This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
Undef subranges are not present in the live range values, except when
they cross block boundaries. In this situation, a identity copy is
inside a loop, and one of the lanes is undefined. It only appears
alive inside the loop due to the copy. Once the copy was erased, it
would leave behind a segment inside the loop body with no
corresponding def anywhere in the program.
When RenameIndependentSubregs processed this dummy interval, it would
introduce a "Multiple connected components in live interval" verifier
error when IMPLICIT_DEFs were added to the other two blocks. I believe
there is a missing verifier check for this type of dummy interval.
I have found additional cases from the same fundamental problem in
other areas I haven't managed to fix yet (e.g. the commented out
prune_subrange_phi_value_* cases).
Summary:
If a store defines (must alias) a load, it clobbers the load.
Fixes: SWDEV-258915
Reviewers:
arsenm
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92951
- Once an instruction is simplified, foldable candidates from it should
be invalidated or skipped as the operand index is no longer valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93174
Both ds_read_b128 and ds_read2_b64 are valid for 128bit 16-byte aligned
loads but the one that will be selected is determined either by the order in
tablegen or by the AddedComplexity attribute. Currently ds_read_b128 has
priority.
While ds_read2_b64 has lower alignment requirements, we cannot always
restrict ds_read_b128 to 16-byte alignment because of unaligned-access-mode
option. This was causing ds_read_b128 to be selected for 8-byte aligned
loads regardles of chosen access mode.
To resolve this we use two patterns for selecting ds_read_b128. One
requires alignment of 16-byte and the other requires
unaligned-access-mode option.
Same goes for ds_write2_b64 and ds_write_b128.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92767
It is possible for copies or spills to be inserted in the middle of indirect
addressing sequences which use VGPR indexing. Spills to accvgprs could be
effected by the indexing mode.
Add new pseudo instructions that are expanded after register allocation to avoid
the problematic spill or copy placement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91048
getMaxWavesPerEU and getVGPRAllocGranule both changed in GFX10.3 and
they both affect the occupancy calculation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92839
* Rename some tests to try to make a convention (where all components
are optional) of:
<addrspace>_<syncscope>_<memory-orders>_<operation>
* Split up at a level of granularity appropriate for the different RUN
lines (i.e. split on addrspace so GFX6 can avoid FLAT) and that makes
running a specific test reasonable in terms of wall time taken. This
also means when run as part of the test suite the testing is not one
serial bottleneck.
* Auto-generate check lines with `update_llc_test_checks.py` to make
future maintenance more tractable.
Reviewed By: rampitec, t-tye
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91545
Currently, we have some confusion in the codebase regarding the
meaning of LocationSize::unknown(): Some parts (including most of
BasicAA) assume that LocationSize::unknown() only allows accesses
after the base pointer. Some parts (various callers of AA) assume
that LocationSize::unknown() allows accesses both before and after
the base pointer (but within the underlying object).
This patch splits up LocationSize::unknown() into
LocationSize::afterPointer() and LocationSize::beforeOrAfterPointer()
to make this completely unambiguous. I tried my best to determine
which one is appropriate for all the existing uses.
The test changes in cs-cs.ll in particular illustrate a previously
clearly incorrect AA result: We were effectively assuming that
argmemonly functions were only allowed to access their arguments
after the passed pointer, but not before it. I'm pretty sure that
this was not intentional, and it's certainly not specified by
LangRef that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91649
Currently, `-indvars` runs first, and then immediately after `-loop-idiom` does.
I'm not really sure if `-loop-idiom` requires `-indvars` to run beforehand,
but i'm *very* sure that `-indvars` requires `-loop-idiom` to run afterwards,
as it can be seen in the phase-ordering test.
LoopIdiom runs on two types of loops: countable ones, and uncountable ones.
For uncountable ones, IndVars obviously didn't make any change to them,
since they are uncountable, so for them the order should be irrelevant.
For countable ones, well, they should have been countable before IndVars
for IndVars to make any change to them, and since SCEV is used on them,
it shouldn't matter if IndVars have already canonicalized them.
So i don't really see why we'd want the current ordering.
Should this cause issues, it will give us a reproducer test case
that shows flaws in this logic, and we then could adjust accordingly.
While this is quite likely beneficial in-the-wild already,
it's a required part for the full motivational pattern
behind `left-shift-until-bittest` loop idiom (D91038).
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91800
Add .shader_functions to pal metadata, which contains the stack frame
size for all non-entry-point functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90036
Also use DataLayout to get type size. Relying on the IR type size is
also pretty broken here, since this won't perfectly capture how types
are legalized.
Extract the scratch offset from the scratch buffer descriptor that is
stored in the global table.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91701
These tests implicitly depend on the target supporting generic pointers,
so to prepare for testing them on GFX6 (which lacks FLAT) remove the
dependency where possible.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91666
We have workarounds for two different cases where vccz can get out of
sync with the value in vcc. This fixes them in two ways:
1. Fix the case where the def of vcc was in a previous basic block, by
pessimistically assuming that vccz might be incorrect at a basic block
boundary.
2. Fix the handling of pre-existing waitcnt instructions by calling
generateWaitcntInstBefore before examining ScoreBrackets to determine
whether there's an outstanding smem read operation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91636
- In certain cases, a generic pointer could be assumed as a pointer to
the global memory space or other spaces. With a dedicated target hook
to query that address space from a given value, infer-address-space
pass could infer and propagate that to all its users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91121
This patch adds a new pass to add !annotation metadata for entries in
@llvm.global.anotations, which is generated using
__attribute__((annotate("_name"))) on functions in Clang.
This has been discussed on llvm-dev as part of
RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html
Reviewed By: thegameg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91195
This patch adds a new !annotation metadata kind which can be used to
attach annotation strings to instructions.
It also adds a new pass that emits summary remarks per function with the
counts for each annotation kind.
The intended uses cases for this new metadata is annotating
'interesting' instructions and the remarks should provide additional
insight into transformations applied to a program.
To motivate this, consider these specific questions we would like to get answered:
* How many stores added for automatic variable initialization remain after optimizations? Where are they?
* How many runtime checks inserted by a frontend could be eliminated? Where are the ones that did not get eliminated?
Discussed on llvm-dev as part of 'RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks'
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html)
Reviewed By: thegameg, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91188
Also fix a similar issue in SIInsertWaitcnts, but I don't think that fix
has any effect in practice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91290
We can use KnownBitsAnalysis to cover cases when mask is not trivial. It can
also help with cases when mask is not constant but can still be folded into
one. Since 'and' is comutative we should treat both operands as possible
replacements.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90674
This sequence of instructions can be simplified if they are single use and
some operands are constants. Additional combines may be applied afterwards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90223
Sequence of same shift instructions with constant operands can be combined into
a single shift instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90217
If the source of S_MOV_{B32,B64}_term is an immediate then it
cannot be lowered to a COPY.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90451
