CodeExtractor shifts dbg.value intrinsics out of the region being
extracted and updates them to be appropriate in the extracted function.
With new non-intrinsic variable locations, we need to manually do this
too, with DPValues.
Most of this patch shifts and refactors some utilities in
fixupDebugInfoPostExtraction so that we can add a single extra helper
lambda that iterates over DPValues and applies update-utilities. We also
have to assign the IsNewDbgInfoFormat flag in a bunch of places -- this
normally gets set the moment you insert a block into a function (or
function into a module), however a few blocks are constructed here
before being inserted, thus we have to do some manual setup.
Tested via LoopExtractor_alloca.ll, which invokes debugify.
BlockFrequencyInfo calculates block frequencies as Scaled64 numbers but as a last step converts them to unsigned 64bit integers (`BlockFrequency`). This improves the factors picked for this conversion so that:
* Avoid big numbers close to UINT64_MAX to avoid users overflowing/saturating when adding multiply frequencies together or when multiplying with integers. This leaves the topmost 10 bits unused to allow for some room.
* Spread the difference between hottest/coldest block as much as possible to increase precision.
* If the hot/cold spread cannot be represented loose precision at the lower end, but keep the frequencies at the upper end for hot blocks differentiable.
This is a follow-up to b71edfaa4ec3c998aadb35255ce2f60bba2940b0
since I forgot the lit.local.cfg files in that one.
Reformatting is done with `black`.
If you end up having problems merging this commit because you
have made changes to a python file, the best way to handle that
is to run git checkout --ours <yourfile> and then reformat it
with black.
If you run into any problems, post to discourse about it and
we will try to help.
RFC Thread below:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-document-and-standardize-python-code-style
Reviewed By: barannikov88, kwk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150762
A few more that I missed in commit 3528e63d89305907b3d6e.
There could be more duplicates remaining, since I've only focused
on exactly duplicated "RUN: opt" lines (ignoring multi line RUN
lines ending with '\').
Following some recent discussions, this changes the representation
of callbrs in IR. The current blockaddress arguments are replaced
with `!` label constraints that refer directly to callbr indirect
destinations:
; Before:
%res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,i"(i8* %x, i8* blockaddress(@test8, %foo))
to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]
; After:
%res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,!i"(i8* %x)
to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]
The benefit of this is that we can easily update the successors of
a callbr, without having to worry about also updating blockaddress
references. This should allow us to remove some limitations:
* Allow unrolling/peeling/rotation of callbr, or any other
clone-based optimizations
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41834)
* Allow duplicate successors
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/45248)
This is just the IR representation change though, I will follow up
with patches to remove limtations in various transformation passes
that are no longer needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129288
Support for the legacy pass manager in ArgPromotion causes
complications in D125485. As the legacy pass manager for middle-end
optimizations is unsupported, drop ArgPromotion from the legacy
pipeline, rather than introducing additional complexity to deal
with it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128536
This enabled opaque pointers by default in LLVM. The effect of this
is twofold:
* If IR that contains *neither* explicit ptr nor %T* types is passed
to tools, we will now use opaque pointer mode, unless
-opaque-pointers=0 has been explicitly passed.
* Users of LLVM as a library will now default to opaque pointers.
It is possible to opt-out by calling setOpaquePointers(false) on
LLVMContext.
A cmake option to toggle this default will not be provided. Frontends
or other tools that want to (temporarily) keep using typed pointers
should disable opaque pointers via LLVMContext.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689
According to the current design, if a floating point operation is
represented by a constrained intrinsic somewhere in a function, all
floating point operations in the function must be represented by
constrained intrinsics. It imposes additional requirements to inlining
mechanism. If non-strictfp function is inlined into strictfp function,
all ordinary FP operations must be replaced with their constrained
counterparts.
Inlining strictfp function into non-strictfp is not implemented as it
would require replacement of all FP operations in the host function,
which now is undesirable due to expected performance loss.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69798
Fixing ICE when partial inline tries to deal with blockaddress uses of function which is typical for asm-goto/callbr. We ran into this with PGO multi-region partial inline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117509
Make the penalty for splitting a region more accurately reflect the cost
of materializing all of the inputs/outputs to/from the region.
