This is a bug noted in the recent D72733 and seen
in the similar transform just above the changed source code.
I added tests with illegal types and zexts to show the bug -
we could transform legal phi ops to illegal, etc. I did not add
tests with trunc because we won't see any diffs on those patterns.
That is because InstCombiner::SliceUpIllegalIntegerPHI() appears to
do those transforms independently of datalayout. It can also create
more casts than are present in existing code.
There are some existing regression tests that do not include a
datalayout that would be altered by this fix. I assumed that the
lack of a datalayout in those regression files is an oversight, so
I added the minimal layout (make i32 legal) necessary to preserve
behavior on those tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73907
Adds the global (cl::opt) GVNOption enable-load-in-loop-pre in order
to control whether the optimization will be performed if the load
is part of a loop.
Patch by Hendrik Greving!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73804
bo (splat X), (bo Y, OtherOp) --> bo (splat (bo X, Y)), OtherOp
This patch depends on the splat analysis enhancement in D73549.
See the test with comment:
; Negative test - mismatched splat elements
...as the motivation for that first patch.
The motivating case for reassociating splatted ops is shown in PR42174:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42174
In that example, a slight change in order-of-associative math results
in a big difference in IR and codegen. This patch gets all of the
unnecessary shuffles out of the way, but doesn't address the potential
scalarization (see D50992 or D73480 for that).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73703
Duplicating instructions can lead to code size increases but using
a threshold of 3 is good for reducing code size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72916
There seems to be another instance of non-determinism which causes the
number of iterations to be either 1 or 3 for one benchmark, depending
on the system. This needs to be investigated and resolved. In the
meantime we do not verify the number of iterations for this benchmark.
If all call sites are in `norecurse` functions we can derive `norecurse`
as the ReversePostOrderFunctionAttrsPass does. This should make
ReversePostOrderFunctionAttrsLegacyPass obsolete once the Attributor is
enabled.
Reviewed By: uenoku
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72017
If we had `noalias` on an argument the inliner created alias scope
metadata already. However, the call site `noalias` annotation was not
considered. Since the Attributor can derive such call site `noalias`
annotation we should treat them the same as argument annotations.
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73528
Fix attempt
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
The code paths in the absence of TargetMachine, TargetLowering or
TargetRegisterInfo are poorly tested. As rL285987 said, requiring
TargetPassConfig allows us to delete many (untested) checks littered
everywhere.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73754
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
This patch adds initial support for a DemandedElts mask to the internal computeKnownBits/ComputeNumSignBits methods, matching the SelectionDAG and GlobalISel equivalents.
So far only a couple of instructions have been setup to handle the DemandedElts, the remainder still using the existing 'all elements' default. The plan is to extend support as we have test coverage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73435
We may calculate reassociable math ops in arbitrary order when creating a shuffle reduction,
so there's no guarantee that things like 'nsw' hold on those intermediate values. Drop all
poison-generating flags for safety.
This change is limited to shuffle reductions because I don't think we have a problem in the
general case (where we intersect flags of each scalar op that goes into a vector op), but if
there's evidence of other cases being wrong, we can extend this fix to cover those cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44536
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73727
First attempt at implementing -fsemantic-interposition.
Rely on GlobalValue::isInterposable that already captures most of the expected
behavior.
Rely on a ModuleFlag to state whether we should respect SemanticInterposition or
not. The default remains no.
So this should be a no-op if -fsemantic-interposition isn't used, and if it is,
isInterposable being already used in most optimisation, they should honor it
properly.
Note that it only impacts architecture compiled with -fPIC and no pie.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72829
from FC0.ExitBlock to FC1.ExitBlock when proven safe.
Summary:
Currently LoopFusion give up when the second loop nest guard
block or the first loop nest exit block is not empty. For example:
if (0 < N) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {}
x+=1;
}
y+=1;
if (0 < N) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {}
}
The above example should be safe to fuse.
