This patch involves boolean ring to simplify logical operations. We can treat `&` as ring multiplication and `^` as ring addition.
So we need to canonicalize all other operations to `*` `+`. Like:
```
a & b -> a * b
a ^ b -> a + b
~a -> a + 1
a | b -> a * b + a + b
c ? a : b -> c * a + (c + 1) * b
```
In the code, we use a mask set to represent an expression. Every value that is not comes from logical operations could be a bit in the mask.
The mask itself is a multiplication chain. The mask set is an addiction chain.
We can calculate two expressions based on boolean algebras.
For now, the initial patch only enabled on and/or/xor, Later we can enhance the code step by step.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_ring
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142803
Extend CleanupPointerRootUsers to iterate over a worklist, add users of
constant expressions to the worklist to enable additional cleanups.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144468
This reverts commit 74ad19c25d7217d8f580a21d12fd4c784a1a0094.
test unittests/ProfileData/ProfileDataTests fails when built with
optimisations level -O1 with clang including this patch.
This work follows on from D142109 and addresses a possible regression
when we know the loop iteration counter cannot overflow.
When we know the overflow-check always evaluates to false, it's better to
use the other style of tail folding where it assumes a runtime check was
added, because that avoids having to calculate a modified trip-count.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142894
This avoids the danger shown in issue #60906.
There were no regression tests for these patterns, so these potential
failures have been around for a long time.
We freeze the condition and preserve the optimization because
getting rid of a div/rem is always a win.
Here are a couple of examples that can be corrected by freezing the
condition:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/sXHTTC
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144671
Address the dominating condition, the urem fold is benefit from the analytics improvements.
Fix https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60546
NOTE: delete the calls in simplifyBinaryIntrinsic and foldICmpWithDominatingICmp
is used to reduce compile time.
Reviewed By: nikic, arsenm, erikdesjardins
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144248
When using tail-folding and using the predicate for both data and control-flow
(the next vector iteration's predicate is generated with the llvm.active.lane.mask
intrinsic and then tested for the backedge), the LoopVectorizer still inserts a
runtime check to see if the 'i + VF' may at any point overflow for the given
trip-count. When it does, it falls back to a scalar epilogue loop.
We can get rid of that runtime check in the pre-header and therefore also
remove the scalar epilogue loop. This reduces code-size and avoids a runtime
check.
Consider the following loop:
void foo(char * __restrict__ dst, char *src, unsigned long N) {
for (unsigned long i=0; i<N; ++i)
dst[i] = src[i] + 42;
}
If 'N' is e.g. ULONG_MAX, and the VF > 1, then the loop iteration counter
will overflow when calculating the predicate for the next vector iteration
at some point, because LLVM does:
vector.ph:
%active.lane.mask.entry = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 0, i64 %N)
vector.body:
%index = phi i64 [ 0, %vector.ph ], [ %index.next, %vector.body ]
%active.lane.mask = phi <vscale x 16 x i1> [ %active.lane.mask.entry, %vector.ph ], [ %active.lane.mask.next, %vector.body ]
...
%index.next = add i64 %index, 16
; The add above may overflow, which would affect the lane mask and control flow. Hence a runtime check is needed.
%active.lane.mask.next = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 %index.next, i64 %N)
%8 = extractelement <vscale x 16 x i1> %active.lane.mask.next, i64 0
br i1 %8, label %vector.body, label %for.cond.cleanup, !llvm.loop !7
The solution:
What we can do instead is calculate the predicate before incrementing
the loop iteration counter, such that the llvm.active.lane.mask is
calculated from 'i' to 'tripcount > VF ? tripcount - VF : 0', i.e.
vector.ph:
%active.lane.mask.entry = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 0, i64 %N)
%N_minus_VF = select %N > 16 ? %N - 16 : 0
vector.body:
%index = phi i64 [ 0, %vector.ph ], [ %index.next, %vector.body ]
%active.lane.mask = phi <vscale x 16 x i1> [ %active.lane.mask.entry, %vector.ph ], [ %active.lane.mask.next, %vector.body ]
...