This almost entirely eliminates code growth within functions which
undergo splitting in key internal frameworks, and reduces the size of
those frameworks between 2.6% to 3%.
rdar://49167240
Patch by: Vedant Kumar(@vsk)
Reviewers: hiraditya,rjf,t.p.northover
Reviewed By: hiraditya,rjf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59715
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an attribute((no_stack_protector)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
SSP attributes can be ordered by strength. Weakest to strongest, they
are: ssp, sspstrong, sspreq. Callees with differing SSP attributes may be
inlined into each other, and the strongest attribute will be applied to the
caller. (No change)
After this change:
* A callee with no SSP attributes will no longer be inlined into a
caller with SSP attributes.
* The reverse is also true: a callee with an SSP attribute will not be
inlined into a caller with no SSP attributes.
* The alwaysinline attribute overrides these rules.
Functions that get synthesized by the compiler may not get inlined as a
result if they are not created with the same stack protector function
attribute as their callers.
Alternative approach to https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956.
Fixes pr/47479.
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed By: rnk, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91816
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
It's currently ambiguous in IR whether the source language explicitly
did not want a stack a stack protector (in C, via function attribute
no_stack_protector) or doesn't care for any given function.
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an __attribute__((__no_stack_protector__)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
Typically, when inlining a callee into a caller, the caller will be
upgraded in its level of stack protection (see adjustCallerSSPLevel()).
By adding an explicit attribute in the IR when the function attribute is
used in the source language, we can now identify such cases and prevent
inlining. Block inlining when the callee and caller differ in the case that one
contains `nossp` when the other has `ssp`, `sspstrong`, or `sspreq`.
Fixes pr/47479.
Reviewed By: void
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956
This reverts commit 26ee8aff2b85ee28a2b2d0b1860d878b512fbdef.
It's necessary to insert bitcast the pointer operand of a lifetime
marker if it has an opaque pointer type.
rdar://70560161
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.
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
Looks like this pass isn't really used and hasn't been worked on in a
loooong time.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89010
-loop-extract-single is just -loop-extract on one loop.
-loop-extract depended on -break-crit-edges and -loop-simplify in the
legacy PM, but the NPM doesn't allow specifying pass dependencies like
that, so manually add those passes to the RUN lines where necessary.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89016
We should only skip `lifetime` and `dbg` intrinsics when searching for users.
Other intrinsics are legit users that can't be ignored.
Without this fix, the testcase would result in an invalid IR. `memcpy`
will have a reference to the, now, external value (local to the
extracted loop function).
Fix PR42194
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78749
The LoopExtractor created new functions (by definition), which violates
the restrictions of a LoopPass.
The correct implementation of this pass should be as a ModulePass.
Includes reverting rL82990 implications on the LoopExtractor.
Fixes PR3082 and PR8929.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69069
During extraction, stale llvm.assume handles may be retained in the
original function. The setup is:
1) CodeExtractor unregisters assumptions in the blocks that are to be
extracted.
2) Extraction happens. There are now two functions: f1 and f1.extracted.
3) Leftover assumptions in f1 (/not/ removed as they were not in the set of
blocks to be extracted) now have affected-value llvm.assume handles in
f1.extracted.
When assumptions for a value used in f1 are looked up, ValueTracking can assert
as some of the handles are in the wrong function. To fix this, simply erase the
llvm.assume calls in the extracted function.
Alternatives include flushing the assumption cache in the original function, or
walking all values used in the original function to prune stale affected-value
handles. Both seem more expensive.
Testing: check-llvm, LNT run with -mllvm -hot-cold-split enabled
rdar://58460728
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
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
If a lifetime.end marker occurs along one path through the extraction
region, but not another, then it's still incorrect to lift the marker,
because there is some path through the extracted function which would
ordinarily not reach the marker. If the call to the extracted function
is in a loop, unrolling can cause inputs to the function to become
optimized out as undef after the first iteration.
