Per comments in DivRemPairs, the rewrite from
```llvm
%div = div %X, %Y
%rem = rem %X, %Y
```
to
```llvm
%div = div %X, %Y
%.mul = mul %div, %Y
%rem = sub %X, %mul
```
is unsound when %X or %Y are undef.
However, it is known to be sound if %X or %Y are poison but can't be
undef, since both the pre- and post-rewrite %rem are `poison`.
Additionally, proofs: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/xtNQ8j
A comment in the pass listed a TODO for changing a usage of
isGuaranteedNotToBeUndefOrPoison() in the pass to something that only
detects undef. Such a function has been implemented since the time that
TODO was written, but has not been used.
Therefore, this commit updates DivRemPairs to use
isGuaranteedNotToBeUndef() instead.
The tests are added to a new AMDGPU/ subdirectory since I found the
missed optimization while hacking on AMDGPU code. Also, this ensures
that AMDGPU, which uses DivRemPass, is being checked for existing
expected behavior.
There are many tests that specify a target triple/CPU flags but no
DataLayout which can lead to IR being generated that has unusual
behaviour. This commit attempts to use the default DataLayout based
on the relevant flags if there is no explicit override on the command
line or in the IR file.
One thing that is not currently possible to differentiate from a missing
datalayout `target datalayout = ""` in the IR file since the current
APIs don't allow detecting this case. If it is considered useful to
support this case (instead of passing "-data-layout=" on the command
line), I can change IR parsers to track whether they have seen such a
directive and change the callback type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141060
This is a follow-up to b71edfaa4ec3c998aadb35255ce2f60bba2940b0
since I forgot the lit.local.cfg files in that one.
Reformatting is done with `black`.
If you end up having problems merging this commit because you
have made changes to a python file, the best way to handle that
is to run git checkout --ours <yourfile> and then reformat it
with black.
If you run into any problems, post to discourse about it and
we will try to help.
RFC Thread below:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-document-and-standardize-python-code-style
Reviewed By: barannikov88, kwk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150762
Given this transformation: X % Y -> X - (X / Y) * Y
This patch strips off the poison-generating flag of X / Y such as exact, because it may make the optimized form result poison whereas X % Y does not.
The issue was reported here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60748
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144333
Previous we only handled triangle CFGs. This patch expands that
to support diamonds, where the div and rem appear in the then/else
sides of a condition. In that case, we can hoist the div into the
shared predecessor.
This could be generalized further to use nearest common ancestors,
but some of the conditions for hoisting would then require
post-dominator information.
Reviewed By: nikic, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140647
This transform was added with e38b7e894808ec2
and as shown in:
https://llvm.org/PR51241
...it could crash without an extra check of the blocks.
There might be a more compact way to write this constraint,
but we can't just count the successors/predecessors without
affecting a test that includes a switch instruction.
This patch adds support for hoisting the division and maybe the
remainder for control flow graphs like this.
```
PredBB
| \
| Rem
| /
Div
```
If we have DivRem we'll hoist both to PredBB. If not we'll just
hoist Div and expand Rem using the Div.
This improves our codegen for something like this
```
__uint128_t udivmodti4(__uint128_t dividend, __uint128_t divisor, __uint128_t *remainder) {
if (remainder != 0)
*remainder = dividend % divisor;
return dividend / divisor;
}
```
Reviewed By: spatel, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87555
Summary:
This fixes PR45885 by fixing isGuaranteedNotToBeUndefOrPoison so it does not look into dominating
branch conditions of V when V is an instruction in an unreachable block.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79790
Summary:
DivRemPairs is unsound with respect to undef values.
```
// bb1:
// %rem = srem %x, %y
// bb2:
// %div = sdiv %x, %y
// -->
// bb1:
// %div = sdiv %x, %y
// %mul = mul %div, %y
// %rem = sub %x, %mul
```
If X can be undef, X should be frozen first.
For example, let's assume that Y = 1 & X = undef:
```
%div = sdiv undef, 1 // %div = undef
%rem = srem undef, 1 // %rem = 0
=>
%div = sdiv undef, 1 // %div = undef
%mul = mul %div, 1 // %mul = undef
%rem = sub %x, %mul // %rem = undef - undef = undef
```
http://volta.cs.utah.edu:8080/z/m7Xrx5
Same for Y. If X = 1 and Y = (undef | 1), %rem in src is either 1 or 0,
but %rem in tgt can be one of many integer values.
