The case where BB ends with an unconditional branch,
and has a single predecessor w/ conditional branch
to BB and a single successor of BB is exactly the pattern
SpeculativelyExecuteBB() transform deals with.
(and in this case they both allow speculating only a single instruction)
Well, or FoldTwoEntryPHINode(), if the final block
has only those two predecessors.
Here, in FoldBranchToCommonDest(), only a weird subset of that
transform is supported, and it's glued on the side in a weird way.
In particular, it took me a bit to understand that the Cond
isn't actually a branch condition in that case, but just the value
we allow to speculate (otherwise it reads as a miscompile to me).
Additionally, this only supports for the speculated instruction
to be an ICmp.
So let's just unclutter FoldBranchToCommonDest(), and leave
this transform up to SpeculativelyExecuteBB(). As far as i can tell,
this shouldn't really impact optimization potential, but if it does,
improving SpeculativelyExecuteBB() will be more beneficial anyways.
Notably, this only affects a single test,
but EarlyCSE should have run beforehand in the pipeline,
and then FoldTwoEntryPHINode() would have caught it.
This reverts commit rL158392 / commit d33f4efbfdef6ffccf212ab3e40a7673589085fd.
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
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 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.
... 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.
First step after e1133179587dd895962a2fe4d6eb0cb1e63b5ee2,
in these tests, DomTree is valid afterwards, so mark them as such,
so that they don't regress.
In further steps, SimplifyCFG transforms shall taught to preserve DomTree,
in as small steps as possible.
Common code sinking is already guarded with a (with default-off!) flag,
so add a flag for hoisting, too.
D84108 will hopefully make hoisting off-by-default too.
Summary:
As it can be see in the changed test, while `div` is really costly,
we were speculating it. This does not seem correct.
Also, the old code would run for every single insturuction in BB,
instead of eagerly bailing out as soon as there are too many instructions.
This function still has a problem that `PHINodeFoldingThreshold` is
per-basic-block, while it should be for all the basic blocks.
Reviewers: efriedma, craig.topper, dmgreen, jmolloy
Reviewed By: jmolloy
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67315
llvm-svn: 372255
Summary:
Previously, if the threshold was 2, we were willing to speculatively
execute 2 cheap instructions in both basic blocks (thus we were willing
to speculatively execute cost = 4), but weren't willing to speculate
when one BB had 3 instructions and other one had no instructions,
even thought that would have total cost of 3.
This looks inconsistent to me.
I don't think `cmov`-like instructions will start executing
until both of it's inputs are available: https://godbolt.org/z/zgHePf
So i don't see why the existing behavior is the correct one.
Also, let's add it's own `cl::opt` for this threshold,
with default=4, so it is not stricter than the previous threshold:
will allow to fold when there are 2 BB's each with cost=2.
And since the logic has changed, it will also allow to fold when
one BB has cost=3 and other cost=1, or there is only one BB with cost=4.
This is an alternative solution to D65148:
This fix is mainly motivated by `signbit-like-value-extension.ll` test.
That pattern comes up in JPEG decoding, see e.g.
`Figure F.12 – Extending the sign bit of a decoded value in V`
of `ITU T.81` (JPEG specification).
That branch is not predictable, and it is within the innermost loop,
so the fact that that pattern ends up being stuck with a branch
instead of `select` (i.e. `CMOV` for x86) is unlikely to be beneficial.
This has great results on the final assembly (vanilla test-suite + RawSpeed): (metric pass - D67240)
| metric | old | new | delta | % |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineFunctions | 37720 | 37721 | 1 | 0.00% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineBasicBlocks | 773545 | 771181 | -2364 | -0.31% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumMachineInstructions | 7488843 | 7486442 | -2401 | -0.03% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumUncondBR | 135770 | 135543 | -227 | -0.17% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumCondBR | 423753 | 422187 | -1566 | -0.37% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumCMOV | 24815 | 25731 | 916 | 3.69% |
| x86-mi-counting.NumVecBlend | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0.00% |
We significantly decrease basic block count, notably decrease instruction count,
significantly decrease branch count and very significantly increase `cmov` count.
