RequireAnalysis<GlobalsAA> doesn't actually recompute GlobalsAA.
GlobalsAA isn't invalidated (unless specifically invalidated) because
it's self-updating via ValueHandles, but can be imprecise during the
self-updates.
Rather than invalidating GlobalsAA, which would invalidate AAManager and
any analyses that use AAManager, create a new pass that recomputes
GlobalsAA.
Fixes#53131.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121167
This is a revert of cfcc42bdc. The analysis is wrong as shown by
the minimal tests for instcombine:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/y9Dp8A
There may be a way to salvage some of the other tests,
but that can be done as follow-ups. This avoids a miscompile
and fixes#54311.
Now that integer min/max intrinsics have good support in both
InstCombine and other passes, start canonicalizing SPF min/max
to intrinsic min/max.
Once this sticks, we can stop matching SPF min/max in various
places, and can remove hacks we have for preventing infinite loops
and breaking of SPF canonicalization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98152
LICM will speculatively hoist code outside of loops. This requires removing information, like alias analysis (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53794), range information (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50550), among others. Prior to https://reviews.llvm.org/D99249 , LICM would only be run after LoopRotate. Running Loop Rotate prior to LICM prevents a instruction hoist from being speculative, if it was conditionally executed by the iteration (as is commonly emitted by clang and other frontends). Adding the additional LICM pass first, however, forces all of these instructions to be considered speculative, even if they are not speculative after LoopRotate. This destroys information, resulting in performance losses for discarding this additional information.
This PR modifies LICM to accept a ``speculative'' parameter which allows LICM to be set to perform information-loss speculative hoists or not. Phase ordering is then modified to not perform the information-losing speculative hoists until after loop rotate is performed, preserving this additional information.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119965
Unfortunately, it seems we really do need to take the long route;
start from the "merge" block, find (all the) "dispatch" blocks,
and deal with each "dispatch" block separately, instead of simply
starting from each "dispatch" block like it would logically make sense,
otherwise we run into a number of other missing folds around
`switch` formation, missing sinking/hoisting and phase ordering.
This reverts commit 85628ce75b3084dc0f185a320152baf85b59aba7.
This reverts commit c5fff9095342a792bf4b9a077fe3c3a83c4e566c.
This reverts commit 34a98e1046e3aa55e5f26ab20a15e96b4034d25a.
This reverts commit 1e353f092288309d74d380367aa50bbd383780ed.
Added support for alternate ops vectorization of the cmp instructions.
It allows to vectorize either cmp instructions with same/swapped
predicate but different (swapped) operands kinds or cmp instructions
with different predicates and compatible operands kinds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115955
The current `FoldTwoEntryPHINode()` is not quite designed correctly.
It starts from the merge point, and then tries to detect
the 'divergence' point.
Because of that, it is limited to the simple two-predecessor case,
where the PHI completely goes away. but that is rather pessimistic,
and it doesn't make much sense from the costmodel side of things.
For example if there is some other unrelated predecessor of
the merge point, we could split the merge point so that
the then/else blocks first branch to an empty block
and then to the merge point, and then we'd be able to speculate
the then/else code.
But if we'd instead simply start at the divergence point,
and look for the merge point, then we'll just natively support this case.
There's also the fact that `SpeculativelyExecuteBB()` already does
just that, but only if there is a single block to speculate,
and with a much more restrictive cost model.
But that also means we have code duplication.
Now, sadly, while this is as much NFCI as possible,
there is just no way to cleanly migrate to
the proper implementation. The results *are* going to be different
somewhat because of various phase ordering effects and SimplifyCFG
block iteration strategy.
Added support for alternate ops vectorization of the cmp instructions.
It allows to vectorize either cmp instructions with same/swapped
predicate but different (swapped) operands kinds or cmp instructions
with different predicates and compatible operands kinds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115955
Added support for alternate ops vectorization of the cmp instructions.
