According to LangRef, an access scope must have zero operands and
be distinct. The access group may either be a single access scope
or a list of access scopes.
LoopInfo may assert if this is not the case.
As long as *all* the invokes in the set are indirect,
we can merge them, but don't merge direct invokes into the set,
even though it would be legal to do.
If the original invokes had uses, the uses must have been in PHI's,
but that immediately results in the incoming values being incompatible.
But we'll replace uses of the original invokes with the use of the
merged invoke, so as long as the incoming values become compatible
after that, we can merge.
Even if the invokes have normal destination, iff it's the same block,
we can merge them. For now, require that there are no PHI nodes,
and the returned values of invokes aren't used.
While nowadays SimplifyCFG knows how to hoist code from then-else blocks,
sink code from unconditional predecessors, and even promote the latter
by tail-merging `ret`/`resume` function terminators, that isn't everything.
While i (& others) have been trying to deal with merging/sinking `unreachable`,
apparently perhaps the more impactful remaining problem is merging the `throw`
calls.
If we start at the `landingpad`, all the predecessors are unwind edges of `invoke`s,
and in some cases some of the `invoke`s are mergeable.
```
/// This is a weird mix of hoisting and sinking. Visually, it goes from:
/// [...] [...]
/// | |
/// [invoke0] [invoke1]
/// / \ / \
/// [cont0] [landingpad] [cont1]
/// to:
/// [...] [...]
/// \ /
/// [invoke]
/// / \
/// [cont] [landingpad]
```
This simplifies the IR/CFG, at the cost of debug info and extra PHI nodes.
Note that we don't require for *all* the `invokes` of the `landingpad`
to be mergeable, they can form more than a single set, we gracefully handle that.
For now, i completely disallowed normal destination, PHI nodes and indirect invokes
but that can be supported.
Out of all the CTMark projects, only 7zip is C++, so there isn't much impact:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=ba8eb31bd9542828f6424e15a3014f80f14522c8&to=722fc871c84f14157d45c2159bc9c8c7e2825785&stat=size-total
... but there it currently causes size-total decrease.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117805
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.
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.
After D116332, some icmps no longer fold with the target-independent
constant folder. The SimplifyCFG code assumed that the comparison
would always fold, which is not guaranteed. Explicitly check that the
result is either true or false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117184
I strongly believe we need some variant of this.
The main problem is e.g. that the glibc's assert has 4 parameters,
but the profitability check is only okay with one extra phi node,
so D116692 doesn't even trigger on most of the expected cases.
While that restriction probably makes sense in normal code, if we
are about to run off of a cliff (into an `unreachable`), this
successor block is unlikely so the cost to setup these PHI nodes
should not be on the hotpath, and shouldn't matter performance-wise.
Likewise, we don't sink if there are unconditional predecessors
UNLESS we'd sink at least one non-speculatable instruction,
which is a performance workaround, but if we are about to run into
`unreachable`, it shouldn't matter.
Note that we only allow the case where there are at
most unconditiona branches on the way to the unreachable block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117045
In particular, it couldn't handle cases where lookup table constant
expressions involved bitcasts. This does not seem to come up
frequently in C++, but comes up reasonably often in Rust via
`#[derive(Debug)]`.
Originally reported by pcwalton.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109565
This function is called when some predecessor of an empty return block
ends with a conditional branch, with both successors being empty ret blocks.
Now, because of the way SimplifyCFG works, it might happen to simplify
one of the blocks in a way that makes a conditional branch
into an unconditional one, since it's destinations are now identical,
but it might not have actually simplified said conditional branch
into an unconditional one yet.
So, we have to check that ourselves first,
especially now that SimplifyCFG aggressively tail-merges
all ret and resume blocks.
Even if it was an unconditional branch already,
`SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyReturn()` doesn't call `FoldReturnIntoUncondBranch()`
by default.
`SinkCommonCodeFromPredecessors()` doesn't itself ensure that duplicate PHI nodes aren't created.
I suppose, we could teach it to do that on-the-fly (& account for the already-existing PHI nodes,
& adjust costmodel), the diff will be bigger than this.