This PR moves instructions in FC1 guard block (e.g. y+=1;) to
FC0 guard block, or instructions in FC0 exit block (e.g. x+=1;) to
FC1 exit block, which then LoopFusion is able to fuse them.
Reviewer: kbarton, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, dmgreen, fhahn, hfinkel,
bmahjour, etiotto
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73641
Summary:
When constant folding, constants that are wrapped in metadata were not
folded. This could lead to dbg.values being the only user of a constant
expression, due to the non-dbg uses having been rewritten, resulting in
the constant later on being removed by some other pass. This occurred
with the attached test case, in which the non-rewritten GEP in the
dbg.value intrinsic was later on removed by globalopt.
This patch makes the code look through metadata and fold such constants.
I guess that we in the future may want to allow dbg.values using GEPs and
other constant expressions to be emittable even if there are no non-dbg
uses, but for example SelectionDAG does not support that.
Reviewers: jmorse, aprantl, vsk, davide
Reviewed By: aprantl, vsk, davide
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #debug-info, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73630
Summary:
Add trimming of unused components of s_buffer_load.
For s_buffer_load and unformatted buffer_load also trim unused
components at the beginning of vector and update offset accordingly.
Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71785
InstCombine operates on the basic premise that the operands of the
currently processed instruction have already been simplified. It
achieves this by pushing instructions to the worklist in reverse
program order, so that instructions are popped off in program order.
The worklist management in the main combining loop also makes sure
to uphold this invariant.
However, the same is not true for all the code that is performing
manual worklist management. The largest problem (addressed in this
patch) are instructions inserted by InstCombine's IRBuilder. These
will be pushed onto the worklist in order of insertion (generally
matching program order), which means that a) the users of the
original instruction will be visited first, as they are pushed later
in the main loop and b) the newly inserted instructions will be
visited in reverse program order.
This causes a number of problems: First, folds operate on instructions
that have not had their operands simplified, which may result in
optimizations being missed (ran into this in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048#1800424, which was the original
motivation for this patch). Additionally, this increases the amount
of folds InstCombine has to perform, both within one iteration, and
by increasing the number of total iterations.
This patch addresses the issue by adding a Worklist.AddDeferred()
method, which is used for instructions inserted by IRBuilder. These
will only be added to the real worklist after the combine finished,
and in reverse order, so they will end up processed in program order.
I should note that the same should also be done to nearly all other
uses of Worklist.Add(), but I'm starting with just this occurrence,
which has by far the largest test fallout.
Most of the test changes are due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44521 or other cases where
we don't canonicalize something. These are neutral. One regression
has been addressed in D73575 and D73647. The remaining regression
in an shl+sdiv fold can't really be fixed without dropping another
transform, but does not seem particularly problematic in the first
place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73411
A pointer is privatizeable if it can be replaced by a new, private one.
Privatizing pointer reduces the use count, interaction between unrelated
code parts. This is a first step towards replacing argument promotion.
While we can already handle recursion (unlike argument promotion!) we
are restricted to stack allocations for now because we do not analyze
the uses in the callee.
Reviewed By: uenoku
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68852
For the
icmp eq (add X, C1), C2 => icmp eq X, C2-C1
icmp eq (sub C1, X), C2 => icmp eq X, C1-C2
folds, this allows C1 to be non-splat and contain undefs.
C2 is still splat, due to the structure of the code.
This is to address the remaining part of the regression in D73411,
where demanded element analysis replaces some elements with undef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73647
proven safe.
Summary:
Currently LoopFusion give up when the second loop nest preheader is
not empty. For example:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {}
x+=1;
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {}
The above example should be safe to fuse.
This PR moves instructions in FC1 preheader (e.g. x+=1; ) to
FC0 preheader, which then LoopFusion is able to fuse them.
Reviewer: kbarton, Meinersbur, jdoerfert, dmgreen, fhahn, hfinkel,
bmahjour, etiotto
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71821
cmp (splat V1, M), SplatC --> splat (cmp V1, SplatC'), M
As discussed in PR44588:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44588
...we try harder to push shuffles after binops than after compares.
