There was an alias between 'simplifycfg' and 'simplify-cfg' in the
PassRegistry. That was the original reason for this patch, which
effectively removes the alias.
This patch also replaces all occurrances of 'simplify-cfg'
by 'simplifycfg'. Reason for choosing that form for the name is
that it matches the DEBUG_TYPE for the pass, and the legacy PM name
and also how it is spelled out in other passes such as
'loop-simplifycfg', and in other options such as
'simplifycfg-merge-cond-stores'.
I for some reason the name should be changed to 'simplify-cfg' in
the future, then I think such a renaming should be more widely done
and not only impacting the PassRegistry.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105627
Based ontop of D104598, which is a NFCI-ish refactoring.
Here, a restriction, that only empty blocks can be merged, is lifted.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104597
v6m cores only have a limited number of registers available. Unrolling
can mean we spend more on stack spills and reloads than we save from the
unrolling. This patch adds an extra heuristic to put a limit on the
unroll count for loops with multiple live out values, as measured from
the LCSSA phi nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104659
This changes the approach taken to tail-merge the blocks
to always create a new block instead of trying to reuse some block,
and generalizes it to support dealing not with just the `ret` in the future.
This effectively lifts the CallBr restriction, although this isn't really intentional.
That is the only non-NFC change here, i'm not sure if it's reasonable/feasible to temporarily retain it.
Other restrictions of the transform remain.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104598
This is a more general alternative/extension to D102635. Rather than
handling the special case of "header exit with non-exiting latch",
this unrolls against the smallest exact trip count from any exit.
The latch exit is no longer treated as priviledged when it comes to
full unrolling.
The motivating case is in full-unroll-one-unpredictable-exit.ll.
Here the header exit is an IV-based exit, while the latch exit is
a data comparison. This kind of loop does not get rotated, because
the latch is already exiting, and loop rotation doesn't try to
distinguish IV-based/analyzable latches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102982
Remove dependence on ULO.TripCount/ULO.TripMultiple from ORE and
debug code. For debug code, print information about all exits.
For optimization remarks, only include the unroll count and the
type of unroll (complete, partial or runtime), but omit detailed
information about exit folding, now that more than one exit may
be folded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104482
Fold all exits based on known trip count/multiple information from
SCEV. Previously only the latch exit or the single exit were folded.
This doesn't yet eliminate ULO.TripCount and ULO.TripMultiple
entirely: They're still used to a) decide whether runtime unrolling
should be performed and b) for ORE remarks. However, the core
unrolling logic is independent of them now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104203
Addition of this pass has been botched.
There is no particular reason why it had to be sold as an inseparable part
of new-pm transition. It was added when old-pm was still the default,
and very *very* few users were actually tracking new-pm,
so it's effects weren't measured.
Which means, some of the turnoil of the new-pm transition
are actually likely regressions due to this pass.
Likewise, there has been a number of post-commit feedback
(post new-pm switch), namely
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787157 (regresses HW-loops)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787259 (should not be in middle-end, should run after LSR, not before)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D95789 (an attempt to fix bad loop backedge metadata)
and in the half year past, the pass authors (google) still haven't found time to respond to any of that.
Hereby it is proposed to backout the pass from the pipeline,
until someone who cares about it can address the issues reported,
and properly start the process of adding a new pass into the pipeline,
with proper performance evaluation.
Furthermore, neither google nor facebook reports any perf changes
from this change, so i'm dropping the pass completely.
It can always be re-reverted should/if anyone want to pick it up again.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104099
Unrolling with more iterations than MaxTripCount is pointless, as
those iterations can never be executed. As such, we clamp ULO.Count
to MaxTripCount if it is known. This means we no longer need to
consider iterations after MaxTripCount for exit folding, and the
CompletelyUnroll flag becomes independent of ULO.TripCount.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103748
Loop peeling is currently performed as part of UnrollLoop().
Outside test scenarios, it is always performed with an unroll
count of 1. This means that unrolling doesn't actually do anything
apart from performing post-unroll simplification.
When testing, it's currently possible to specify both an explicit
peel count and an explicit unroll count. This doesn't perform any
sensible operation and may result in miscompiles, see
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45939.
This patch moves peeling from UnrollLoop() into tryToUnrollLoop(),
so that peeling does not also perform a susequent unroll. We only
run the post-unroll simplifications. Specifying both an explicit
peel count and unroll count is forbidden.
In the future, we may want to support both (non-PGO) peeling a
loop and unrolling it, but this needs to be done by first performing
the peel and then recalculating unrolling heuristics on a now
possibly analyzable loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103362
This builds on D103584. The change eliminates the coupling between unroll heuristic and implementation w.r.t. knowing when the passed in trip count is an exact trip count or a max trip count. In theory the new code is slightly less powerful (since it relies on exact computable trip counts), but in practice, it appears to cover all the same cases. It can also be extended if needed.
The test change shows what appears to be a bug in the existing code around the interaction of peeling and unrolling. The original loop only ran 8 iterations. The previous output had the loop peeled by 2, and then an exact unroll of 8. This meant the loop ran a total of 10 iterations which appears to have been a miscompile.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103620
One exit is unpredictable, the other has a known trip count. For
one function the predictable exit is the latch exit, for the other
the non-latch exit. Currently they are treated differently.