This resolves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42619 .
This miscompilation disappears if undef value is removed, but it may take a while.
DivRemPair happens pretty late during the optimization pipeline, so this optimization seemed as a good candidate to fix without major regression using freeze than other broken optimizations.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: wuzish, regehr, nlopes, nemanjai, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76483
If we happen to have the same div in two basic blocks,
and in one of those we also happen to have the rem part,
we'd match the div-rem pair, but the wrong ones.
So let's drop overly-ambiguous assert.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43500
llvm-svn: 373167
Summary:
While `-div-rem-pairs` pass can decompose rem in div+rem pair when div-rem pair
is unsupported by target, nothing performs the opposite fold.
We can't do that in InstCombine or DAGCombine since neither of those has access to TTI.
So it makes most sense to teach `-div-rem-pairs` about it.
If we matched rem in expanded form, we know we will be able to place div-rem pair
next to each other so we won't regress the situation.
Also, we shouldn't decompose rem if we matched already-decomposed form.
This is surprisingly straight-forward otherwise.
The original patch was committed in rL367288 but was reverted in rL367289
because it exposed pre-existing RAUW issues in internal data structures
of the pass; those now have been addressed in a previous patch.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, efriedma, ZaMaZaN4iK, bogner
Reviewed By: bogner
Subscribers: bogner, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65298
llvm-svn: 367419
Summary:
`DivRemPairs` internally creates two maps:
* {sign, divident, divisor} -> div instruction
* {sign, divident, divisor} -> rem instruction
Then it iterates over rem map, and looks if there is an entry
in div map with the same key. Then depending on some internal logic
it may RAUW rem instruction with something else.
But if that rem instruction is an input to other div/rem,
then it was used as a key in these maps, so the old value (used in key)
is now dandling, because RAUW didn't update those maps.
And we can't even RAUW map keys in general, there's `ValueMap`,
but we don't have a single `Value` as key...
The bug was discovered via D65298, and the test there exists.
Now, i'm not sure how to expose this issue in trunk.
The bug is clearly there if i change the map keys to be `AssertingVH`/`PoisoningVH`,
but i guess this didn't miscompiled anything thus far?
I really don't think this is benin without that patch.
The fix is actually rather straight-forward - instead of trying to somehow
shoe-horn `ValueMap` here (doesn't fit, key isn't just `Value`), or writing a new
`ValueMap` with key being a struct of `Value`s, we can just have an intermediate
data structure - a vector, each entry containing matching `Div, Rem` pair,
and pre-filling it before doing any modifications.
This way we won't need to query map after doing RAUW, so no bug is possible.
Reviewers: spatel, bogner, RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, hans, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65451
llvm-svn: 367417
test-suite/MultiSource/Benchmarks/DOE-ProxyApps-C/miniGMG broke:
Only PHI nodes may reference their own value!
%sub33 = srem i32 %sub33, %ranks_in_i
This reverts commit r367288.
llvm-svn: 367289
Summary:
While `-div-rem-pairs` pass can decompose rem in div+rem pair when div-rem pair
is unsupported by target, nothing performs the opposite fold.
We can't do that in InstCombine or DAGCombine since neither of those has access to TTI.
So it makes most sense to teach `-div-rem-pairs` about it.
If we matched rem in expanded form, we know we will be able to place div-rem pair
next to each other so we won't regress the situation.
Also, we shouldn't decompose rem if we matched already-decomposed form.
This is surprisingly straight-forward otherwise.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, efriedma, ZaMaZaN4iK, bogner
Reviewed By: bogner
Subscribers: bogner, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65298
llvm-svn: 367288
As discussed in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
there is a TTI hook hasDivRemOp() that matters here.
While -div-rem-pairs will decompose 'rem' if that hook returns false,
nothing does the opposite transform.
We can't to this in InstCombine, because it does not currently
access TTI, and i'm not sure we should change that.
We can't really do that in DAGCombine since it also currently does not
access TTI.
Therefore only DivRemPairs is left.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
llvm-svn: 367046
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