%active.lane.mask.next = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 %index, i64 %N_minus_VF)
%index.next = add i64 %index, %4
; The add above may still overflow, but this time the active.lane.mask is not affected
%8 = extractelement <vscale x 16 x i1> %active.lane.mask.next, i64 0
br i1 %8, label %vector.body, label %for.cond.cleanup, !llvm.loop !7
For N = 20, we'd then get:
vector.ph:
%active.lane.mask.entry = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 0, i64 %N)
; %active.lane.mask.entry = <1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1>
%N_minus_VF = select 20 > 16 ? 20 - 16 : 0
; %N_minus_VF = 4
vector.body: (1st iteration)
... ; using <1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1> as predicate in the loop
...
%active.lane.mask.next = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 0, i64 4)
; %active.lane.mask.next = <1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0>
%index.next = add i64 0, 16
; %index.next = 16
%8 = extractelement <vscale x 16 x i1> %active.lane.mask.next, i64 0
; %8 = 1
br i1 %8, label %vector.body, label %for.cond.cleanup, !llvm.loop !7
; branch to %vector.body
vector.body: (2nd iteration)
... ; using <1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0> as predicate in the loop
...
%active.lane.mask.next = tail call <vscale x 16 x i1> @llvm.get.active.lane.mask.nxv16i1.i64(i64 16, i64 4)
; %active.lane.mask.next = <0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0>
%index.next = add i64 16, 16
; %index.next = 32
%8 = extractelement <vscale x 16 x i1> %active.lane.mask.next, i64 0
; %8 = 0
br i1 %8, label %vector.body, label %for.cond.cleanup, !llvm.loop !7
; branch to %for.cond.cleanup
Reviewed By: fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142109
The C and C++ Language Extensions for AArch64 SME2 [1] adds a new type called
`svcount_t` which describes a predicate. This is not a predicate vector
mask, but rather a description of a predicate vector mask that can be
expanded into a mask using explicit instructions. The type is a scalable
opaque type.
To implement `svcount_t` type this patch uses the existing Target Extension Type
mechanism, but adds further support so that this type can be a scalable type.
AArch64 CodeGen support will follow in a separate patch.
[1] https://github.com/ARM-software/acle/pull/217
Reviewed By: jcranmer-intel, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136861
Without this patch, the control height reduction pass would combine a
"poison" branch with an earlier well-defined branch, turning the
earlier branch into a "poison" branch also.
This patch fixes the problem by rejecting "poison" conditional
branches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145008
(C - X) + Y --> (Y - X) + C
Moving the constant operand to an 'add' gives more
flexibility to subsequent reassociation patterns,
and it may be better for codegen on targets that
don't have subtract-from-immediate instructions.
Currently SimplifyCFG hoists/sink common instructions in then/else basic blocks
when certain options are enabled, which is the case for default clang optimization
pipelines for -O3. It tries to hoist/sink convergent function calls in divergent
control flow, which causes incorrect ISA generated for GPU, e.g.
https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP/issues/3172
This patch fixes that by conservatively disable hoisting/sinking common
convergent function calls in then/else blocks.
Reviewed by: Artem Belevich
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144756
When gathering the counter for the reused scalars, need to use reduced
value, not the original reduced value. Same values counter is gathered
for reduced values, not original ones.
In issue #60632, we have vector math ops that differ because an
operand is shuffled, but the math has limited demanded elements,
so it can be replaced by another instruction:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/TKqq7H
I don't think we have anything like this yet - it's like a
CSE/GVN fold, but driven by demanded elements of a vector op.
This is limited to splat-0 as a first step to keep it simple.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144760
Previously, while calculating register usage due to invariants, it was assumed that invariant would always be part of widening
instructions. This resulted in calculating vector register types for vectors which cant be legalized(check the newly added test for more details).
An invariant might not always need a vector register. For e.g., invariant might just be used for iteration check.
