If i change it to AssertingVH instead, a number of existing tests fail,
which means we don't consistently remove from the set when deleting blocks,
which means newly-created blocks may happen to appear in that set
if they happen to occupy the same memory chunk as did some block
that was in the set originally.
There are many places where we delete blocks,
and while we could probably consistently delete from LoopHeaders
when deleting a block in transforms located in SimplifyCFG.cpp itself,
transforms located elsewhere (Local.cpp/BasicBlockUtils.cpp) also may
delete blocks, and it doesn't seem good to teach them to deal with it.
Since we at most only ever delete from LoopHeaders,
let's just delegate to WeakVH to do that automatically.
But to be honest, personally, i'm not sure that the idea
behind LoopHeaders is sound.
I have previously tried doing that in
b33fbbaa34f0fe9fb16789afc72ae424c1825b69 / d38205144febf4dc42c9270c6aa3d978f1ef65e1,
but eventually it was pointed out that the approach taken there
was just broken wrt how the uses of bonus instructions are updated
to account for the fact that they should now use either bonus instruction
or the cloned bonus instruction. In particluar, all that manual handling
of PHI nodes in successors was just wrong.
But, the fix is actually much much simpler than my initial approach:
just tell SSAUpdate about both instances of bonus instruction,
and let it deal with all the PHI handling.
Alive2 confirms that the reproducers from the original bugs (@pr48450*)
are now handled correctly.
This effectively reverts commit 59560e85897afc50090b6c3d920bacfd28b49d06,
effectively relanding b33fbbaa34f0fe9fb16789afc72ae424c1825b69.
NewBonusInst just took name from BonusInst, so BonusInst has no name,
so BonusInst.getName() makes no sense.
So we need to ask NewBonusInst for the name.
I'm intentionally structuring it this way, so that the actual fold only
does the fold, and no legality/correctness checks, all of which must be
done by the caller. This allows for the fold code to be more compact
and more easily grokable.
Hoist the successor updating out of the code that deals with branch
weight updating, and hoist the 'has weights' check from the latter,
making code more consistent and easier to follow.
While we already ignore uncond branches, we could still potentially
end up with a conditional branches with identical destinations
due to the visitation order, or because we were called as an utility.
But if we have such a disguised uncond branch,
we still probably shouldn't deal with it here.
The case where BB ends with an unconditional branch,
and has a single predecessor w/ conditional branch
to BB and a single successor of BB is exactly the pattern
SpeculativelyExecuteBB() transform deals with.
(and in this case they both allow speculating only a single instruction)
Well, or FoldTwoEntryPHINode(), if the final block
has only those two predecessors.
Here, in FoldBranchToCommonDest(), only a weird subset of that
transform is supported, and it's glued on the side in a weird way.
In particular, it took me a bit to understand that the Cond
isn't actually a branch condition in that case, but just the value
we allow to speculate (otherwise it reads as a miscompile to me).
Additionally, this only supports for the speculated instruction
to be an ICmp.
So let's just unclutter FoldBranchToCommonDest(), and leave
this transform up to SpeculativelyExecuteBB(). As far as i can tell,
this shouldn't really impact optimization potential, but if it does,
improving SpeculativelyExecuteBB() will be more beneficial anyways.
Notably, this only affects a single test,
but EarlyCSE should have run beforehand in the pipeline,
and then FoldTwoEntryPHINode() would have caught it.
This reverts commit rL158392 / commit d33f4efbfdef6ffccf212ab3e40a7673589085fd.
This patch teaches SimplifyCFG::SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain to understand select form of
(x == C1 || x == C2 || ...) / (x != C1 && x != C2 && ...) and optimize them into switch if possible.
D93065 has more context about the transition, including links to the list of optimizations being updated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93943
DestBB might or might not already be a successor of SelectBB,
and it wasn't we need to ensure that we record the fact in DomTree.
The testcase used to crash in lazy domtree updater mode + non-per-function
domtree validity checks disabled.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
This is not nice, but it's the best transient solution possible,
and is better than just duplicating the whole function.
The problem is, this function is widely used,
and it is not at all obvious that all the users
could be painlessly switched to operate on DomTreeUpdater,
and somehow i don't feel like porting all those users first.
This function is one of last three that not operate on DomTreeUpdater.
When we are adding edges to the terminator and potentially turning it
into a switch (if it wasn't already), it is possible that the
case we're adding will share it's destination with one of the
preexisting cases, in which case there is no domtree edge to add.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
BB was already always branching to EdgeBB, there is no edge to add.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
SI is the terminator of BB, so the edge we are adding obviously already existed.
Indeed, this change does not have a test coverage change.
This failure has been exposed in an existing test coverage
by a follow-up patch that switches to lazy domtreeupdater mode,
and removes domtree verification from
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce()/SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
IOW it does not appear feasible to add dedicated test coverage here.
Currently SimplifyCFG drops the debug locations of 'bonus' instructions.
Such instructions are moved before the first branch. The reason for the
current behavior is that this could lead to surprising debug stepping,
if the block that's folded is dead.
In case the first branch and the instructions to be folded have the same
debug location, this shouldn't be an issue and we can keep the debug
location.
Reviewed By: vsk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93662
I have added it in d15d81c because it *seemed* correct, was holding
for all the tests so far, and was validating the fix added in the same
commit, but as David Major is pointing out (with a reproducer),
the assertion isn't really correct after all. So remove it.
Note that the d15d81c still fine.
If the predecessor is a switch, and BB is not the default destination,
multiple cases could have the same destination. and it doesn't
make sense to re-process the predecessor, because we won't make any changes,
once is enough.
I'm not sure this can be really tested, other than via the assertion
being added here, which fires without the fix.
One would hope that it would have been already canonicalized into an
unconditional branch, but that isn't really guaranteed to happen
with SimplifyCFG's visitation order.
... which requires not removing a DomTree edge if the switch's default
still points at that destination, because it can't be removed;
... and not processing the same predecessor more than once.
... which requires not deleting an edge that just got deleted,
because we could be dealing with a block that didn't go through
ConstantFoldTerminator() yet, and thus has a degenerate cond br
with matching true/false destinations.
Notably, this doesn't switch *every* case, remaining cases
don't actually pass sanity checks in non-permissve mode,
and therefore require further analysis.
Note that SimplifyCFG still defaults to not preserving DomTree by default,
so this is effectively a NFC change.
This is NFC since SimplifyCFG still currently defaults to not preserving DomTree.
SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyOnce() is only be called from SimplifyCFGOpt::run(),
and can not be called externally, since SimplifyCFGOpt is defined in .cpp
This avoids some needless verifications, and is thus a bit faster
without sacrificing precision.
We only need to remove non-TrueBB/non-FalseBB successors,
and we only need to do that once. We don't need to insert
any new edges, because no new successors will be added.
There is a number of transforms in SimplifyCFG that take DomTree out of
DomTreeUpdater, and do updates manually. Until they are fixed,
user passes are unable to claim that PDT is preserved.
Note that the default for SimplifyCFG is still not to preserve DomTree,
so this is still effectively NFC.
This pretty much concludes patch series for updating SimplifyCFG
to preserve DomTree. All 318 dedicated `-simplifycfg` tests now pass
with `-simplifycfg-require-and-preserve-domtree=1`.
There are a few leftovers that apparently don't have good test coverage.
I do not yet know what gaps in test coverage will the wider-scale testing
reveal, but the default flip might be close.
