The new pass walks kernel's pointer arguments, then loads from them.
If a loaded value is a pointer and loaded pointer is unmodified in
the kernel before the load, then promote loaded pointer to global.
Then recursively continue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111464
DSE will currently only remove stores in the same block unless they can
be guaranteed to be loop invariant. This expands that to any stores that
are in the same Loop, at the same loop level. This should still account
for where AA/MSSA will not handle aliasing between loops, but allow the
dead stores to be removed where they overlap in the same loop iteration.
It requires adding loop info to DSE, but that looks fairly harmless.
The test case this helps is from code like this, which can come up in
certain matrix operations:
for(i=..)
dst[i] = 0;
for(j=..)
dst[i] += src[i*n+j];
After LICM, this becomes:
for(i=..)
dst[i] = 0;
sum = 0;
for(j=..)
sum += src[i*n+j];
dst[i] = sum;
The first store is dead, and with this patch is now removed.
Differntial Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100464
Don't propagate launch bound related attributes to
address taken functions and their callees. The idea
is to do a traversal over the call graph starting at
address taken functions and erase the attributes
set by previous logic i.e. process().
This two phase approach makes sure that we don't
miss out on deep nested callees from address taken
functions as a function might be called directly as
well as indirectly.
This patch is also reattempt to D94585 as latent issues
are fixed in hasAddressTaken function in the recent
past.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103138
DSE will currently only remove stores in the same block unless they can
be guaranteed to be loop invariant. This expands that to any stores that
are in the same Loop, at the same loop level. This should still account
for where AA/MSSA will not handle aliasing between loops, but allow the
dead stores to be removed where they overlap in the same loop iteration.
It requires adding loop info to DSE, but that looks fairly harmless.
The test case this helps is from code like this, which can come up in
certain matrix operations:
for(i=..)
dst[i] = 0;
for(j=..)
dst[i] += src[i*n+j];
After LICM, this becomes:
for(i=..)
dst[i] = 0;
sum = 0;
for(j=..)
sum += src[i*n+j];
dst[i] = sum;
The first store is dead, and with this patch is now removed.
Differntial Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100464
Retry of 330619a3a623 that includes a clang test update.
Original commit message:
If we run passes before lowering llvm.expect intrinsics to metadata,
then those passes have no way to act on the hints provided by llvm.expect.
SimplifyCFG is the known offender, and we made it smarter about profile
metadata in D98898 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98898>.
In the motivating example from https://llvm.org/PR49336 , this means we
were ignoring the recommended method for a programmer to tell the compiler
that a compare+branch is expensive. This change appears to solve that case -
the metadata survives to the backend, the compare order is as expected in IR,
and the backend does not do anything to reverse it.
We make the same change to the old pass manager to keep things synchronized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100213
If we run passes before lowering llvm.expect intrinsics to metadata,
then those passes have no way to act on the hints provided by llvm.expect.
SimplifyCFG is the known offender, and we made it smarter about profile
metadata in D98898.
In the motivating example from https://llvm.org/PR49336 , this means we
were ignoring the recommended method for a programmer to tell the compiler
that a compare+branch is expensive. This change appears to solve that case -
the metadata survives to the backend, the compare order is as expected in IR,
and the backend does not do anything to reverse it.
We make the same change to the old pass manager to keep things synchronized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100213
After D99249 we use three different loop pass managers for LICM,
LoopRotate and LICM+LoopUnswitch. This happens because LazyBFI
and LazyBPI are not preserved by LoopRotate (note that D74640
is no longer needed). Avoid this by marking them as preserved.
My understanding of D86156 is that it is okay to simply preserve
them (which LoopUnswitch already does for the same reason) and
rely on callbacks to deal with deleted blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99843
Lookup tables generate non PIC-friendly code, which requires dynamic relocation as described in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45244
This patch adds a new pass that converts lookup tables to relative lookup tables to make them PIC-friendly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94355
Lookup tables generate non PIC-friendly code, which requires dynamic relocation as described in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45244
This patch adds a new pass that converts lookup tables to relative lookup tables to make them PIC-friendly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94355
Lookup tables generate non PIC-friendly code, which requires dynamic relocation as described in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45244
This patch adds a new pass that converts lookup tables to relative lookup tables to make them PIC-friendly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94355
This seems to be more of a Clang thing rather than a generic LLVM thing,
so this moves it out of LLVM pipelines and as Clang extension hooks into
LLVM pipelines.
Move the post-inline EEInstrumentation out of the backend pipeline and
into a late pass, similar to other sanitizer passes. It doesn't fit
into the codegen pipeline.
