Loop unrolling tends to produce chains of
`%x1 = add %x0, 1; %x2 = add %x1, 1; ...` with one add per unrolled
iteration. This patch simplifies these adds to `%xN = add %x0, N`
directly during unrolling, rather than waiting for InstCombine to do so.
The motivation for this is that having a single add (rather than
an add chain) on the induction variable makes it a simple recurrence,
which we specially recognize in a number of places. This allows
InstCombine to directly perform folds with that knowledge, instead
of first folding the add chains, and then doing other folds in another
InstCombine iteration.
Due to the reduced number of InstCombine iterations, this also
results in a small compile-time improvement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153540
One of these two changes is exposing (or causing) some more miscompiles.
A reproducer is in progress, so reverting until resolved.
This reverts commit 428f36401b1b695fd501ebfdc8773bed8ced8d4e.
This reverts commit 37b8f09a4b61bf9bf9d0b9017d790c8b82be2e17,
and returns commit 1bd0b82e508d049efdb07f4f8a342f35818df341.
The miscompile was in InstCombine, and it has been addressed.
This tries to approach the problem noted by @arsenm:
terrible codegen for `__builtin_fpclassify()`:
https://godbolt.org/z/388zqdE37
Just because the PHI in the common successor happens to have different
incoming values for these two blocks, doesn't mean we have to give up.
It's quite easy to deal with this, we just need to produce a select:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/000srb
Now, the cost model for this transform is rather overly strict,
so this will basically never fire. We tally all (over all preds)
the selects needed to the NumBonusInsts
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139275
This tries to approach the problem noted by @arsenm:
terrible codegen for `__builtin_fpclassify()`:
https://godbolt.org/z/388zqdE37
Just because the PHI in the common successor happens to have different
incoming values for these two blocks, doesn't mean we have to give up.
It's quite easy to deal with this, we just need to produce a select:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/000srb
Now, the cost model for this transform is rather overly strict,
so this will basically never fire. We tally all (over all preds)
the selects needed to the NumBonusInsts
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139275
This reverts commit 354fa0b48008eca701a110badd6974bf449df257.
Returning as is. The patch was reverted due to a miscompile, but
this patch is not causing it. This patch made it possible to infer
some nuw flags in code guarded by `false` condition, and then someone
else to managed to propagate the flag from dead code outside.
Returning the patch to be able to reproduce the issue.
This reverts commit 34ae308c73e4d76dbdab25a6206d3fbc5ebafdf5.
Our internal testing found a miscompile. Not sure if it's caused by
this patch or it revealed something else. Reverting while investigating.
Sometimes SCEV cannot infer nuw/nsw from something as simple as
```
len in [0, MAX_INT]
...
iv = phi(0, iv.next)
guard(iv <s len)
guard(iv <u len)
iv.next = iv + 1
```
just because flag strenthening only relies on definition and does not use local facts.
This patch adds support for the simplest case: inference of flags of `add(x, constant)`
if we can contextually prove that `x <= max_int - constant`.
In case if it has negative CT impact, we can add an option to switch it off. I woudln't
expect that though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129643
Reviewed By: apilipenko
This is a followup to D125754. We introduce two branches, one
before the unrolled loop and one before the epilogue (and similar
for the prologue case). The previous patch only froze the
condition on the first branch.
Rather than independently freezing the second condition, this patch
instead freezes TripCount and bases BECount on it. These are the
two quantities involved in the conditions, and this ensures that
both work on a consistent, non-poisonous trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125896
When performing runtime unrolling with multiple exits, one of the
earlier (non-latch) exits may exit the loop on the first iteration,
such that we never branch on the latch exit condition. As such, we
need to freeze the condition of the new branch that is introduced
before the loop, as it now executes unconditionally.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125754
This reverts commit 9bd22595bad36cd19f5e7ae18ccd9f41cba29dc5.
Seeing some bot failures which look plausibly connected. Revert while investigating/waiting for bots to stablize.
e.g. https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot#builders/36/builds/15933
If we have an exit which is controlled by a loop invariant condition and which dominates the latch, we know only the copy in the first unrolled iteration can be taken. All other copies are dead.
The change itself is pretty straight forward, but let me add two points of context:
* I'd have expected other transform passes to catch this after unrolling, but I'm seeing multiple examples where we get to the end of O2/O3 without simplifying.