It allows to vectorize either cmp instructions with same/swapped
predicate but different (swapped) operands kinds or cmp instructions
with different predicates and compatible operands kinds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115955
In D110057 we moved LoopFlatten to a LoopPassManager. This caused a performance
regression for our 64-bit targets (the 32-bit were unaffected), the pass is no
longer triggering for a motivating example. The reason is that the IR is just
very different than expected; we try to match loop statements and particular
uses of induction variables. The easiest is to just move LoopFlatten to a place
in the pipeline where the IR is as expected, which is just before
IndVarSimplify. This means we move it from LPM2 to LPM1, so that it actually
runs just a bit earlier from where it was running before. IndVarSimplify is
responsible for significant rewrites that are difficult to "look through" in
LoopFlatten.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116612
Instead of summing leading zeros on the input operands, multiply the
max possible values of those inputs and count the leading zeros of
the result. This can give us an extra zero bit (typically in cases
where one of the operands is a known constant).
This allows folding away the remaining 'add' ops in the motivating
bug (modeled in the PhaseOrdering IR test):
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/48399Fixes#48399
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115969
~(iN X s>> (N-1)) & Y --> (X s< 0) ? 0 : Y
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JKlQ9x
This is similar to D111410 / 727e642e970d028049d ,
but it includes a 'not' of the signbit and so it
saves an instruction in the basic pattern.
DAGCombiner or target-specific folds can expand
this back into bit-hacks.
The diffs in the logical-select tests are not true
regressions - running early-cse and another round
of instcombine is expected in a normal opt pipeline,
and that reduces back to a minimal form as shown
in the duplicated PhaseOrdering test.
I have no understanding of the SystemZ diffs, so
I made the minimal edits suggested by FileCheck to
make that test pass again. That whole test file is
wrong though. It is running the entire optimizer (-O2)
to check IR, and then topping that by even running
codegen and checking asm. It needs to be split up.
Fixes#52631
The 1st test corresponds to a minimally optimized (mem2reg)
version of the example in:
issue #52631
The 2nd test copies an existing instcombine test with the
same pattern. If we canonicalize differently, we can miss
reducing to minimal form in a single invocation of
-instcombine, but that should not escape the normal opt
pipeline.
The basic idea to this is that a) having a single canonical type makes CSE easier, and b) many of our transforms are inconsistent about which types we end up with based on visit order.
I'm restricting this to constants as for non-constants, we'd have to decide whether the simplicity was worth extra instructions. For constants, there are no extra instructions.
We chose the canonical type as i64 arbitrarily. We might consider changing this to something else in the future if we have cause.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115387
MergeFunctions (as well as HotColdSplitting an IROutliner) are
incorrectly scheduled under the new pass manager. The code makes
it look like they run towards the end of the module optimization
pipeline (as they should), while in reality the run at the start.
This is because the OptimizePM populated around them is only
scheduled later.
I'm fixing this by moving these three passes until after OptimizePM
to avoid splitting the function pass pipeline. It doesn't seem
important to me that some of the function passes run after these
late module passes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115098
Swap AIC and IC neighbouring in pipeline. This looks more natural and even
almost has no effect for now (three slightly touched tests of test-suite). Also
this could be the first step towards merging AIC (or its part) to -O2 pipeline.
After several changes in AIC (like D108091, D108201, D107766, D109515, D109236)
there've been observed several regressions (like PR52078, PR52253, PR52289)
that were fixed in different passes (see D111330, D112721) by extending their
functionality, but these regressions were exposed since changed AIC prevents IC
from making some of early optimizations.
This is common problem and it should be fixed by just moving AIC after IC
which looks more logically by itself: make aggressive instruction combining
only after failed ordinary one.
Fixes PR52289
Reviewed By: spatel, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113179
Add an -enable-merge-functions option to allow testing of function
merging as it will actually happen in the optimization pipeline.
Based on that add a test where we currently produce two identical
functions without merging them due to incorrect pass scheduling
under the new pass manager.