This is to show that we currently only convert the terminator to
unreachable, but don't clean up instructions before it (unless
trivial DCE removes them).
Also clean up excessive whitespace in this test.
The current full unroll cost model does a symbolic evaluation of the loop up to a fixed limit. That symbolic evaluation currently simplifies to constants, but we can generalize to arbitrary Values using the InstructionSimplify infrastructure at very low cost.
By itself, this enables some simplifications, but it's mainly useful when combined with the branch simplification over in D102928.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102934
Initially it failed an assertion with "Do actual DCE in LoopUnroll (try 2)"
which was later reverted. Make sure that when this patch is returned, the
test works fine.
This test case would get miscompiled by the current version of
D102982, because unrolling does not respect the PreserveCondBr
flag for partial unrolling.
This test case requires unrolling against a non-latch exit in
a multiple-exit loop with exiting latch. It's not covered by
exiting heuristics or the extension in D102635.
Turns out simplifyLoopIVs sometimes returns a non-dead instruction in it's DeadInsts out param. I had done a bit of NFC cleanup which was only NFC if simplifyLoopIVs obeyed it's documentation. I'm simplfy dropping that part of the change.
Commit message from try 3:
Recommitting after fixing a bug found post commit. Amusingly, try 1 had been correct, and by reverting to incorporate last minute review feedback, I introduce the bug. Oops. :)
Original commit message:
The problem was that recursively deleting an instruction can delete instructions beyond the current iterator (via a dead phi), thus invalidating iteration. Test case added in LoopUnroll/dce.ll to cover this case.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
Recommitting after fixing a bug found post commit. Amusingly, try 1 had been correct, and by reverting to incorporate last minute review feedback, I introduce the bug. Oops. :)
The problem was that recursively deleting an instruction can delete instructions beyond the current iterator (via a dead phi), thus invalidating iteration. Test case added in LoopUnroll/dce.ll to cover this case.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
This patch adds a new test for loop-unrolling with multiple exiting
blocks, where the latch does not exit, but the header does. This can
happen when the loop has not been rotated, e.g. due to minsize.
Inspired by the following end-to-end test, using -Oz
https://godbolt.org/z/fP6sna8qK
bool foo(int *ptr, int limit) {
#pragma clang loop unroll(full)
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
if (ptr[i] > limit)
return false;
ptr[i]++;
}
return true;
}
This patch updates the cost model for full unrolling to discount the cost of a loop invariant expression on all but one iteration. The reasoning here is that such an expression (as determined by SCEV) will be CSEd or DSEd once the loop is unrolled. Note that SCEVs reasoning will find things which could be invariant, not simply those outside the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102506
Recommitting after addressing a missed review comment, and updating an aarch64 test I'd missed.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
Printing pass manager invocations is fairly verbose and not super
useful.
This allows us to remove DebugLogging from pass managers and PassBuilder
since all logging (aside from analysis managers) goes through
instrumentation now.
This has the downside of never being able to print the top level pass
manager via instrumentation, but that seems like a minor downside.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101797
We're trying to move DebugLogging into instrumentation, rather than
being part of PassManagers/AnalysisManagers.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102093
At the moment, getMemoryOpCost returns 1 for all inputs if CostKind is
CodeSize or SizeAndLatency. This fools LoopUnroll into thinking memory
operations on large vectors have a cost of one, even if they will get
expanded to a large number of memory operations in the backend.
This patch updates getMemoryOpCost to return the cost for the type
legalization for both CodeSize and SizeAndLatency. This should more
accurately reflect the number of memory operations required.
I am not sure how latency should properly be included in SizeAndLatency
from the description, but returning the size cost should be clearly more
accurate.
This does not cause any binary changes when building
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 with -O3 -flto for AArch64, likely because
large vector memops are not really formed by code emitted from Clang.
But using the C/C++ matrix extension can easily result in code with very
large vector operations directly from Clang, e.g.
https://clang.godbolt.org/z/6xzxcTGvb
Reviewed By: samparker
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100291
Added cost estimation for switch instruction, updated costs of branches, fixed
phi cost.
Had to increase `-amdgpu-unroll-threshold-if` default value since conditional
branch cost (size) was corrected to higher value.
Test renamed to "control-flow.ll".
Removed redundant code in `X86TTIImpl::getCFInstrCost()` and
`PPCTTIImpl::getCFInstrCost()`.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96805
This removes the restriction that only Thumb2 targets enable runtime
loop unrolling, allowing it for Thumb1 only cores as well. The existing
T2 heuristics are used (for the time being) to control when and how
unrolling is performed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99588
This UpperBound unrolling was already enabled so long as a series of
conditions in ARMTTIImpl::getUnrollingPreferences pass. This just always
enables it as it can help fully unroll loops that would not otherwise
pass those tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99174
`runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll`
Added -unroll-runtime-other-exit-predictable=false in
runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll to make it more robust.
runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll intention is to test
-unroll-runtime-multi-exit=false, so the default value of
-unroll-runtime-other-exit-predictable should not impact the result.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98098
These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
