If the blockaddress is not destoryed, the destination block will still
be marked as having its address taken, limiting further transformations.
I think there are other places where the dead blockaddress constants are kept
around, I'll look into that as follow up.
Reviewers: craig.topper, brzycki, davide
Reviewed By: brzycki, davide
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64936
llvm-svn: 366633
If the legality check is `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s>= 0`,
then we can simplify it to `shiftNbits u>= maskNbits`,
which is easier to check for.
However, currently switching the `dropRedundantMaskingOfLeftShiftInput()`
to `SimplifyICmpInst()` does not catch these cases and regresses
currently-handled cases, so i'll leave it as is for now.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/25P
llvm-svn: 366564
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
f. `((x << MaskShAmt) a>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
f. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
Normally, the inner pattern is sign-extend,
but for our purposes it's no different to other patterns:
alive proofs:
f: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/7U3
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64524
llvm-svn: 366540
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
e. `((x << MaskShAmt) l>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
e. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
e: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0FT
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64521
llvm-svn: 366539
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
d. `(x & ((-1 << MaskShAmt) >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
d. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
d: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/I5Y
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64519
llvm-svn: 366538
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
c. `(x & (-1 >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
c. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
c: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/RgJh
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64517
llvm-svn: 366537
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
b. `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
b. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/y8M
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64514
llvm-svn: 366536
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
a. `(x & ((1 << MaskShAmt) - 1)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
a. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
a: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wi9
Indeed, not all of these patterns are canonical.
But since this fold will only produce a single instruction
i'm really interested in handling even uncanonical patterns,
since i have this general kind of pattern in hotpaths,
and it is not totally outlandish for bit-twiddling code.
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64512
llvm-svn: 366535
Summary:
- As the pointer stripping now tracks through `addrspacecast`, prepare
to handle the bit-width difference from the result pointer.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, arphaman, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64928
llvm-svn: 366470
Summary:
Since the target has no significant advantage of vectorization,
vector instructions bous threshold bonus should be optional.
amdgpu-inline-arg-alloca-cost parameter default value and the target
InliningThresholdMultiplier value tuned then respectively.
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec
Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, eraman, hiraditya, haicheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64642
llvm-svn: 366348
Summary:
Deduce the "willreturn" attribute for functions.
For now, intrinsics are not willreturn. More annotation will be done in another patch.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, nicholas, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63046
llvm-svn: 366335
Summary:
- As the pointer stripping could trace through `addrspacecast` now, need
to sext/trunc the offset to ensure it has the same width as the
pointer after stripping.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64768
llvm-svn: 366162
As there are some reported miscompiles with AVX512 and performance regressions
in Eigen. Verified with the original committer and testcases will be forthcoming.
This reverts commit r364964.
llvm-svn: 366154
Summary:
There is currently a correctness issue when unrolling loops containing
callbr's where their indirect targets are being updated correctly to the
newly created labels, but their operands are not. This manifests in
unrolled loops where the second and subsequent copies of callbr
instructions have blockaddresses of the label from the first instance of
the unrolled loop, which would result in nonsensical runtime control
flow.
For now, conservatively do not unroll the loop. In the future, I think
we can pursue unrolling such loops provided we transform the cloned
callbr's operands correctly.
Such a transform and its legalities are being discussed in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64101
Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
Link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clang-built-linux/z-hRWP9KqPI
Reviewers: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits, pirama, kees, nathanchance, E5ten, craig.topper, chandlerc, glider, void, srhines
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64368
llvm-svn: 366130
Add "memtag" sanitizer that detects and mitigates stack memory issues
using armv8.5 Memory Tagging Extension.
It is similar in principle to HWASan, which is a software implementation
of the same idea, but there are enough differencies to warrant a new
sanitizer type IMHO. It is also expected to have very different
performance properties.
The new sanitizer does not have a runtime library (it may grow one
later, along with a "debugging" mode). Similar to SafeStack and
StackProtector, the instrumentation pass (in a follow up change) will be
inserted in all cases, but will only affect functions marked with the
new sanitize_memtag attribute.
Reviewers: pcc, hctim, vitalybuka, ostannard
Subscribers: srhines, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, cryptoad, steven_wu, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64169
llvm-svn: 366123
There are scenarios where mutually recursive functions may cause the SCC
to contain both read only and write only functions. This removes an
assertion when adding read attributes which caused a crash with a the
provided test case, and instead just doesn't add the attributes.
Patch by Luke Lau <luke.lau@intel.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60761
llvm-svn: 366090
It is possible that loop exit has two predecessors in a loop body.
In this case after the peeling the iDom of the exit should be a clone of
iDom of original exit but no a clone of a block coming to this exit.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64618
llvm-svn: 366050
We do not compute the scalarization overhead in getVectorIntrinsicCost
and TTI::getIntrinsicInstrCost requires the full arguments list.
llvm-svn: 366049
This CL enables peeling of the loop with multiple exits where
one exit should be from latch and others are basic blocks with
call to deopt.
The peeling is enabled under the flag which is false by default.
Reviewers: reames, mkuper, iajbar, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63923
llvm-svn: 366048
Loop invariant operands do not need to be scalarized, as we are using
the values outside the loop. We should ignore them when computing the
scalarization overhead.
Fixes PR41294
Reviewers: hsaito, rengolin, dcaballe, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59995
llvm-svn: 366030
This reverts commit rL365999 / 0f6148df23edcd3081f5e761de19edd4f823f16d.
The tests already exist in this file, and the hoped-for transform
(mentioned in D62871) is invalid because of undef as discussed in
D63060.
llvm-svn: 366000
Continue in the spirit of D63618, and use exit count reasoning to prove away loop exits which can not be taken since the backedge taken count of the loop as a whole is provably less than the minimal BE count required to take this particular loop exit.
As demonstrated in the newly added tests, this triggers in a number of cases where IndVars was previously unable to discharge obviously redundant exit tests. And some not so obvious ones.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63733
llvm-svn: 365920
Introduce and deduce "nosync" function attribute to indicate that a function
does not synchronize with another thread in a way that other thread might free memory.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, jfb, nhaehnle, arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, hfinkel, nhaenhle, mehdi_amini, steven_wu,
dexonsmith, arsenm, uenoku, hiraditya, jfb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62766
llvm-svn: 365830
This patch replaces the three almost identical "strip & accumulate"
implementations for constant pointer offsets with a single one,
combining the respective functionalities. The old interfaces are kept
for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64468
llvm-svn: 365723
An alloca which can be sunk into the extraction region may have more
than one bitcast use. Move these uses along with the alloca to prevent
use-before-def.
Testing: check-llvm, stage2 build of clang
Fixes llvm.org/PR42451.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64463
llvm-svn: 365660
alive proofs:
a,b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/4zsf
c,d,e,f: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/RC49
Indeed, not all of these patterns are canonical.
But since this fold will only produce a single instruction
i'm really interested in handling even uncanonical patterns.
Other than these 6 patterns, i can't think of any other
reasonable variants right now, although i'm sure they exist.
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
llvm-svn: 365641
Summary:
Transform
pow(C,x)
To
exp2(log2(C)*x)
if C > 0, C != inf, C != NaN (and C is not power of 2, since we have some fold for such case already).
log(C) is folded by the compiler and exp2 is much faster to compute than pow.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, evandro
Reviewed By: evandro
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64099
llvm-svn: 365637
Only instructions with two or more unique successors should be considered for unswitching.
Patch Author: Daniil Suchkov.
Reviewers: reames, asbirlea, skatkov
Reviewed By: skatkov
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64404
llvm-svn: 365611