Also fix up EntryExitInstrumentation not running at -O0 under the new
PM. PR49143
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97608
This enables use of MemorySSA instead of MemDep in MemCpyOpt. To
allow this without significant compile-time impact, the MemCpyOpt
pass is moved directly before DSE (in the cases where this was not
already the case), which allows us to reuse the existing MemorySSA
analysis.
Unlike the MemDep-based implementation, the MemorySSA-based MemCpyOpt
can also perform simple optimizations across basic blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94376
Having a custom inliner doesn't really fit in with the new PM's
pipeline. It's also extra technical debt.
amdgpu-inline only does a couple of custom things compared to the normal
inliner:
1) It disables inlining if the number of BBs in a function would exceed
some limit
2) It increases the threshold if there are pointers to private arrays(?)
These can all be handled as TTI inliner hooks.
There already exists a hook for backends to multiply the inlining
threshold.
This way we can remove the custom amdgpu-inline pass.
This caused inline-hint.ll to fail, and after some investigation, it
looks like getInliningThresholdMultiplier() was previously getting
applied twice in amdgpu-inline (https://reviews.llvm.org/D62707 fixed it
not applying at all, so some later inliner change must have fixed
something), so I had to change the threshold in the test.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94153
Currently, `-indvars` runs first, and then immediately after `-loop-idiom` does.
I'm not really sure if `-loop-idiom` requires `-indvars` to run beforehand,
but i'm *very* sure that `-indvars` requires `-loop-idiom` to run afterwards,
as it can be seen in the phase-ordering test.
LoopIdiom runs on two types of loops: countable ones, and uncountable ones.
For uncountable ones, IndVars obviously didn't make any change to them,
since they are uncountable, so for them the order should be irrelevant.
For countable ones, well, they should have been countable before IndVars
for IndVars to make any change to them, and since SCEV is used on them,
it shouldn't matter if IndVars have already canonicalized them.
So i don't really see why we'd want the current ordering.
Should this cause issues, it will give us a reproducer test case
that shows flaws in this logic, and we then could adjust accordingly.
While this is quite likely beneficial in-the-wild already,
it's a required part for the full motivational pattern
behind `left-shift-until-bittest` loop idiom (D91038).
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91800
This patch adds a new pass to add !annotation metadata for entries in
@llvm.global.anotations, which is generated using
__attribute__((annotate("_name"))) on functions in Clang.
This has been discussed on llvm-dev as part of
RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html
Reviewed By: thegameg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91195
This patch adds a new !annotation metadata kind which can be used to
attach annotation strings to instructions.
It also adds a new pass that emits summary remarks per function with the
counts for each annotation kind.
The intended uses cases for this new metadata is annotating
'interesting' instructions and the remarks should provide additional
insight into transformations applied to a program.
To motivate this, consider these specific questions we would like to get answered:
* How many stores added for automatic variable initialization remain after optimizations? Where are they?
* How many runtime checks inserted by a frontend could be eliminated? Where are the ones that did not get eliminated?
Discussed on llvm-dev as part of 'RFC: Combining Annotation Metadata and Remarks'
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146393.html)
Reviewed By: thegameg, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91188
This broke Chromium's PGO build, it seems because hot-cold-splitting got turned
on unintentionally. See comment on the code review for repro etc.
> This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
> the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
> `-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
> correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
>
> To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
> functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
> removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
> behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
>
> Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
> Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
> Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 273c299d5d649a0222fbde03c9a41e41913751b4.
After investigation by @asbirlea, the issue that caused the
revert appears to be an issue in the original source, rather
than a problem with the compiler.
This patch enables MemorySSA DSE again.
This reverts commit 915310bf14cbac58a81fd60e0fa9dc8d341108e2.
This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
`-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
There appears to be a mis-compile with MemorySSA-backed DSE in
combination with llvm.lifetime.end. It currently appears like
DSE is doing the right thing and the llvm.lifetime.end markers
are incorrect. The reverted patch uncovers the mis-compile.
This patch temporarily switches back to the legacy DSE
implementation, while we investigate.
This reverts commit 9d172c8e9c845a36b61dc12c27de8acdbef8b247.
This switches to using DSE + MemorySSA by default again, after
fixing the issues reported after the first commit.
Notable fixes fc8200633122, a0017c2bc258.
This reverts commit 3a59628f3cc26eb085acfc9cbdc97243ef71a6c5.
The tests have been updated and I plan to move them from the MSSA
directory up.
