See discussion in D90554.
This is a partial un-revert of 32dd5870ee31. I'm adding
back the baseline tests first, so we don't have to
back-track as much in case there are still problems.
as it's causing crashes in the optimizer. A reduced testcase has been posted as a follow-up.
This reverts commit f7eac51b9b3f780c96ca41913293851c5acb465b.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] make default size cost for libcalls small (again)" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 8ec7ea3ddce7379e13e8dfb4a5260a6d2004aa1c.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] add tests for math library calls; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit df09f825995b10da03f148133c119f52c94fd6e4.
Temporarily Revert "[LoopUnroll] add test for full unroll that is sensitive to cost-model; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 618d555e8d926a83161774df2035519c387269db.
This was changed recently with D90554 / f7eac51b9b3f
...because we had a regression testing blindspot for intrinsics
that are expected to be lowered to libcalls.
In general, we want the *size* cost for a scalar call to be cheap
even if the other costs are expensive - we expect it to just be
a branch with some optional stack manipulation.
It is likely that we will want to carve out some
exceptions/overrides to this rule as follow-up patches for
calls that have some general and/or target-specific difference
to the expected lowering.
This was noticed as a regression in unrolling, so we have a test
for that now along with a couple of direct cost model tests.
If the assumed scalarization costs for the oversized vector
calls are not realistic, that would be another follow-up
refinement of the cost models.
We use `< UP.Threshold` later on, so we should use LoopSize + 1, to
allow unrolling if the result won't exceed to loop size.
Fixes PR43305.
Reviewers: efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67594
llvm-svn: 372084
Summary:
In the following cases, unrolling can be beneficial, even when
optimizing for code size:
1) very low trip counts
2) potential to constant fold most instructions after fully unrolling.
We can unroll in those cases, by setting the unrolling threshold to the
loop size. This might highlight some cost modeling issues and fixing
them will have a positive impact in general.
Reviewers: vsk, efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60265
llvm-svn: 358586
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
As agreed in post-commit review of r265388, I'm switching the flag to
its original value until the 90% runtime performance regression on
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort is addressed.
llvm-svn: 277524
Summary:
It is incorrect to compare TripCount (which is BECount + 1)
with extraiters (or Count) to check if we should enter unrolled
loop or not, because TripCount can potentially overflow
(when BECount is max unsigned integer).
While comparing BECount with (Count - 1) is overflow safe and
therefore correct.
Reviewer: hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19256
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 267662
For inner one of nested loops, it is more likely to be a hot loop,
and the runtime check can be promoted out from patch 0001, so the
overhead is less, we can try a doubled threshold to unroll more loops.
llvm-svn: 231632