This patch checks if the invariant is part of any widening instruction and considers register usage accordingly. Fixes issue 60493
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143422
This fixes a possible issue when we could hoist an instruction up to a widenable
condition intrinsic call without making sure its operands are available at
hoisiting point.
Recently insertion point finding algorithm changed a bit, so this availability
check became necessary.
Verifier would crash after we handled the following special case:
L >u C0 && L >u C1 -> L >u max(C0, C1),
Previously we would insert the new condition right before the widenable condition
branch where all L operands were available.
Now we may choose the widenable condition intrinsic call as insertion point and it may
happen so that the L operands are computed after the call, so we have to make sure that
L operands are available at the point we want to insert it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144944
Previously, while calculating register usage due to invariants, it was assumed that invariant would always be part of widening
instructions. This resulted in calculating vector register types for vectors which cant be legalized(check the newly added test for more details).
An invariant might not always need a vector register. For e.g., invariant might just be used for iteration check.
This patch checks if the invariant is part of any widening instruction and considers register usage accordingly. Fixes issue 60493
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143422
Adding this prefix will indicate clearly that the compiler doesn't exit
when it hits this diagnostic. Searches for other non-fatal diagnostics
will also be able to find this diagnostic easily.
of scalars."' failed.
Need to check for the reused indices when checking if 2 insertelement
instruction are from the same buildvector. If the inidices are reused,
better not to match buildvectors and consider them as differenet,
otherwise need to track the order of insertelement operations.
These expressions will now only be created if explicitly requested
in IR/bitcode (and by LowerTypeTests, which has a tricky to remove
use).
This is in preparation for removing these expressions entirely,
but also fixes#60983 in the meantime.
When limiting the number of parts we split a global into, ignore
any parts that are either only loaded or only stored, because we
expect these to be optimized away after SRA.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129857
Loop predication can insert assumes to preserve knowledge about some facts that
may otherwise be lost, because loop predication is a lossy transform. When a guard
is represented as branch by widenable condition, it should insert it in the guarded
block. However, if the guarded block has other predecessors than the guard block,
then the condition might not dominate it. Currently we generate invalid code here.
One possible fix here is to split critical edge and insert the assume there, but in
this case we should modify CFG, which Loop Predication is not currently doing, and we
want to keep it that way.
The fix is to handle this case by inserting a Phi which takes `Cond` as input from the
guard block and `true` from any other blocks. This is valid in terms of IR and does
not introduce any new knowledge if we came from another block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144859
Reviewed By: nikic, skatkov
The reported compile-time regression has been address in
47f9109dff80a1abbe2705ee71dc0882b1d62274.
Additionally, this contains a change to immediately fold zext
with constant operand, even if it's used in a trunc. I'm not sure
if this is relevant for anything, but I noticed it as a behavioral
discrepancy when investigating this issue.
-----
InstCombine currently performs a constant folding attempt as part
of the main InstCombine loop, before visiting the instruction.
However, each visit method will also attempt to simplify the
instruction, which will in turn constant fold it. (Additionally,
we also constant fold instructions before the main InstCombine loop
and use a constant folding IR builder, so this is doubly redundant.)
There is one place where InstCombine visit methods currently don't
call into simplification, and that's casts. To be conservative,
I've added an explicit constant folding call there (though it has
no impact on tests).
This makes for a mild compile-time improvement and in particular
mitigates the compile-time regression from enabling load
simplification in be88b5814d9efce131dbc0c8e288907e2e6c89be.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144369
Process cases when phi incoming in predecessor block has select
instruction, and this select address is unavailable, but there
are addresses translated from both sides of select instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142705
Invariant.group's are not sufficiently handled by LICM. Specifically,
if a given invariant.group loaded pointer is not overwritten between
the start of a loop, and its use in the load, it can be hoisted.
The invariant.group (on an already invariant pointer operand) ensures
the result is the same. If it is not overwritten between the start
of the loop and the load, it is therefore legal to hoist.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144053
