
built with. Make the order deterministic and tune the test to actually
verify the order instead of trying to hide it.
llvm-svn: 286126
Summary:
SmallSetVector uses DenseSet, but that means we need to reserve some
values for the empty and tombstone keys.
It seems to me we should have a general way to let us store full-range
ints inside of DenseSets, and furthermore that we probably shouldn't
silently let you add ints into DenseSets without explicitly promising
that they're in range. But that's a battle for another day; for now,
just fix this code, since we currently do something Very Bad when
compiling ffmpeg.
Fixes PR30914.
Reviewers: jeremyhu
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26323
llvm-svn: 286038
This condition is trivially always true prior to the change. The comment
at the call site makes it clear that we expect *all* of these to be '=',
'S', or 'I' so fix the code.
We have a bug I will update to track the fact that Clang doesn't warn on
this: http://llvm.org/PR13101
llvm-svn: 285930
