Summary:
This pass synthesizes function entry counts by traversing the callgraph
and using the relative block frequencies of the callsites. The intended
use of these counts is in inlining to determine hot/cold callsites in
the absence of profile information.
The pass is split into two files with the code that propagates the
counts in a callgraph in a Utils file. I plan to add support for
propagation in the thinlto link phase and the propagation code will be
shared and hence this split. I did not add support to the old PM since
hot callsite determination in inlining is not possible in old PM
(although we could use hot callee heuristic with synthetic counts in the
old PM it is not worth the effort tuning it)
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: mgorny, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41604
llvm-svn: 322110
Because of potential UB (known bits conflicts with an llvm.assume),
we have to check rather than assert here because InstSimplify doesn't
kill the compare:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35846
llvm-svn: 322104
EarlyCSE did not try to salvage debug info during erasing of instructions.
This change fixes it.
Patch by Djordje Todorovic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41496
llvm-svn: 322083
This is an attempt of fixing PR35807.
Due to the non-standard definition of dominance in LLVM, where uses in
unreachable blocks are dominated by anything, you can have, in an
unreachable block:
%patatino = OP1 %patatino, CONSTANT
When `SimplifyInstruction` receives a PHI where an incoming value is of
the aforementioned form, in some cases, loops indefinitely.
What I propose here instead is keeping track of the incoming values
from unreachable blocks, and replacing them with undef. It fixes this
case, and it seems to be good regardless (even if we can't prove that
the value is constant, as it's coming from an unreachable block, we
can ignore it).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41812
llvm-svn: 322006
There is precedence for factorization transforms in instcombine for FP ops with fast-math.
We also have similar logic in foldSPFofSPF().
It would take more work to add this to reassociate because that's specialized for binops,
and min/max are not binops (or even single instructions). Also, I don't have evidence that
larger min/max trees than this exist in real code, but if we find that's true, we might
want to reorganize where/how we do this optimization.
In the motivating example from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35717 , we have:
int test(int xc, int xm, int xy) {
int xk;
if (xc < xm)
xk = xc < xy ? xc : xy;
else
xk = xm < xy ? xm : xy;
return xk;
}
This patch solves that problem because we recognize more min/max patterns after rL321672
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qjnehttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/3yg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603
llvm-svn: 321998
Summary:
Fixes the bug with incorrect handling of InsertValue|InsertElement
instrucions in SLP vectorizer. Currently, we may use incorrect
ExtractElement instructions as the operands of the original
InsertValue|InsertElement instructions.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41767
llvm-svn: 321994
Summary:
If the vectorized value is marked as extra reduction argument, its users
are not considered as external users. Patch fixes this.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41786
llvm-svn: 321993
The approach was never discussed, I wasn't able to reproduce this
non-determinism, and the original author went AWOL.
After a discussion on the ML, Philip suggested to revert this.
llvm-svn: 321974
Another small step forward to move VPlan stuff outside of LoopVectorize.cpp.
VPlanBuilder.h is renamed to LoopVectorizationPlanner.h
LoopVectorizationPlanner class is moved from LoopVectorize.cpp to
LoopVectorizationPlanner.h LoopVectorizationCostModel::VectorizationFactor
class is moved to LoopVectorizationPlanner.h (used by the planner class) ---
this needs further streamlining work in later patches and thus all I did was
take it out of the CostModel class and moved to the header file. The callback
function had to stay inside LoopVectorize.cpp since it calls an
InnerLoopVectorizer member function declared in it. Next Steps: Make
InnerLoopVectorizer, LoopVectorizationCostModel, and other classes more modular
and more aligned with VPlan direction, in small increments.
Previous step was: r320900 (https://reviews.llvm.org/D41045)
Patch by Hideki Saito, thanks!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41420
llvm-svn: 321962
In addition to target-dependent attributes, we can also preserve a
white-listed subset of target independent function attributes. The white-list
excludes problematic attributes, most prominently:
* attributes related to memory accesses, as alloca instructions
could be moved in/out of the extracted block
* control-flow dependent attributes, like no_return or thunk, as the
relerelevant instructions might or might not get extracted.
Thanks @efriedma and @aemerson for providing a set of attributes that cannot be
propagated.
Reviewers: efriedma, davidxl, davide, silvas
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41334
llvm-svn: 321961
If the varargs are not accessed by a function, we can inline the
function.
Reviewers: dblaikie, chandlerc, davide, efriedma, rnk, hfinkel
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41335
llvm-svn: 321940
In the minimal case, this won't remove instructions, but it still improves
uses of existing values.
In the motivating example from PR35834, it does remove instructions, and
sets that case up to be optimized by something like D41603:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603
llvm-svn: 321936
Having a single call to findDbgUsers() allows salvageDebugInfo() to
return earlier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41787
llvm-svn: 321915
Besides the bug of omitting the inverse transform of max(~a, ~b) --> ~min(a, b),
the use checking and operand creation were off. We were potentially creating
repeated identical instructions of existing values. This led to infinite
looping after I added the extra folds.
