Splitting can make sanitizer errors harder to understand, as the
trapping instruction may not be in the function where the bug was
detected.
rdar://48142697
llvm-svn: 354931
Current PGO profile counts are not context sensitive. The branch probabilities
for the inlined functions are kept the same for all call-sites, and they might
be very different from the actual branch probabilities. These suboptimal
profiles can greatly affect some downstream optimizations, in particular for
the machine basic block placement optimization.
In this patch, we propose to have a post-inline PGO instrumentation/use pass,
which we called Context Sensitive PGO (CSPGO). For the users who want the best
possible performance, they can perform a second round of PGO instrument/use on
the top of the regular PGO. They will have two sets of profile counts. The
first pass profile will be manly for inline, indirect-call promotion, and
CGSCC simplification pass optimizations. The second pass profile is for
post-inline optimizations and code-gen optimizations.
A typical usage:
// Regular PGO instrumentation and generate pass1 profile.
> clang -O2 -fprofile-generate source.c -o gen
> ./gen
> llvm-profdata merge default.*profraw -o pass1.profdata
// CSPGO instrumentation.
> clang -O2 -fprofile-use=pass1.profdata -fcs-profile-generate -o gen2
> ./gen2
// Merge two sets of profiles
> llvm-profdata merge default.*profraw pass1.profdata -o profile.profdata
// Use the combined profile. Pass manager will invoke two PGO use passes.
> clang -O2 -fprofile-use=profile.profdata -o use
This change touches many components in the compiler. The reviewed patch
(D54175) will committed in phrases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54175
llvm-svn: 354930
This requires a couple of tweaks to existing vectorization functions as they were assuming that only the second call argument (ctlz/cttz/powi) could ever be the 'always scalar' argument, but for smul.fix + umul.fix its the third argument.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58616
llvm-svn: 354790
add A, sext(B) --> sub A, zext(B)
We have to choose 1 of these forms, so I'm opting for the
zext because that's easier for value tracking.
The backend should be prepared for this change after:
D57401
rL353433
This is also a preliminary step towards reducing the amount
of bit hackery that we do in IR to optimize icmp/select.
That should be waiting to happen at a later optimization stage.
The seeming regression in the fuzzer test was discussed in:
D58359
We were only managing that fold in instcombine by luck, and
other passes should be able to deal with that better anyway.
llvm-svn: 354748
This patch adds LazyValueInfo to LowerSwitch to compute the range of the
value being switched over and reduce the size of the tree LowerSwitch
builds to lower a switch.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58096
llvm-svn: 354670
Summary:
This patch separates two semantics of `applyUpdates`:
1. User provides an accurate CFG diff and the dominator tree is updated according to the difference of `the number of edge insertions` and `the number of edge deletions` to infer the status of an edge before and after the update.
2. User provides a sequence of hints. Updates mentioned in this sequence might never happened and even duplicated.
Logic changes:
Previously, removing invalid updates is considered a side-effect of deduplication and is not guaranteed to be reliable. To handle the second semantic, `applyUpdates` does validity checking before deduplication, which can cause updates that have already been applied to be submitted again. Then, different calls to `applyUpdates` might cause unintended consequences, for example,
```
DTU(Lazy) and Edge A->B exists.
1. DTU.applyUpdates({{Delete, A, B}, {Insert, A, B}}) // User expects these 2 updates result in a no-op, but {Insert, A, B} is queued
2. Remove A->B
3. DTU.applyUpdates({{Delete, A, B}}) // DTU cancels this update with {Insert, A, B} mentioned above together (Unintended)
```
But by restricting the precondition that updates of an edge need to be strictly ordered as how CFG changes were made, we can infer the initial status of this edge to resolve this issue.
Interface changes:
The second semantic of `applyUpdates` is separated to `applyUpdatesPermissive`.
These changes enable DTU(Lazy) to use the first semantic if needed, which is quite useful in `transforms/utils`.
Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser
Reviewed By: brzycki
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170
llvm-svn: 354669
The correct edge being deleted is not to the unswitched exit block, but to the
original block before it was split. That's the key in the map, not the
value.
The insert is correct. The new edge is to the .split block.
The splitting turns OriginalBB into:
OriginalBB -> OriginalBB.split.
Assuming the orignal CFG edge: ParentBB->OriginalBB, we must now delete
ParentBB->OriginalBB, not ParentBB->OriginalBB.split.
llvm-svn: 354656
Summary:
MemorySSA is not properly updated in LoopSimplifyCFG after recent changes. Use SplitBlock utility to resolve that and clear all updates once handleDeadExits is finished.
All updates that follow are removal of edges which are safe to handle via the removeEdge() API.
Also, deleting dead blocks is done correctly as is, i.e. delete from MemorySSA before updating the CFG and DT.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, rtereshin
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58524
llvm-svn: 354613
is false.