This patch handles the special (but presumably most common case) of
splat shuffles. If both operands are splats, then we can do the
comparison on the non-splat inputs followed by splat of the compare.
That should take care of the regression noted in D73411.
There's another potential fold requested in PR37463 to scalarize the
compare, but that's another patch (and it's not clear if we can do
that without the ability to undo it later):
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73575
If we invalidate an attribute we need to inform all dependent ones even
if the fixpoint state is not invalid. Before we only continued
invalidation if the fixpoint state was invalid, now we signal a change
in case the fixpoint state is valid.
The test case was already included in D71620 but the problem was hiding
because it only manifested with the old PM (for that input).
This patch modularizes the way we check for no-alias call site arguments
by putting the existing logic into helper functions. The reasoning was
not changed but special cases for readonly/readnone were added.
If `null` is not defined we cannot access it, hence the pointer is
`noalias`. While this is not helpful on it's own it simplifies later
deductions that can skip over already known `noalias` pointers in
certain situations.
During extraction, stale llvm.assume handles may be retained in the
original function. The setup is:
1) CodeExtractor unregisters assumptions in the blocks that are to be
extracted.
2) Extraction happens. There are now two functions: f1 and f1.extracted.
3) Leftover assumptions in f1 (/not/ removed as they were not in the set of
blocks to be extracted) now have affected-value llvm.assume handles in
f1.extracted.
When assumptions for a value used in f1 are looked up, ValueTracking can assert
as some of the handles are in the wrong function. To fix this, simply erase the
llvm.assume calls in the extracted function.
Alternatives include flushing the assumption cache in the original function, or
walking all values used in the original function to prune stale affected-value
handles. Both seem more expensive.
Testing: check-llvm, LNT run with -mllvm -hot-cold-split enabled
rdar://58460728
This patch adds support for explicitly highlighting sub-expressions
shared by multiple leaf nodes. For example consider the following
code
%shared.load = tail call <8 x double> @llvm.matrix.columnwise.load.v8f64.p0f64(double* %arg1, i32 %stride, i32 2, i32 4), !dbg !10, !noalias !10
%trans = tail call <8 x double> @llvm.matrix.transpose.v8f64(<8 x double> %shared.load, i32 2, i32 4), !dbg !10
tail call void @llvm.matrix.columnwise.store.v8f64.p0f64(<8 x double> %trans, double* %arg3, i32 10, i32 4, i32 2), !dbg !10
%load.2 = tail call <30 x double> @llvm.matrix.columnwise.load.v30f64.p0f64(double* %arg3, i32 %stride, i32 2, i32 15), !dbg !10, !noalias !10
%mult = tail call <60 x double> @llvm.matrix.multiply.v60f64.v8f64.v30f64(<8 x double> %trans, <30 x double> %load.2, i32 4, i32 2, i32 15), !dbg !11
tail call void @llvm.matrix.columnwise.store.v60f64.p0f64(<60 x double> %mult, double* %arg2, i32 10, i32 4, i32 15), !dbg !11
We have two leaf nodes (the 2 stores) and the first store stores %trans
which is also used by the matrix multiply %mult. We generate separate
remarks for each leaf (stores). To denote that parts are shared, the
shared expressions are marked as shared (), with a reference to the
other remark that shares it. The operation summary also denotes the
shared operations separately.
Reviewers: anemet, Gerolf, thegameg, hfinkel, andrew.w.kaylor, LuoYuanke
Reviewed By: anemet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72526
Dead instructions do not need to be sunk. Currently we try and record
the recipies for them, but there are no recipes emitted for them and
there's nothing to sink. They can be removed from SinkAfter while
marking them for recording.
Fixes PR44634.
Reviewers: rengolin, hsaito, fhahn, Ayal, gilr
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73423