By using the simpler m_Not matcher and not creating new 'not' ops for a and b,
we avoid that problem. It's possible that not using IsFreeToInvert() here is
more limiting than the simpler matcher, but there are no tests for anything
more exotic. It's also possible that we should relax the use checking further
to handle a case like PR35834:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35834
...but we can make that a follow-up if it is needed.
llvm-svn: 321882
Summary:
See D37528 for a previous (non-deferred) version of this
patch and its description.
Preserves dominance in a deferred manner using a new class
DeferredDominance. This reduces the performance impact of
updating the DominatorTree at every edge insertion and
deletion. A user may call DDT->flush() within JumpThreading
for an up-to-date DT. This patch currently has one flush()
at the end of runImpl() to ensure DT is preserved across
the pass.
LVI is also preserved to help subsequent passes such as
CorrelatedValuePropagation. LVI is simpler to maintain and
is done immediately (not deferred). The code to perfom the
preversation was minimally altered and was simply marked
as preserved for the PassManager to be informed.
This extends the analysis available to JumpThreading for
future enhancements. One example is loop boundary threading.
Reviewers: dberlin, kuhar, sebpop
Reviewed By: kuhar, sebpop
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40146
llvm-svn: 321825
This came up during discussions in llvm-commits for
rL321653: Check for unreachable preds before updating LI in
UpdateAnalysisInformation
The assert provides hints to passes to require both DT and LI if we plan on
updating LI through this function.
Tests run: make check
llvm-svn: 321805
The work order was changed in r228186 from SCC order
to RPO with an arbitrary sorting function. The sorting
function attempted to move inner loop nodes earlier. This
was was apparently relying on an assumption that every block
in a given loop / the same loop depth would be seen before
visiting another loop. In the broken testcase, a block
outside of the loop was encountered before moving onto
another block in the same loop. The testcase would then
structurize such that one blocks unconditional successor
could never be reached.
Revert to plain RPO for the analysis phase. This fixes
detecting edges as backedges that aren't really.
The processing phase does use another visited set, and
I'm unclear on whether the order there is as important.
An arbitrary order doesn't work, and triggers some infinite
loops. The reversed RPO list seems to work and is closer
to the order that was used before, minus the arbitary
custom sorting.
A few of the changed tests now produce smaller code,
and a few are slightly worse looking.
llvm-svn: 321751
Summary:
We are incorrectly updating the LI when loop-simplify generates
dedicated exit blocks for a loop. The issue is that there's an implicit
assumption that the Preds passed into UpdateAnalysisInformation are
reachable. However, this is not true and breaks LI by incorrectly
updating the header of a loop.
One such case is when we generate dedicated exits when the exit block is
a landing pad (through SplitLandingPadPredecessors). There maybe other
cases as well, since we do not guarantee that Preds passed in are
reachable basic blocks.
The added test case shows how loop-simplify breaks LI for the outer loop (and DT in turn)
after we try to generate the LoopSimplifyForm.
Reviewers: davide, chandlerc, sanjoy
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41519
llvm-svn: 321653
`RewriteStatepointsForGC` iterates over function blocks and their predecessors
in order of declaration. One of outcomes of this is that callsites are placed in
arbitrary order which has nothing to do with travelsar order.
On the other hand, function `recomputeLiveInValues` asserts that bases are
added to `Info.PointerToBase` before their deried pointers are updated. But
if call sites are processed in order different from RPOT, this is not necessarily
true. We cannot guarantee that the base was placed there before every
pointer derived from it. All we can guarantee is that this base was marked as
known base by this point.
This patch replaces the fact that we assert from checking that the base was
added to the map with assert that the base was marked as known base.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41593
llvm-svn: 321517
This reverts r321138. It seems there are still underlying issues with
memdep. PR35519 seems to still be present if debug info is enabled. We
end up losing a memcpy. Somehow during store to memset merging, we
insert the memset after the memcpy or fail to update the memdep analysis
to account for the newly inserted memset of a pair.
Reduced test case:
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
void do_push_back(
std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>>* crls) {
crls->push_back(std::make_pair(std::string(), std::vector<std::string>()));
}
int __attribute__((optnone)) main() {
// Put some data in the vector and then remove it so we take the push_back
// fast path.
std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::vector<std::string>>> crl_set;
crl_set.push_back({"asdf", {}});
crl_set.pop_back();
printf("first word in vector storage: %p\n", *(void**)crl_set.data());
// Do the push_back which may fail to initialize the data.
do_push_back(&crl_set);
auto* first = &crl_set.back().first;
printf("first word in vector storage (should be zero): %p\n",
*(void**)crl_set.data());
assert(first->empty());
puts("ok");
}
Compile with libc++, enable optimizations, and enable debug info:
$ clang++ -stdlib=libc++ -g -O2 t.cpp -o t.exe -Wl,-rpath=llvm/build/lib
This program will assert with this change.
llvm-svn: 321510
By following the single predecessors of the predecessors of the call
site, we do not need to restrict the control flow.
Reviewed By: junbuml, davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40729
llvm-svn: 321413