Performance-wise, unsurprisingly, this has great effect on
target RawSpeed benchmark. I'm seeing 5 **major** improvements:
```
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.3064 -0.3064 226.9913 157.4452 226.9800 157.4384
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.3057 -0.3057 226.8407 157.4926 226.8282 157.4828
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev -0.4985 -0.4954 0.3051 0.1530 0.3040 0.1534
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.1747 -0.1747 80.4787 66.4227 80.4771 66.4146
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.1742 -0.1743 80.4686 66.4542 80.4690 66.4436
Kodak/DCS760C/86L57188.DCR/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.6089 +0.5797 0.0670 0.1078 0.0673 0.1062
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.1598 -0.1598 171.6996 144.2575 171.6915 144.2538
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.1598 -0.1597 171.7109 144.2755 171.7018 144.2766
Sony/DSLR-A230/DSC08026.ARW/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.4024 +0.3850 0.0847 0.1187 0.0848 0.1175
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.0550 -0.0551 280.3046 264.8800 280.3017 264.8559
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.0554 -0.0554 280.2628 264.7360 280.2574 264.7297
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.7005 +0.7041 0.2779 0.4725 0.2775 0.4729
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 49 vs 49
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_mean -0.0354 -0.0355 316.7396 305.5208 316.7342 305.4890
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_median -0.0354 -0.0356 316.6969 305.4798 316.6917 305.4324
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/process_time/real_time_stddev +0.0493 +0.0330 0.3562 0.3737 0.3563 0.3681
```
That being said, it's always best-effort, so there will likely
be cases where this worsens things.
Reviewers: efriedma, craig.topper, dmgreen, jmolloy, fhahn, Carrot, hfinkel, chandlerc
Reviewed By: jmolloy
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67318
llvm-svn: 372009
Also add baseline tests to show effect of later patches.
There were a couple of regressions here that were never caught,
but my patch set that this is a preparation to will fix them.
This is the third attempt to land this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61150
llvm-svn: 363319
This reverts 363226 and 363227, both NFC intended
I swear I fixed the test case that is failing, and ran
the tests, but I will look into it again.
llvm-svn: 363229
Also add baseline tests to show effect of later patches.
There were a couple of regressions here that were never caught,
but my patch set that this is a preparation to will fix them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61150
llvm-svn: 363226
see if my changes change anything
Also add baseline tests to show effect of later patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61150
llvm-svn: 363222
Rather than gating on "isSwitchDense" (resulting in necessesarily
sparse lookup tables even when they were generated), always run
this quite cheap transform.
This transform is useful not just for generating tables.
LowerSwitch also wants this: read LowerSwitch.cpp:257.
Be careful to not generate worse code, by introducing a
SubThreshold heuristic.
Instead of just sorting by signed, generalize the finding of the
best base.
And now that it is run unconditionally, do not replicate its
functionality in SwitchToLookupTable (which could use a Sub
when having a hole is smaller, hence the SubThreshold
heuristic located in a single place).
This simplifies SwitchToLookupTable, and fixes
some ugly corner cases due to the use of signed numbers,
such as a table containing i16 32768 and 32769, of which
32769 would be interpreted as -32768, and now the code thinks
the table is size 65536.
(We still use unconditional subtraction when building a single-register mask,
but I think this whole block should go when the more general sparse
map is added, which doesn't leave empty holes in the table.)
And the reason test4 and test5 did not trigger was documented wrong:
it was because they were not considered sufficiently "dense".
Also, fix generation of invalid LLVM-IR: shl by bit-width.
llvm-svn: 361727
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Previously the alignment on the newly created switch table data was not set,
meaning that DataLayout::getPreferredAlignment was free to overalign it to 16
bytes. This causes unnecessary code bloat.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51800
llvm-svn: 342039
If after if-conversion, most of the instructions in this new BB construct a long and slow dependence chain, it may be slower than cmp/branch, even if the branch has a high miss rate, because the control dependence is transformed into data dependence, and control dependence can be speculated, and thus, the second part can execute in parallel with the first part on modern OOO processor.
This patch checks for the long dependence chain, and give up if-conversion if find one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39352
llvm-svn: 321377
This is no-functional-change-intended.