To prevent incorrect stack slot merging in the calling function, it
should be sufficient to lift lifetime.start markers for region inputs.
I've tested this theory out by doing a stage2 check-all with randomized
splitting enabled.
This is a follow-up to r353973, and there's additional context for this
change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834.
rdar://47896986
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58253
llvm-svn: 354159
Summary: Assumption cache's self-updating mechanism does not correctly handle the case when blocks are extracted from the function by the CodeExtractor. As a result function's assumption cache may have stale references to the llvm.assume calls that were moved to the outlined function. This patch fixes this problem by removing extracted llvm.assume calls from the function’s assumption cache.
Reviewers: hfinkel, vsk, fhahn, davidxl, sanjoy
Reviewed By: hfinkel, vsk
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57215
llvm-svn: 353500
CodeExtractor permits extracting a region of blocks from a function even
when values defined within the region are used outside of it.
This is typically done by creating an alloca in the original function
and reloading the alloca after a call to the extracted function.
Wrap the reload in lifetime start/end markers to promote stack coloring.
Suggested by Sergei Kachkov!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56045
llvm-svn: 351621
Lifetime markers which reference inputs to the extraction region are not
safe to extract. Example ('rhs' will be extracted):
```
entry:
+------------+
| x = alloca |
| y = alloca |
+------------+
/ \
lhs: rhs:
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| lifetime_start(x) | | lifetime_start(x) |
| use(x) | | lifetime_start(y) |
| lifetime_end(x) | | use(x, y) |
| lifetime_start(y) | | lifetime_end(y) |
| use(y) | | lifetime_end(x) |
| lifetime_end(y) | +-------------------+
+-------------------+
```
Prior to extraction, the stack coloring pass sees that the slots for 'x'
and 'y' are in-use at the same time. After extraction, the coloring pass
infers that 'x' and 'y' are *not* in-use concurrently, because markers
from 'rhs' are no longer available to help decide otherwise.
This leads to a miscompile, because the stack slots actually are in-use
concurrently in the extracted function.
Fix this by moving lifetime start/end markers for memory regions defined
in the calling function around the call to the extracted function.
Fixes llvm.org/PR39671 (rdar://45939472).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55967
llvm-svn: 350420
InlineCost also treats them as free and the current implementation
can cause assertion failures if PHI nodes are moved outside the region
from entry BBs to the region.
It also updates the code to use the instructionsWithoutDebug iterator.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, vsk, graham-yiu-huawei
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54748
llvm-svn: 347683
Summary:
The current default of appending "_"+entry block label to the new
extracted cold function breaks demangling. Change the deliminator from
"_" to "." to enable demangling. Because the header block label will
be empty for release compile code, use "extracted" after the "." when
the label is empty.
Additionally, add a mechanism for the client to pass in an alternate
suffix applied after the ".", and have the hot cold split pass use
"cold."+Count, where the Count is currently 1 but can be used to
uniquely number multiple cold functions split out from the same function
with D53588.
Reviewers: sebpop, hiraditya
Subscribers: llvm-commits, erik.pilkington
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53534
llvm-svn: 345178
Currently CodeExtractor tries to use the next node after an invoke to
place the store for the result of the invoke, if it is an out parameter
of the region. This fails, as the invoke terminates the current BB.
In that case, we can place the store in the 'normal destination' BB, as
the result will only be available in that case.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51037
llvm-svn: 340331
This is a CodeExtractor improvement which adds support for extracting blocks
which have exception handling constructs if that is legal to do. CodeExtractor
performs validation checks to ensure that extraction is legal when it finds
invoke instructions or EH pads (landingpad, catchswitch, or cleanuppad) in
blocks to be extracted.
I have also added an option to allow extraction of blocks with alloca
instructions, but no validation is done for allocas. CodeExtractor caller has
to validate it himself before allowing alloca instructions to be extracted.
By default allocas are still not allowed in extraction blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45904
llvm-svn: 332151