* I'd like to do a stronger change which did CSE during unroll and accounted for invariant expressions (as defined by SCEV instead of trivial ones from LoopInfo), but that doesn't fit cleanly into the current code structure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116496
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 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 patch adds support for unrolling inner loops using epilogue unrolling. The basic issue is that the original latch exit block of the inner loop could be outside the outer loop. When we clone the inner loop and split the latch exit, the cloned blocks need to be in the outer loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108476
The runtime unroller will try to produce a non-loop if the unroll count is 2 and thus the prolog/epilog loop would only run at most one iteration. The old implementation did this by avoiding loop construction entirely. This patches instead constructs the trivial loop and then explicitly breaks the backedge and simplifies. This does result in some additional code churn when triggered, but a) results in better quality code and b) removes a codepath which didn't work properly for multiple exit epilogs.
One oddity that I want to draw to reviewer attention is that this somehow changes revisit order. The new order looks equivalent to me, but I don't understand how creating and erasing an extra loop here creates this effect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108521
This patch extends the runtime unrolling infrastructure to support unrolling a loop with multiple exiting blocks branching to the same exit block used by the latch. It intentionally does not include a cost model change to enable this functionality unless appropriate force flags are used.
This is the prolog companion to D107381. Since this was LGTMed, a problem with DT updating was reported against that patch. I roled in the analogous fix here as it seemed obvious, and not worth re-review.
As an aside, our prolog form leaves a lot of potential value on the floor when there is an invariant load or invariant condition in the loop being runtime unrolled. We should probably consider a "required prolog" heuristic. (Alternatively, maybe we should be peeling these cases more aggressively?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108262
This patch extends the runtime unrolling infrastructure to support unrolling a loop with multiple exiting blocks branching to the same exit block used by the latch. It intentionally does not include a cost model change to enable this functionality unless appropriate force flags are used.
I decided to restrict this to the epilogue case. Given the changes ended up being pretty generic, we may be able to unblock the prolog case too, but I want to do that in a separate change to reduce the amount of code we all have to understand at one time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107381
As FIXME said, they really should be checking for a single user,
not use, so let's do that. It is not *that* unusual to have
the same value as incoming value in a PHI node, not unlike
how a PHI may have the same incoming basic block more than once.
There isn't a nice way to do that, Value::users() isn't uniqified,
and Value only tracks it's uses, not Users, so the check is
potentially costly since it does indeed potentially involes
traversing the entire use list of a value.
Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
During runtime unrolling on loops with multiple exits, we update the
exit blocks with the correct phi values from both original and remainder
loop.
In this process, we lookup the VMap for the mapped incoming phi values,
but did not update the VMap if a default entry was generated in the VMap
during the lookup. This default value is generated when constants or
values outside the current loop are looked up.
This patch fixes the assertion failure when null entries are present in
the VMap because of this lookup. Added a testcase that showcases the
problem.
llvm-svn: 313358
The loop structure for the outer loop does not contain the epilog
preheader when we try to unroll inner loop with multiple exits and
epilog code is generated. For now, we just bail out in such cases.
Added a test case that shows the problem. Without this bailout, we would
trip on assert saying LCSSA form is incorrect for outer loop.
llvm-svn: 307676
When unrolling under multiple exits which is under off-by-default option,
the assert that checks for VMap entry in loop exit values is too strong.
(assert if VMap entry did not exist, the value should be a
constant). However, values derived from
constants or from values outside loop, does not have a VMap entry too.
Removed the assert and added a testcase showcasing the property for
non-constant values.
llvm-svn: 307542
With the NFC refactoring in rL307417 (git SHA 987dd01), all the logic
is in place to support multiple exit/exiting blocks when prolog
remainder is generated.
This patch removed the assert that multiple exit blocks unrolling is only
supported when epilog remainder is generated.
Also, added test runs and checks with PROLOG prefix in
runtime-loop-multiple-exits.ll test cases.
llvm-svn: 307435
Currently, we do not support multiple exiting blocks to the
latch exit block. However, this bailout wasn't triggered when we had a
unique exit block (which is the latch exit), with multiple exiting
blocks to that unique exit.
Moved the bailout so that it's triggered in both cases and added
testcase.
llvm-svn: 307291
Summary:
Runtime unrolling is done for loops with a single exit block and a
single exiting block (and this exiting block should be the latch block).
This patch adds logic to support unrolling in the presence of multiple exit
blocks (which also means multiple exiting blocks).
Currently this is under an off-by-default option and is supported when
epilog code is generated. Support in presence of prolog code will be in
a future patch (we just need to add more tests, and update comments).
This patch is essentially an implementation patch. I have not added any
heuristic (in terms of branches added or code size) to decide when
this should be enabled.
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames, evstupac
Reviewed by: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33001
llvm-svn: 306846