This is repackaging the functionality of D30333 (defer switch-to-lookup-tables) and
D35411 (defer folding unconditional branches) with pass parameters rather than a named
"latesimplifycfg" pass. Now that we have individual options to control the functionality,
we could decouple when these fire (but that's an independent patch if desired).
The next planned step would be to add another option bit to disable the sinking transform
mentioned in D38566. This should also make it clear that the new pass manager needs to
be updated to limit simplifycfg in the same way as the old pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38631
llvm-svn: 316835
This was intended to be no-functional-change, but it's not - there's a test diff.
So I thought I should stop here and post it as-is to see if this looks like what was expected
based on the discussion in PR34603:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
Notes:
1. The test improvement occurs because the existing 'LateSimplifyCFG' marker is not carried
through the recursive calls to 'SimplifyCFG()->SimplifyCFGOpt().run()->SimplifyCFG()'.
The parameter isn't passed down, so we pick up the default value from the function signature
after the first level. I assumed that was a bug, so I've passed 'Options' down in all of the
'SimplifyCFG' calls.
2. I split 'LateSimplifyCFG' into 2 bits: ConvertSwitchToLookupTable and KeepCanonicalLoops.
This would theoretically allow us to differentiate the transforms controlled by those params
independently.
3. We could stash the optional AssumptionCache pointer and 'LoopHeaders' pointer in the struct too.
I just stopped here to minimize the diffs.
4. Similarly, I stopped short of messing with the pass manager layer. I have another question that
could wait for the follow-up: why is the new pass manager creating the pass with LateSimplifyCFG
set to true no matter where in the pipeline it's creating SimplifyCFG passes?
// Create an early function pass manager to cleanup the output of the
// frontend.
EarlyFPM.addPass(SimplifyCFGPass());
-->
/// \brief Construct a pass with the default thresholds
/// and switch optimizations.
SimplifyCFGPass::SimplifyCFGPass()
: BonusInstThreshold(UserBonusInstThreshold),
LateSimplifyCFG(true) {} <-- switches get converted to lookup tables and loops may not be in canonical form
If this is unintended, then it's possible that the current behavior of dropping the 'LateSimplifyCFG'
setting via recursion was masking this bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38138
llvm-svn: 314308
I noticed this inefficiency while investigating PR34603:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
This fix will likely push another bug (we don't maintain state of 'LateSimplifyCFG')
into hiding, but I'll try to clean that up with a follow-up patch anyway.
llvm-svn: 313829
move test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/disable-lookup-table.ll into test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/X86/disable-lookup-table.ll to avoid test failure when X86 backend is not enabled
llvm-svn: 309487
Summary:
When simplifying unconditional branches from empty blocks, we pre-test if the
BB belongs to a set of loop headers and keep the block to prevent passes from
destroying canonical loop structure. However, the current algorithm fails if
the destination of the branch is a loop header. Especially when such a loop's
latch block is folded into loop header it results in additional backedges and
LoopSimplify turns it into a nested loop which prevent later optimizations
from being applied (e.g., loop unrolling and loop interleaving).
This patch augments the existing algorithm by further checking if the
destination of the branch belongs to a set of loop headers and defer
eliminating it if yes to LateSimplifyCFG.
Fixes PR33605: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33605
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: ashutosh.nema, gberry, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35411
llvm-svn: 308422
This patch appends the name of the function to the switch generated lookup
table. This will ease the visual debugging in identifying the function the table
is generated from.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34817
llvm-svn: 306867
The first variant contains all current transformations except
transforming switches into lookup tables. The second variant
contains all current transformations.
The switch-to-lookup-table conversion results in code that is more
difficult to analyze and optimize by other passes. Most importantly,
it can inhibit Dead Code Elimination. As such it is often beneficial to
only apply this transformation very late. A common example is inlining,
which can often result in range restrictions for the switch expression.
Changes in execution time according to LNT:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/fp-convert +3.03%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -11.20%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/perimeter/perimeter -10.43%
and a couple of smaller changes. For perimeter it also results 2.6%
a smaller binary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30333
llvm-svn: 298799
GetCaseResults assumed that a terminator with one successor was an
unconditional branch. This is not necessarily the case, it could be a
cleanupret.
Strengthen the check by querying whether or not the terminator is
exceptional.
llvm-svn: 283517
