Derive the mustprogress attribute based on the willreturn attribute
or the fact that all callers are mustprogress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94740
This switches everything to use the memory attribute proposed in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-memory-effect-attributes/65579.
The old argmemonly, inaccessiblememonly and inaccessiblemem_or_argmemonly
attributes are dropped. The readnone, readonly and writeonly attributes
are restricted to parameters only.
The old attributes are auto-upgraded both in bitcode and IR.
The bitcode upgrade is a policy requirement that has to be retained
indefinitely. The IR upgrade is mainly there so it's not necessary
to update all tests using memory attributes in this patch, which
is already large enough. We could drop that part after migrating
tests, or retain it longer term, to make it easier to import IR
from older LLVM versions.
High-level Function/CallBase APIs like doesNotAccessMemory() or
setDoesNotAccessMemory() are mapped transparently to the memory
attribute. Code that directly manipulates attributes (e.g. via
AttributeList) on the other hand needs to switch to working with
the memory attribute instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135780
If we have a dominating must-write access we do not need to know the
initial value of some object to perform reasoning about the potential
values. The dominating must-write has overwritten the initial value.
For the longest time we used `AAValueSimplify` and
`genericValueTraversal` to determine "potential values". This was
problematic for many reasons:
- We recomputed the result a lot as there was no caching for the 9
locations calling `genericValueTraversal`.
- We added the idea of "intra" vs. "inter" procedural simplification
only as an afterthought. `genericValueTraversal` did offer an option
but `AAValueSimplify` did not. Thus, we might end up with "too much"
simplification in certain situations and then gave up on it.
- Because `genericValueTraversal` was not a real `AA` we ended up with
problems like the infinite recursion bug (#54981) as well as code
duplication.
This patch introduces `AAPotentialValues` and replaces the
`AAValueSimplify` uses with it. `genericValueTraversal` is folded into
`AAPotentialValues` as are the instruction simplifications performed in
`AAValueSimplify` before. We further distinguish "intra" and "inter"
procedural simplification now.
`AAValueSimplify` was not deleted as we haven't ported the
re-materialization of instructions yet. There are other differences over
the former handling, e.g., we may not fold trivially foldable
instructions right now, e.g., `add i32 1, 1` is not folded to `i32 2`
but if an operand would be simplified to `i32 1` we would fold it still.
We are also even more aware of function/SCC boundaries in CGSCC passes,
which is good even if some tests look like they regress.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54981
Note: A previous version was flawed and consequently reverted in
6555558a80589d1c5a1154b92cc3af9495f8f86c.
This reverts commit f17639ea0cd30f52ac853ba2eb25518426cc3bb8 as three
AMDGPU tests haven't been updated. Will need to verify the changes are
not regressions we should avoid.
For the longest time we used `AAValueSimplify` and
`genericValueTraversal` to determine "potential values". This was
problematic for many reasons:
- We recomputed the result a lot as there was no caching for the 9
locations calling `genericValueTraversal`.
- We added the idea of "intra" vs. "inter" procedural simplification
only as an afterthought. `genericValueTraversal` did offer an option
but `AAValueSimplify` did not. Thus, we might end up with "too much"
simplification in certain situations and then gave up on it.
- Because `genericValueTraversal` was not a real `AA` we ended up with
problems like the infinite recursion bug (#54981) as well as code
duplication.
This patch introduces `AAPotentialValues` and replaces the
`AAValueSimplify` uses with it. `genericValueTraversal` is folded into
`AAPotentialValues` as are the instruction simplifications performed in
`AAValueSimplify` before. We further distinguish "intra" and "inter"
procedural simplification now.
`AAValueSimplify` was not deleted as we haven't ported the
re-materialization of instructions yet. There are other differences over
the former handling, e.g., we may not fold trivially foldable
instructions right now, e.g., `add i32 1, 1` is not folded to `i32 2`
but if an operand would be simplified to `i32 1` we would fold it still.
We are also even more aware of function/SCC boundaries in CGSCC passes,
which is good even if some tests look like they regress.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54981
Note: A previous version was flawed and consequently reverted in
6555558a80589d1c5a1154b92cc3af9495f8f86c.
For the longest time we used `AAValueSimplify` and
`genericValueTraversal` to determine "potential values". This was
problematic for many reasons:
- We recomputed the result a lot as there was no caching for the 9
locations calling `genericValueTraversal`.
- We added the idea of "intra" vs. "inter" procedural simplification
only as an afterthought. `genericValueTraversal` did offer an option
but `AAValueSimplify` did not. Thus, we might end up with "too much"
simplification in certain situations and then gave up on it.
- Because `genericValueTraversal` was not a real `AA` we ended up with
problems like the infinite recursion bug (#54981) as well as code
duplication.
This patch introduces `AAPotentialValues` and replaces the
`AAValueSimplify` uses with it. `genericValueTraversal` is folded into
`AAPotentialValues` as are the instruction simplifications performed in
`AAValueSimplify` before. We further distinguish "intra" and "inter"
procedural simplification now.
`AAValueSimplify` was not deleted as we haven't ported the
re-materialization of instructions yet. There are other differences over
the former handling, e.g., we may not fold trivially foldable
instructions right now, e.g., `add i32 1, 1` is not folded to `i32 2`
but if an operand would be simplified to `i32 1` we would fold it still.
We are also even more aware of function/SCC boundaries in CGSCC passes,
which is good.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54981
D106720 introduced features that did not work properly as we could add
new queries after a fixpoint was reached and which could not be answered
by the information gathered up to the fixpoint alone.
As an alternative to D110078, which forced eager computation where we
want to continue to be lazy, this patch fixes the problem.
QueryAAs are AAs that allow lazy queries during their lifetime. They are
never fixed if they have no outstanding dependences and always run as
part of the updates in an iteration. To determine if we are done, all
query AAs are asked if they received new queries, if not, we only need
to consider updated AAs, as before. If new queries are present we go for
another iteration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118669
We missed out on AANoRecurse in the module pass because we had no call
graph. With AAFunctionReachability we can simply ask if the function may
reach itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110099
D106185 allows us to determine if a store is needed easily. Using that
knowledge we can start to delete dead stores.
In AAIsDead we now track more state as an instruction can be dead (= the
old optimisitc state) or just "removable". A store instruction can be
removable while being very much alive, e.g., if it stores a constant
into an alloca or internal global. If we would pretend it was dead
instead of only removablewe we would ignore it when we determine what
values a load can see, so that is not what we want.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106188
This patch introduces AAPointerInfo which tracks the uses of a pointer
and places them in "bins" based on their offset from the base and access
size.
As with other AAs, any pointer can be tracked but it is up to the user
to make sense of the results. The user in this patch is AAValueSimplify
and AAPotentialValues which both utilize AAPointerInfo to determine the
value of a load. For now, this is restricted to loads of allocas and
internal globals. Through the use of AAPointerInfo and the "bins" we can
track struct members separately. The users also know that storing only
zeros (at unknown indices) will result in loading only 0 (from unknown
indices). Other than that, the users are flow and context insensitive
(for now).
To deal with the "bins" more easily, AAPointerInfo provides a
forallInterfearingAccesses that applies a callback on all accesses
that might interfere with a given load or store.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104432
