TBAA/NoAlias/AliasScope and other information is currently preserved
when upgrading to a memcpy/memset. However, this is missing when upgrading to
the macOS memset_pattern function. This adds the same alias information preservation
to memset_pattern
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152934
SCEVExpander keeps track of all instructions it inserted. However,
it currently misses some phi nodes created during LCSSA construction.
Fix this by collecting these into another argument.
This also removes the IRBuilder argument, which was added for
essentially the same purpose, but only handles the root LCSSA nodes,
not those inserted by SSAUpdater.
This was reported as a regression on D149344, but the reduced test
case also reproduces without it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150681
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
This improves the readability of debugging intrinsics. Instead of:
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata !2, ...)
!2 = !{}
We will see:
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata !{}, ...)
!2 = !{}
Note that we still get a numbered metadata entry for the node even if it's not
used elsewhere. This is to avoid adding more context to the print functions.
This is already legal IR - LLVM can parse and understand it - so there is no
need to update the parser.
The next patches in this stack will make such empty metadata operands more
common and semantically important.
Related to https://discourse.llvm.org/t/auto-undef-debug-uses-of-a-deleted-value
Reviewed By: StephenTozer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140900
The pattern we're using for the memset_pattern* call gets put into a static
global variable initialized, which means it has to be representable with
relocations on the target. Most `ConstantExpr` instances do not satisfy this
constraint, so avoid all of them for now.
Commit dd5991cc modified the aliasing checks here to allow transforming
a memcpy where the source and destination point into the same object.
However, the change accidentally made the code skip the alias check for
other operations in the loop.
Instead of completely skipping the alias check, just skip the check for
whether the memcpy aliases itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126486
Factor in the TBAA of adjacent stores instead of just the head store
when merging stores into a memset. We were seeing GVN remove a load that
had a TBAA that matched the 2nd store because GVN determined it didn't
match the TBAA of the memset. The memset had the TBAA of only the first
store.
i.e. Loading the field pi_ of shared_count after memset to create an
array of shared_ptr
template<class T>
class shared_ptr {
T *p;
shared_count refcount;
};
class shared_count {
sp_counted_base *pi_;
};
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122205
SCEVs ExprValueMap currently tracks not only which IR Values
correspond to a given SCEV expression, but additionally stores that
it may be expanded in the form X+Offset. In theory, this allows
reusing existing IR Values in more cases.
In practice, this doesn't seem to be particularly useful (the test
changes are rather underwhelming) and adds a good bit of complexity.
Per https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53905, we have an
invalidation issue with these offseted expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120311
When upgrading a loop of load/store to a memcpy, the existing pass does not keep existing aliasing information. This patch allows existing aliasing information to be kept.
Reviewed By: jeroen.dobbelaere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108221
Similar to the migration of or-folding to FoldOr, there are a few cases
where the fold in IRBuilder::CreateAnd triggered directly. Those have
been updated.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117431
Agreed policy is that RISC-V extensions that have not yet been ratified
should be marked as experimental, and enabling them requires the use of
the -menable-experimental-extensions flag when using clang alongside the
version number. These extensions have now been ratified, so this is no
longer necessary, and the target feature names can be renamed to no
longer be prefixed with "experimental-".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117131
Expression guraded in loop entry can be folded prior to comparison. This patch
proceeds D107353 and makes LIR able to deal with nested for-loop.
Reviewed By: qianzhen, bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108112
Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedeef9da2109ea57e4cb372f295ff53b88.
This reverts commit 749581d21f2b3f53e4fca4eb8728c942d646893b.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e096143670e0fd396e81d43393a2dd2.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6f0969976fafd62af34730436ad5944.
Clang OpenMP codegen tests are failing.
This reverts commit 288f1f8abe5835180a0021f142043ee261ab3846.
This reverts commit cb90e5356ac1594e95fed8e208d6e0e9b6a87db1.
There's precedent for that in `CreateOr()`/`CreateAnd()`.
The motivation here is to avoid bloating the run-time check's IR
in `SCEVExpander::generateOverflowCheck()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
This patch supplements missing test case for D107353.
- Fix wrong descriptions in 64-bit mode test case
- Added testcase under 32-bit mode
Reviewed By: bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108507
We were using the type of the loop back edge count to represent the
store size. This failed for small loop counts (e.g. in the added test,
the loop count was an i2).
Use the index type instead.
Fixes PR52104.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111401
At this point it looks like a B extension will never exist. Instead
Zba, Zbb, Zbc, and Zbs are individual extensions being ratified
together as a package. Unknown at this time when or if the other
Zb* extensions will be ratified.
This patch removes references to the B extension. I've updated and
split tests accordingly.
This has been split from D110669 to make review a little easier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111338
This fixes a violation of the wrap flag rules introduced in c4048d8f. This is an alternate fix to D106852.
