There are multiple possible ways to represent the X - urem X, Y pattern. SCEV was not canonicalizing, and thus, depending on which you analyzed, you could get different results. The sub representation appears to produce strictly inferior results in practice, so I decided to canonicalize to the Y * X/Y version.
The motivation here is that runtime unroll produces the sub X - (and X, Y-1) pattern when Y is a power of two. SCEV is thus unable to recognize that an unrolled loop exits because we don't figure out that the new unrolled step evenly divides the trip count of the unrolled loop. After instcombine runs, we convert the the andn form which SCEV recognizes, so essentially, this is just fixing a nasty pass ordering dependency.
The ARM loop hardware interaction in the test diff is opague to me, but the comments in the review from others knowledge of the infrastructure appear to indicate these are improvements in loop recognition, not regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114018
No need to count the final shuffle cost for the constants, gathering of
the constants is just a constant vector + extra inserts, if required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113770
rGf39978b84f1d3a1da6c32db48f64c8daae64b3ad led to and/or exposed
an issue with IndVarSimplification for a loop where a i32 phi node is
no longer replaced by a widened (i64) phi node, because the SCEVs of a
sign-extend no longer folded the same way. I'm unsure how to properly
explain this because it's all rather complicated, but in short: SCEVs
don't fold as nicely as they used to and this caused a difference.
While investigating this, I found that IndVarSimplify can actually
optimise the case in the way we want to if it chooses the widened IV to
be 'signed' (the i32 IV is both sign and zero-extended). Oddly enough,
there is some level of indeterminism in the way the algorithm works,
it just picks the sign of the 'first' zext/sext user, where the order of
the users-iterator is not guaranteed to be the same on each invocation
of the pass (e.g. shown by first running loop-rotate, which puts the
users in a different order).
While I think the fix is valid in the sense that consistently picking
_any_ order is better than having an nondeterministic order, I can
use a bit of advice from people more familiar in this area of the
code-base.
For example, I'm not sure if this fix is hiding another issue where the
IndVarSimplify pass could actually draw the same conclusions (i.e. that
it only needs an i64 phi node) if it does a bit more work, regardless
of whether it chooses the induction variable to be signed or unsigned.
I'm also not sure if choosing signed is better than unsigned, or whether
that just happens to be beneficial only in this individual case.
Any feedback would be much appreciated!
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112573
InstCombine AArch64 LD1/ST1 to llvm.masked.load/llvm.masked.store
and LD1/ST1 to load/store when a ptrue all predicate pattern operand
is present.
This allows existing IR optimizations such as dead-load removal to
occur.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113489
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructionshttps://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
A bunch of scalars can be treated as a splat not only if all elements
are the same but also if some of them are undefvalues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113774
If the vector intrinsic has scalar argument, we currently still create
a tree entry for this argument. This entry is not used, just consumes
resources and increases the cost of the tree.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113806
At the moment, computeRecurrenceType does not include any sign bits in
the maximum bit width. If the value can be negative, this means the sign
bit will be missing and the sext won't properly extend the value.
If the value can be negative, increment the bitwidth by one to make sure
there is at least one sign bit in the result value.
Note that the increment is also needed *if* the value is *known* to be
negative, as a sign bit needs to be preserved for the sext to work.
Note that this at the moment prevents vectorization, because the
analysis computes i1 as type for the recurrence when looking through the
AND in lookThroughAnd.
Fixes PR51794, PR52485.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113056
This modifies the preconditions of TypePromotion's isSafeWrap
method, to allow it to work from all constants from the ICmp.
Using the code:
%a = add %x, C1
%c = icmp ult %a, C2
According to Alive, we can prove that is equivalent to
icmp ult (add zext(%x), sext(C1)), zext(C2) given
C1 <=s 0 and C1 >s C2.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/CECYZB
Which is similar to what is already present. We can also
prove icmp ult (add zext(%x), sext(C1)), sext(C2) given
C1 <=s 0 and C1 <=s C2.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/KKgyeL
The PrepareWrappingAdds method was removed, and the
constants are now altered to sext or zext directly as
required by the above methods.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113678
This is one of those wonderful "in theory X doesn't matter, but in practice is does" changes. In this particular case, we shift the IVs inserted by the runtime unroller to clamp iteration count of the loops* from decrementing to incrementing.
Why does this matter? A couple of reasons:
* SCEV doesn't have a native subtract node. Instead, all subtracts (A - B) are represented as A + -1 * B and drops any flags invalidated by such. As a result, SCEV is slightly less good at reasoning about edge cases involving decrementing addrecs than incrementing ones. (You can see this in the inferred flags in some of the test cases.)