The basic problem we have is that we're trying to reuse an instruction which is mapped to some SCEV. Since we can have multiple such instructions (potentially with different flags), this is analogous to our need to drop flags when performing CSE. A trivial implementation would simply drop flags on any instruction we decided to reuse, and that would be correct.
This patch is almost that trivial patch except that we preserve flags on the reused instruction when existing users would imply UB on overflow already. Adding new users can, at most, refine this program to one which doesn't execute UB which is valid.
In practice, this fixes two conceptual problems with the previous code: 1) a binop could have been canonicalized into a form with different opcode or operands, or 2) the inbounds GEP case which was simply unhandled.
On the test changes, most are pretty straight forward. We loose some flags (in some cases, they'd have been dropped on the next CSE pass anyways). The one that took me the longest to understand was the ashr-expansion test. What's happening there is that we're considering reuse of the mul, previously we disallowed it entirely, now we allow it with no flags. The surrounding diffs are all effects of generating the same mul with a different operand order, and then doing simple DCE.
The loss of the inbounds is unfortunate, but even there, we can recover most of those once we actually treat branch-on-poison as immediate UB.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112734
This patch fixes PR52111. The problem is that LV propagates poison-generating flags (`nuw`/`nsw`, `exact`
and `inbounds`) in instructions that contribute to the address computation of widen loads/stores that are
guarded by a condition. It may happen that when the code is vectorized and the control flow within the loop
is linearized, these flags may lead to generating a poison value that is effectively used as the base address
of the widen load/store. The fix drops all the integer poison-generating flags from instructions that
contribute to the address computation of a widen load/store whose original instruction was in a basic block
that needed predication and is not predicated after vectorization.
Reviewed By: fhahn, spatel, nlopes
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111846
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 reverts commit 7cd273c339cfe8427404f881ae280bd9fae6ff78.
Several patches with tests fixes have been applied:
0cada82f0a30e5ae22dce66b58604ab9b47a3897 "[Test] Remove incorrect test in GVN"
97cb13615d6d9df254e3c0f3deef9eaedfe189b6 "[Test] Separate IndVars test into AArch64 and X86 parts"
985cc490f17d28b20392ee214895d947b85120ef "[Test] Remove separated test in IndVars",
and test failures caused by 5ec2386 should be resolved now.
(Cond & C) | (~bitcast(Cond) & D) --> bitcast (select Cond, (bc C), (bc D))
This is part of fixing:
https://llvm.org/PR34047
That report shows a case where a bitcast is sitting between the select condition
candidate and its 'not' value due to current cast canonicalization rules.
There's a bitcast type restriction that might be violated in existing matching,
but I still need to investigate if that is possible -
Alive2 shows we can only do this transform safely when the bitcast is from
narrow to wide vector elements (otherwise poison could leak into elements
that were safe in the original code):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Hf66qh
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113035
This reapplies patch db289340c841990055a164e8eb2a3b5ff25677bf.
The test failures on build with expensive checks caused by the patch happened due
to the fact that we sorted loop Phis in replaceCongruentIVs using llvm::sort,
which shuffles the given container if the expensive checks are enabled,
so equivalent Phis in the sorted vector had different mutual order from run
to run. replaceCongruentIVs tries to replace narrow Phis with truncations
of wide ones. In some test cases there were several Phis with the same
width, so if their order differs from run to run, the narrow Phis would
be replaced with a different Phi, depending on the shuffling result.
The patch ae14fae0ff4304022beda5ab484f84ac0fdda807 fixed this issue by
replacing llvm::sort with llvm::stable_sort.
Extended value is known to be inside range smaller than full one.
Prevent SCCP to mark such value as overdefined.
Fixes PR52253
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112721
In IndVarSimplify after simplifying and extending loop IVs we call 'replaceCongruentIVs'.
This function optionally takes a TTI argument to be able to replace narrow IVs uses
with truncates of the widest one.
For some reason the TTI wasn't passed to the function, so it couldn't perform such
transform.
This patch fixes it.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113024