The basic problem being fixed is that we infer a set of flags which is valid at some inner scope S1 (usually by correctly propagating them from IR), and then (incorrectly) extend them to a SCEV in scope S2 where S1 != S2. This is not in general safe per the wrap flags semantics recently defined.
In this patch, I include a simple inference step to handle the case where we can prove that S2 is the preheader of the loop S1, and that entry into S2 implies execution of S1. See the code for a more detailed explanation.
One worry I have with this patch is that I might be over-fitting what shows up in tests - and thus hiding negative impact we'd see in the real world. My best defense is that the rule used here very closely follows the one used to propagate the flags from IR to the inner add to start with, and thus if one is reasonable, so probably is the other. Curious what others think about that piece.
The test diffs are roughly as expected. Mostly analysis only, with two transform changes. Oddly, the result looks better in the loop-idiom test, and I don't understand the PPC output enough to have tell. Nothing terrible looking though. (For context, without the scope inference peephole, the test delta includes a couple of vectorization tests. Again, not super concerning, but slightly more so.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109845
This change fixes issue found by Markus: https://reviews.llvm.org/rG11338e998df1
Before this patch following code was transformed to memmove:
for (int i = 15; i >= 1; i--) {
p[i] = p[i-1];
sum += p[i-1];
}
However load from p[i-1] is used not only by store to p[i] but also by sum computation.
Therefore we cannot emit memmove in loop header.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107964
The current LIR does not deal with runtime-determined memset-size. This patch
utilizes SCEV and check if the PointerStrideSCEV and the MemsetSizeSCEV are equal.
Before comparison the pass would try to fold the expression that is already
protected by the loop guard.
Testcase file `memset-runtime.ll`, `memset-runtime-debug.ll` added.
This patch deals with proper loop-idiom. Proceeding patch wants to deal with SCEV-s
that are inequal after folding with the loop guards.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, Whitney
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107353
The purpose of patch is to learn Loop idiom recognition pass how to recognize simple memmove patterns
in similar way like GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/fh95e83od
LoopIdiomRecognize already has machinery for memset and memcpy recognition, patch tries to extend exisiting capabilities with minimal effort.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104464
A backedge-taken count doesn't refer to memory; returning a pointer type
is nonsense. So make sure we always return an integer.
The obvious way to do this would be to just convert the operands of the
icmp to integers, but that doesn't quite work out at the moment:
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond currently gets confused by ptrtoint operations.
So we perform the ptrtoint conversion late for lt/gt operations.
The test changes are mostly innocuous. The most interesting changes are
more complex SCEV expressions of the form "(-1 * (ptrtoint i8* %ptr to
i64)) + %ptr)". This is expected: we can't fold this to zero because we
need to preserve the pointer base.
The call to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in howFarToZero is less precise
because of ptrtoint operations; this shows up in the function
pr46786_c26_char in ptrtoint.ll. Fixing it here would require more
complex refactoring. It should eventually be fixed by future
improvements to isImpliedCond.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 for context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103656
Nowadays LLVM does not assume that all loops are finite,
so if we want to produce a finite loop from a potentially-infinite one,
we must ensure that the original loop is known to be a finite one.
For this transform, it only matters for arithmetic right-shifts.
For them, either the function or the loop must be known to
be `mustprogress`, or the original value being shifted must be known
to be non-negative (because iff the sign bit was set,
it will never become zero, but will become `-1` in the "end").
It would be really good for alive2 to actually complain about this,
but it currently does not: https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2/issues/726
This adds support for the "count active bits" pattern, i.e.:
```
int countBits(unsigned val) {
int cnt = 0;
for( ; (val << cnt) != 0; ++cnt)
;
return cnt;
}
```
but a somewhat more general one:
```
int countBits(unsigned val, int start, int off) {
int cnt;
for (cnt = start; val << (cnt + off); cnt++)
;
return cnt;
}
```
alive2 is happy with all the tests there.
Note that, again, much like with the right-shift cases,
we don't require the `val != 0` guard.
This is the last pattern that was supported by
`detectShiftUntilZeroIdiom()`, which now becomes obsolete.
This adds support for the "count active bits" pattern, i.e.:
```
int countActiveBits(signed val) {
int cnt = 0;
for( ; (val >> cnt) != 0; ++cnt)
;
return cnt;
}
```
but a somewhat more general one:
```
int countActiveBits(signed val, int start, int off) {
int cnt;
for (cnt = start; val >> (cnt + off); cnt++)
;
return cnt;
}
```
This directly matches the existing 'logical right-shift until zero' idiom.
alive2 is happy with all the tests there.
Note that, again, much like with the original unsigned case,
we don't require the `val != 0` guard.
The old `detectShiftUntilZeroIdiom()` already supports this pattern,
the idea here is that the `val` must be positive (have at least one
leading zero), because otherwise the loop is non-terminating,
but since it is not `while(1)`, that would have been UB.