The alternative is to schedule a new EarlyCSE pass invocation somewhere later in the pipeline.
Clearly, we don't have any EarlyCSE runs in module optimization passline, so this pattern isn't cleaned up...
That would perhaps better, but it will again have some compile time impact.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106010
There's a potential change in dereferenceability attribute semantics in the nearish future. See llvm-dev thread "RFC: Decomposing deref(N) into deref(N) + nofree" and D99100 for context.
This change simply adds appropriate attributes to tests to keep transform logic exercised under both old and new/proposed semantics. Note that for many of these cases, O3 would infer exactly these attributes on the test IR.
This change handles the idiomatic pattern of a dereferenceable object being passed to a call which can not free that memory. There's a couple other tests which need more one-off attention, they'll be handled in another change.
There was an alias between 'simplifycfg' and 'simplify-cfg' in the
PassRegistry. That was the original reason for this patch, which
effectively removes the alias.
This patch also replaces all occurrances of 'simplify-cfg'
by 'simplifycfg'. Reason for choosing that form for the name is
that it matches the DEBUG_TYPE for the pass, and the legacy PM name
and also how it is spelled out in other passes such as
'loop-simplifycfg', and in other options such as
'simplifycfg-merge-cond-stores'.
I for some reason the name should be changed to 'simplify-cfg' in
the future, then I think such a renaming should be more widely done
and not only impacting the PassRegistry.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105627
Since d6de1e1a71406c75a4ea4d5a2fe84289f07ea3a1, no attributes is quivalent to
setting attribute to false.
This is a preliminary commit for https://reviews.llvm.org/D99080
The profitability check is: we don't want to create more than a single PHI
per instruction sunk. We need to create the PHI unless we'll sink
all of it's would-be incoming values.
But there is a caveat there.
This profitability check doesn't converge on the first iteration!
If we first decide that we want to sink 10 instructions,
but then determine that 5'th one is unprofitable to sink,
that may result in us not sinking some instructions that
resulted in determining that some other instruction
we've determined to be profitable to sink becoming unprofitable.
So we need to iterate until we converge, as in determine
that all leftover instructions are profitable to sink.
But, the direct approach of just re-iterating seems dumb,
because in the worst case we'd find that the last instruction
is unprofitable, which would result in revisiting instructions
many many times.
Instead, i think we can get away with just two passes - forward and backward.
However then it isn't obvious what is the most performant way to update
InstructionsToSink.
While we have a known profitability issue for sinking in presence of
non-unconditional predecessors, there isn't any known issues
for having multiple such non-unconditional predecessors,
so said restriction appears to be artificial. Lift it.
There are post-commit notest for e4c61d5 that suggest
the test is failing on certain bots. It looks like
the code there isn't being moved, which suggests
cost-model involvement, which suggests that we need to
hardcode the target triple.
Hopefully this helps?
The case where BB ends with an unconditional branch,
and has a single predecessor w/ conditional branch
to BB and a single successor of BB is exactly the pattern
SpeculativelyExecuteBB() transform deals with.
(and in this case they both allow speculating only a single instruction)
Well, or FoldTwoEntryPHINode(), if the final block
has only those two predecessors.
Here, in FoldBranchToCommonDest(), only a weird subset of that
transform is supported, and it's glued on the side in a weird way.
In particular, it took me a bit to understand that the Cond
isn't actually a branch condition in that case, but just the value
we allow to speculate (otherwise it reads as a miscompile to me).
Additionally, this only supports for the speculated instruction
to be an ICmp.
So let's just unclutter FoldBranchToCommonDest(), and leave
this transform up to SpeculativelyExecuteBB(). As far as i can tell,
this shouldn't really impact optimization potential, but if it does,
improving SpeculativelyExecuteBB() will be more beneficial anyways.
Notably, this only affects a single test,
but EarlyCSE should have run beforehand in the pipeline,
and then FoldTwoEntryPHINode() would have caught it.
This reverts commit rL158392 / commit d33f4efbfdef6ffccf212ab3e40a7673589085fd.
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