Right now for inliner and partial inliner, we always pass the address of a
valid ORE object to getInlineCost even if RemarkEnabled is false because of
no -Rpass is specified. Since ComputeFullInlineCost will be set to true if
ORE is non-null in getInlineCost, this introduces the problem that in
getInlineCost we cannot return early even if we already know the cost is
definitely higher than the threshold. It is a general problem for compile
time.
This patch fixes that by pass nullptr as the ORE argument if RemarkEnabled is
false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58399
llvm-svn: 354542
Noticed these while doing a final sweep of the code to make sure I hadn't missed anything in my last couple of patches. The (minor) missed optimization was noticed because of the stylistic fix to avoid an overly specific cast.
llvm-svn: 354412
Same case as for memset and memcpy, but this time for clobbering stores and loads. We still can't allow coercion to or from non-integrals, regardless of the transform.
Now that I'm done the whole little sequence, it seems apparent that we'd entirely missed reasoning about clobbers in the original GVN support for non-integral pointers.
My appologies, I thought we'd upstreamed all of this, but it turns out we were still carrying a downstream hack which hid all of these issues. My chanks to Cherry Zhang for helping debug.
llvm-svn: 354407
Problem is very similiar to the one fixed for memsets in r354399, we try to coerce a value to non-integral type, and then crash while try to do so. Since we shouldn't be doing such coercions to start with, easy fix. From inspection, I see two other cases which look to be similiar and will follow up with most test cases and fixes if confirmed.
llvm-svn: 354403
GVN generally doesn't forward structs or array types, but it *will* forward vector types to non-vectors and vice versa. As demonstrated in tests, we need to inhibit the same set of transforms for vector of non-integral pointers as for non-integral pointers themselves.
llvm-svn: 354401
If we encountered a location where we tried to forward the value of a memset to a load of a non-integral pointer, we crashed. Such a forward is not legal in general, but we can forward null pointers. Test for both cases are included.
llvm-svn: 354399
This is no-functional-change-intended, but that was also
true when it was part of rL354276, and I managed to lose
2 predicates for the fold with constant...causing much bot
distress. So this time I'm adding a couple of negative tests
to avoid that.
llvm-svn: 354384
We are planning to be able to delete the current loop in LoopSimplifyCFG
in the future. Add API to notify the loop pass manager that it happened.
llvm-svn: 354314
We want to use the sum in the icmp to allow matching with
m_UAddWithOverflow and eliminate the 'not'. This is discussed
in D51929 and is another step towards solving PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
(The matching here is incomplete. Trying to take minimal steps
to make sure we don't induce infinite looping from existing
canonicalizations of the 'select'.)
llvm-svn: 354221
Summary:
Unlimitted number of calls to getClobberingAccess can lead to high
compile times in pathological cases.
Limitting getClobberingAccess to a fairly high number. Can be adjusted
based on users/need.
Note: this is the only user of MemorySSA currently enabled by default.
The same handling exists in LICM (disabled atm). As MemorySSA gains more
users, this logic of capping will need to move inside MemorySSA.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58248
llvm-svn: 354182
Implement two more transforms of atomicrmw:
1) We can convert an atomicrmw which produces a known value in memory into an xchg instead.
2) We can convert an atomicrmw xchg w/o users into a store for some orderings.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58290
llvm-svn: 354170
If a lifetime.end marker occurs along one path through the extraction
region, but not another, then it's still incorrect to lift the marker,
because there is some path through the extracted function which would
ordinarily not reach the marker. If the call to the extracted function
is in a loop, unrolling can cause inputs to the function to become
optimized out as undef after the first iteration.
To prevent incorrect stack slot merging in the calling function, it
should be sufficient to lift lifetime.start markers for region inputs.
I've tested this theory out by doing a stage2 check-all with randomized
splitting enabled.
This is a follow-up to r353973, and there's additional context for this
change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834.
rdar://47896986
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58253
llvm-svn: 354159
With or without PGO data applied, splitting early in the pipeline
(either before the inliner or shortly after it) regresses performance
across SPEC variants. The cause appears to be that splitting hides
context for subsequent optimizations.
Schedule splitting late again, in effect reversing r352080, which
scheduled the splitting pass early for code size benefits (documented in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57082).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58258
llvm-svn: 354158
Summary:
The idea is that we now manipulate bases through a `unsigned BaseID` based on
order of appearance in the comparison chain rather than through the `Value*`.
Fixes 40714.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: mgrang, jfb, jdoerfert, llvm-commits, hans
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58274
llvm-svn: 354131
Summary:
The changes to disable LTO unit splitting by default (r350949) and
detect inconsistently split LTO units (r350948) are causing some crashes
when the inconsistency is detected in multiple threads simultaneously.
Fix that by having the code always look for the inconsistently split
LTO units during the thin link, by checking for the presence of type
tests recorded in the summaries.
Modify test added in r350948 to remove single threading required to fix
a bot failure due to this issue (and some debugging options added in the
process of diagnosing it).
Reviewers: pcc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, inglorion, eraman, steven_wu, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57561
llvm-svn: 354062