Some end-to-end tests needed small adjustments. One difference to the
legacy DSE is that legacy DSE also deletes trivially dead instructions
that are unrelated to memory operations. Because MemorySSA-backed DSE
just walks the MemorySSA, we only visit/check memory instructions. But
removing unrelated dead instructions is not really DSE's job and other
passes will clean up.
One noteworthy change is in llvm/test/Transforms/Coroutines/ArgAddr.ll,
but I think this comes down to legacy DSE not handling instructions that
may throw correctly in that case. To cover this with MemorySSA-backed
DSE, we need an update to llvm.coro.begin to treat it's return value to
belong to the same underlying object as the passed pointer.
There are some minor cases MemorySSA-backed DSE currently misses, e.g. related
to atomic operations, but I think those can be implemented after the switch.
This has been discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-August/144417.html
For the MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 the number of eliminated stores
goes from ~17500 (legayc DSE) to ~26300 (MemorySSA-backed). More numbers
and details in the thread on llvm-dev.
Impact on CTMark:
```
Legacy Pass Manager
exec instrs size-text
O3 + 0.60% - 0.27%
ReleaseThinLTO + 1.00% - 0.42%
ReleaseLTO-g. + 0.77% - 0.33%
RelThinLTO (link only) + 0.87% - 0.42%
RelLO-g (link only) + 0.78% - 0.33%
```
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=3f22e96d95c71ded906c67067d75278efb0a2525&to=ae8be4642533ff03803967ee9d7017c0d73b0ee0&stat=instructions
```
New Pass Manager
exec instrs. size-text
O3 + 0.95% - 0.25%
ReleaseThinLTO + 1.34% - 0.41%
ReleaseLTO-g. + 1.71% - 0.35%
RelThinLTO (link only) + 0.96% - 0.41%
RelLO-g (link only) + 2.21% - 0.35%
```
http://195.201.131.214:8000/compare.php?from=3f22e96d95c71ded906c67067d75278efb0a2525&to=ae8be4642533ff03803967ee9d7017c0d73b0ee0&stat=instructions
Reviewed By: asbirlea, xbolva00, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87163
This is a followup to 1ccfb52a61748, which made a number of changes
including the apparently innocuous reordering of required passes in
MemCpyOptimizer. This however altered the creation order of BasicAA vs
Phi Values analysis, meaning BasicAA did not pick up PhiValues as a
cached result. Instead if we require MemoryDependence first it will
require PhiValuesAnalysis allowing BasicAA to use it for better results.
I don't claim this is an excellent design, but it fixes a nasty little
regressions where a query later in JumpThreading was getting worse
results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87027
Summary:
Analyses are preserved in MemCpyOptimizer.
Get analyses before running the pass and store the pointers, instead of
using lambdas and getting them every time on demand.
Reviewers: lenary, deadalnix, mehdi_amini, nikic, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74494
EarlyCSE was added with D75145, but the motivating test is
not regressed by removing the extra pass now. That might be
because VectorCombine altered the way it processes instructions,
or it might be from (re)moving VectorCombine in the pipeline.
The extra round of EarlyCSE appears to cost approximately
0.26% in compile-time as discussed in D80236, so we need some
evidence to justify its inclusion here, but we do not have
that (yet).
I suspect that between SLP and VectorCombine, we are creating
patterns that InstCombine and/or codegen are not prepared for,
but we will need to reduce those examples and include them as
PhaseOrdering and/or test-suite benchmarks.
As noted in D80236, moving the pass in the pipeline exposed this
shortcoming. Extra work to recalculate the alias results showed
up as a compile-time slowdown.
There are 2 known problem patterns shown in the test diffs here:
vector horizontal ops (an x86 specialization) and vector reductions.
SLP has greater ability to match and fold those than vector-combine,
so let SLP have first chance at that.
This is a quick fix while we continue to improve vector-combine and
possibly canonicalize to reduction intrinsics.
In the longer term, we should improve matching of these patterns
because if they were created in the "bad" forms shown here, then we
would miss optimizing them.
I'm not sure what is happening with alias analysis on the addsub test.
The old pass manager now shows an extra line for that, and we see an
improvement that comes from SLP vectorizing a store. I don't know
what's missing with the new pass manager to make that happen.
Strangely, I can't reproduce the behavior if I compile from C++ with
clang and invoke the new PM with "-fexperimental-new-pass-manager".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80236
Promote alloca to vector before SROA and loop unroll. If we manage
to eliminate allocas before unroll we may choose to unroll less.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80386