* Other parts of the optimizer produce incrementing IVs, and they're common in idiomatic source language. We do have support for reversing IVs, but in general if we produce one of each, the pair will persist surprisingly far through the optimizer before being coalesced. (You can see this looking at nearby phis in the test cases.)
Note that if the hardware prefers decrementing (i.e. zero tested) loops, LSR should convert back immediately before codegen.
* Mostly irrelevant detail: The main loop of the prolog case is handled independently and will simple use the original IV with a changed start value. We could in theory use this scheme for all iteration clamping, but that's a larger and more invasive change.
The unrolling code was previously inserting new cloned blocks at the end of the function. The result of this with typical loop structures is that the new iterations are placed far from the initial iteration.
With unrolling, the general assumption is that the a) the loop is reasonable hot, and b) the first Count-1 copies of the loop are rarely (if ever) loop exiting. As such, placing Count-1 copies out of line is a fairly poor code placement choice. We'd much rather fall through into the hot (non-exiting) path. For code with branch profiles, later layout would fix this, but this may have a positive impact on non-PGO compiled code.
However, the real motivation for this change isn't performance. Its readability and human understanding. Having to jump around long distances in an IR file to trace an unrolled loop structure is error prone and tedious.
This case was complicated because someone had added new non-autogened test to an autogened file. In particular, those new tests used two variables (%J and %j) which differeded only in capitalization. The auto-updater doesn't distinguish case, so this meant auto-gened versions of the new tests failed with non-obvious errors.
There are two key lessons here:
1) Please don't use two values which differ only in case. This is problematic for automatic tooling, but is also hard to understand for a human.
2) Please DO NOT add new tests to an autogened test without running autogen again. If autogen doesn't pass on your new test, put them in a separate file.
`collectElementTypesForWidening` collects the types of load, store and
reduction Phis in a loop. These types are later checked using
`isElementTypeLegalForScalableVector` to prevent vectorisation of
loops with instruction types that are unsupported.
This patch removes i1 from the list of types supported for scalable
vectors. This fixes an assert ("Cannot yet scalarize uniform stores") in
`setCostBasedWideningDecision` when we have a loop containing a uniform
i1 store and a scalable VF, which we cannot create a scatter for.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113680
Need to fix ther cost estimation for split loads, since we look at the
subregs already, no need to permute them, need just to estimate
subregister insert, if it is smaller than the real register. Also, using
split loads, it might be profitable already to vectorize smaller trees
with gathering of the loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107188
This patch extends the existing out-of-bounds store tests with a case
with a bigger object and multiple inbounds stores, followed by an OOB
store. The OOB store is not used to remove the inbounds stores in this
case at the moment.
For the scalar/splat case, this fold is subsumed by
foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps(). However, the conjugated fold for "or"
also supports splats with undef. Make both code paths consistent
by using m_ZeroInt() for the "and" implementation as well.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tN63cuhttps://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ufB_Ue
Tests for:
```
(a | ~(b & c)) & ~(a & (b ^ c)) --> ~(a | b) | (a ^ b ^ c)
(~(a & b) | c) & ~(a & (b & c)) -> ~(a & b)
(~(a & b) | c) & ~(b & (a & c)) -> ~(a & b)
(~a | b | c) & ~(a & b & c) -> ~a | (b ^ c)
(~a | b | c) & ~(a & b) -> (c & ~b) | ~a
```
When folding and/or of icmps, look through add of a constant and
adjust the icmp range instead. Effectively, this decomposes
X + C1 < C2 style range checks back into a normal range. This allows
us to fold comparisons involving two range checks or one range check
and some other condition. We had a fold for a really specific case
of this (or of range check and eq, and only one one side!) while
this handles it in fully generality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113510
Since there is just a single check for LHS in ~(A | B) & C | ...
transforms and multiple RHS checks inside with more coming I am
removing m_OneUse checks for LHS and adding new checks for RHS.
This is non essential as long as there is total benefit.
In addition (~(A | B) & C) | (~(A | C) & B) --> (B ^ C) & ~A
checks were overly restrictive, it should be good without any
additional checks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113141
A problem was noted in the post-commit review for
c36b7e21bd8f04a44d6 / D113035 :
If the source type is not integer or integer vector,
then we could crash when trying to ComputeNumSignBits().
Unfortunately sinking recipes for first-order recurrences relies on
the original position of recipes. So if a recipes needs to be sunk after
an optimized induction, it needs to stay in the original position, until
sinking is done. This is causing PR52460.
To fix the crash, keep the recipes in the original position until
sink-after is done.
Post-commit follow-up to c45045bfd04af9 to address PR52460.
