6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Roman Lebedev
5103ef64fe
[NFC] Port all (but one) LoopUnroll tests to -passes= syntax 2022-12-07 20:15:43 +03:00
Nikita Popov
534b9246a2 [LoopInfo] Allow cloning of callbr
After D129288, callbr is safe to clone without special handling.
This permits optimizations like loop unroll and loop unswitch on
loops containing callbrs.

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41834.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129993
2022-07-19 09:57:28 +02:00
Nikita Popov
118d8fe46b [LoopUnroll] Regenerate test checks (NFC) 2022-07-18 10:37:22 +02:00
Nikita Popov
2a721374ae [IR] Don't use blockaddresses as callbr arguments
Following some recent discussions, this changes the representation
of callbrs in IR. The current blockaddress arguments are replaced
with `!` label constraints that refer directly to callbr indirect
destinations:

    ; Before:
    %res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,i"(i8* %x, i8* blockaddress(@test8, %foo))
    to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]
    ; After:
    %res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,!i"(i8* %x)
    to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]

The benefit of this is that we can easily update the successors of
a callbr, without having to worry about also updating blockaddress
references. This should allow us to remove some limitations:

* Allow unrolling/peeling/rotation of callbr, or any other
  clone-based optimizations
  (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41834)
* Allow duplicate successors
  (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/45248)

This is just the IR representation change though, I will follow up
with patches to remove limtations in various transformation passes
that are no longer needed.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129288
2022-07-15 10:18:17 +02:00
Nick Desaulniers
79ebc3b0dd [llvm][test] rewrite callbr to use i rather than X constraint NFC
In D115311, we're looking to modify clang to emit i constraints rather
than X constraints for callbr's indirect destinations. Prior to doing
so, update all of the existing tests in llvm/ to match.

Reviewed By: void, jyknight

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115410
2022-01-11 11:31:08 -08:00
Nick Desaulniers
c4f245b40a [LoopUnroll+LoopUnswitch] do not transform loops containing callbr
Summary:
There is currently a correctness issue when unrolling loops containing
callbr's where their indirect targets are being updated correctly to the
newly created labels, but their operands are not.  This manifests in
unrolled loops where the second and subsequent copies of callbr
instructions have blockaddresses of the label from the first instance of
the unrolled loop, which would result in nonsensical runtime control
flow.

For now, conservatively do not unroll the loop.  In the future, I think
we can pursue unrolling such loops provided we transform the cloned
callbr's operands correctly.

Such a transform and its legalities are being discussed in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64101

Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
Link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clang-built-linux/z-hRWP9KqPI

Reviewers: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma

Reviewed By: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma

Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits, pirama, kees, nathanchance, E5ten, craig.topper, chandlerc, glider, void, srhines

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64368

llvm-svn: 366130
2019-07-15 21:16:29 +00:00