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.
We might be dealing with an unreachable code,
so the bonus instruction we clone might be self-referencing.
There is a sanity check that all uses of bonus instructions
that are not in the original block with said bonus instructions
are PHI nodes, and that is obviously not the case
for self-referencing instructions..
So if we find such an use, just rewrite it.
Thanks to Mikael Holmén for the reproducer!
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48450#c8
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Apparently, there were no dedicated tests just for that functionality,
so i'm adding one here.
And that exposes that a number of tests don't *actually* manage to
maintain DomTree validity, which is inline with my observations.
Once again, SimlifyCFG pass currently does not require/preserve DomTree
by default, so this is effectively NFC.
Pretty boring, removeUnwindEdge() already known how to update DomTree,
so if we are to call it, we must first flush our own pending updates;
otherwise, we just stop predecessors from branching to us,
and for certain predecessors, stop their predecessors from
branching to them also.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
When folding a branch to a common destination, preserve !annotation on
the created instruction, if the terminator of the BB that is going to be
removed has !annotation. This should ensure that !annotation is attached
to the instructions that 'replace' the original terminator.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93410
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
Two observations:
1. Unavailability of DomTree makes it impossible to make
`FoldBranchToCommonDest()` transform in certain cases,
where the successor is dominated by predecessor,
because we then don't have PHI's, and can't recreate them,
well, without handrolling 'is dominated by' check,
which doesn't really look like a great solution to me.
2. Avoiding invalidating DomTree in SimplifyCFG will
decrease the number of `Dominator Tree Construction` by 5
(from 28 now, i.e. -18%) in `-O3` old-pm pipeline
(as per `llvm/test/Other/opt-O3-pipeline.ll`)
This might or might not be beneficial for compile time.
So the plan is to make SimplifyCFG preserve DomTree, and then
eventually make DomTree fully required and preserved by the pass.
Now, SimplifyCFG is ~7KLOC. I don't think it will be nice
to do all this uplifting in a single mega-commit,
nor would it be possible to review it in any meaningful way.
But, i believe, it should be possible to do this in smaller steps,
introducing the new behavior, in an optional way, off-by-default,
opt-in option, and gradually fixing transforms one-by-one
and adding the flag to appropriate test coverage.
Then, eventually, the default should be flipped,
and eventually^2 the flag removed.
And that is what is happening here - when the new off-by-default option
is specified, DomTree is required and is claimed to be preserved,
and SimplifyCFG-internal assertions verify that the DomTree is still OK.
Even though d38205144febf4dc42c9270c6aa3d978f1ef65e1 was mostly a correct
fix for the external non-PHI users, it's not a *generally* correct fix,
because the 'placeholder' values in those trivial PHI's we create
shouldn't be *always* 'undef', but the PHI itself for the backedges,
else we end up with wrong value, as the `@pr48450_2` test shows.
But we can't just do that, because we can't check that the PHI
can be it's own incoming value when coming from certain predecessor,
because we don't have a dominator tree.
So until we can address this correctness problem properly,
ensure that we don't perform the transformation
if there are such problematic external uses.
Making dominator tree available there is going to be involved,
since `-simplifycfg` pass currently does not preserve/update domtree...
In particular, if the successor block, which is about to get a new
predecessor block, currently only has a single predecessor,
then the bonus instructions will be directly used within said successor,
which is fine, since the block with bonus instructions dominates that
successor. But once there's a new predecessor, the IR is no longer valid,
and we don't fix it, because we only update PHI nodes.
Which means, the live-out bonus instructions must be exclusively used
by the PHI nodes in successor blocks. So we have to form trivial PHI nodes.
which will then be successfully updated to recieve cloned bonus instns.
This all works fine, except for the fact that we don't have access to
the dominator tree, and we don't ignore unreachable code,
so we sometimes do end up having to deal with some weird IR.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48450
There is no correctness need for that, and since we allow live-out
uses, this could theoretically happen, because currently nothing
will move the cond to right before the branch in those tests.
But regardless, lifting that restriction even makes the transform
easier to understand.
This makes the transform happen in 81 more cases (+0.55%)
)
This was orginally committed in 2245fb8aaa1c1f85f53f7b19a1ee3ac69b1a1dfe.
but was immediately reverted in f3abd54958ab90ba7c100d3fa936a3ce0dd2ad04
because of a PHI handling issue.
Original commit message:
1. It doesn't make sense to enforce that the bonus instruction
is only used once in it's basic block. What matters is
whether those user instructions fit within our budget, sure,
but that is another question.
2. It doesn't make sense to enforce that said bonus instructions
are only used within their basic block. Perhaps the branch
condition isn't using the value computed by said bonus instruction,
and said bonus instruction is simply being calculated
to be used in successors?
So iff we can clone bonus instructions, to lift these restrictions,
we just need to carefully update their external uses
to use the new cloned instructions.
Notably, this transform (even without this change) appears to be
poison-unsafe as per alive2, but is otherwise (including the patch) legal.
We don't introduce any new PHI nodes, but only "move" the instructions
around, i'm not really seeing much potential for extra cost modelling
for the transform, especially since now we allow at most one such
bonus instruction by default.
This causes the fold to fire +11.4% more (13216 -> 14725)
as of vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed.
The motivational pattern is IEEE-754-2008 Binary16->Binary32
extension code:
ca57d77fb2/src/librawspeed/common/FloatingPoint.h (L115-L120)
^ that should be a switch, but it is not now: https://godbolt.org/z/bvja5v
That being said, even thought this seemed like this would fix it: https://godbolt.org/z/xGq3TM
apparently that fold is happening somewhere else afterall,
so something else also has a similar 'artificial' restriction.
Many bots are unhappy, at the very least missed a few codegen tests,
and possibly this has a logic hole inducing a miscompile
(will be really awesome to have ready reproducer..)
Need to investigate.
This reverts commit 2245fb8aaa1c1f85f53f7b19a1ee3ac69b1a1dfe.
