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
Many uses of getIntPtrType() were using that type to calculate the
neened type for GEP offset arguments. However, some time ago,
DataLayout was extended to support pointers where the size of the
pointer is not equal to the size of the values used to index it.
Much code was already migrated to, for example, use getIndexSizeInBits
instead of getPtrSizeInBits, but some rewrites still used
getIntPtrType() to get the type for GEP offsets.
This commit changes uses of getIntPtrType() to getIndexType() where
they are involved in a GEP-related calculation.
In at least one case (bounds check insertion) this resolves a compiler
crash that the new test added here would previously trigger.
This commit does not impact
- C library-related rewriting (memcpy()), which are operating under
the assumption that intptr_t == size_t. While all the mechanisms for
breaking this assumption now exist, doing so is outside the scope of
this commit.
- Code generation and below. Note that the use of getIntPtrType() in
CodeGenPrepare will be changed in a future commit.
- Usage of getIntPtrType() in any backend
Depends on D143435
Reviewed By: arichardson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143437
To guarantee convergence of the algorithm each optimization step should decrease number of instructions when IR is modified. This property is not held in this test case. The problem is that SCEV Expander may do "unexpected" reassociation what results in creation of new min/max chains and introduction of extra instructions. As a result on each step we indefinitely optimize back and forth.
The solution is to restrict SCEV Expander to perform uncontrolled reassociations by means of "Unknown" expressions.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112060
Previous attempt to fix infinite recursion in min/max reassociation was not fully successful (D100170). Newly discovered failing case is due to not properly handled when there is a single use. It should be processed separately from 2 uses case.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101359
Say we have
%1=min(%a,%b)
%2=min(%b,%c)
%3=min(%2,%a)
The optimization will try to reassociate the later one so that we can rewrite it to %3=min(%1, %c) and remove %2.
But if %2 has another uses outside of %3 then we can't remove %2 and end up with:
%1=min(%a,%b)
%2=min(%b,%c)
%3=min(%1, %c)
This doesn't harm by itself except it is not profitable and changes IR for no good reason.
What is bad it triggers next iteration which finds out that optimization is applicable to %2 and %3 and generates:
%1=min(%a,%b)
%2=min(%b,%c)
%3=min(%1,%c)
%4=min(%2,%a)
and so on...
The solution is to prevent optimization in the first place if intermediate result (%2) has side uses and
known to be not removed.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100170
Support reassociation for min/max. With that we should be able to transform min(min(a, b), c) -> min(min(a, c), b) if min(a, c) is already available.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287
Support reassociation for min/max. With that we should be able to transform min(min(a, b), c) -> min(min(a, c), b) if min(a, c) is already available.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287
Currently we delete optimized instructions as we go. That has several negative consequences. First it complicates traversal logic itself. Second if newly generated instruction has been deleted the traversal is repeated from scratch.
But real motivation for the change is upcoming change with support for min/max reassociation. Here we employ SCEV expander to generate code. As a result newly generated instructions may be inserted not right before original instruction (because SCEV may do hoisting) and there is no way to know 'next' instruction.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88285
New tes cases added. Change var names to avoid the following warning from update_test_checks.py:
WARNING: Change IR value name 'tmp5' to prevent possible conflict with scripted FileCheck name.
Reviewed By: ebrevnov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92566
Generate checks with update_test_checks.py in order to simplify upcoming updates.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92561
As discussed in D86843, -earlycse-debug-hash should be used in more regression
tests to catch inconsistency between the hashing and the equivalence check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86863
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
If NaryReassociate succeed it will, when replacing the old instruction
with the new instruction, also recursively delete trivially
dead instructions from the old instruction. However, if the input to the
NaryReassociate pass contain dead code it is not save to recursively
delete trivially deadinstructions as it might lead to deleting the newly
created instruction.
This patch will fix the problem by using WeakVH to detect this
rare case, when the newly created instruction is dead, and it will then
restart the basic block iteration from the beginning.
This fixes pr37539
Reviewers: tra, meheff, grosser, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47139
llvm-svn: 333155
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Summary:
If Candiadte may have a different type from GEP, we should bitcast or
pointer cast it to GEP's type so that the later RAUW doesn't complain.
Added a test in nary-gep.ll
Reviewers: tra, meheff
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15618
llvm-svn: 256035
Summary:
The instructions SeenExprs records may be deleted during rewriting.
FindClosestMatchingDominator should ignore these deleted instructions.
Fixes PR24301.
Reviewers: grosser
Subscribers: grosser, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13315
llvm-svn: 248983
Summary:
nsw are flaky and can often be removed by optimizations. This patch enhances
nsw by leveraging @llvm.assume in the IR. Specifically, NaryReassociate now
understands that
assume(a + b >= 0) && assume(a >= 0) ==> a +nsw b
As a result, it can split more sext(a + b) into sext(a) + sext(b) for CSE.
Test Plan: nary-gep.ll
Reviewers: broune, meheff
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10822
llvm-svn: 241139
Summary:
This patch made two improvements to NaryReassociate and the NVPTX pipeline
1. Run EarlyCSE/GVN after NaryReassociate to get rid of redundant common
expressions.
2. When adding an instruction to SeenExprs, maps both the SCEV before and after
reassociation to that instruction.
Test Plan: updated @reassociate_gep_nsw in nary-gep.ll
Reviewers: meheff, broune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: dberlin, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9947
llvm-svn: 238396
Summary:
x = &a[i];
y = &a[i + j];
=>
y = x + j;
along with some refactoring work such as extracting method
findClosestMatchingDominator.
Depends on D9786 which provides the ScalarEvolution::getGEPExpr interface.
Test Plan: nary-gep.ll
Reviewers: meheff, broune
Reviewed By: broune
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9802
llvm-svn: 237971
Avoid running forever by checking we are not reassociating an expression into
the same form.
Tested with @avoid_infinite_loops in nary-add.ll
llvm-svn: 237269
Summary:
An alternative is to use a worklist approach. However, that approach
would break the traversing order so that we couldn't lookup SeenExprs
efficiently. I don't see a clear winner here, so I picked the easier approach.
Along with two minor improvements:
1. preserves ScalarEvolution by forgetting instructions replaced
2. removes dead code locally avoiding the need of running DCE afterwards
Test Plan: add to slsr-add.ll a test that requires multiple iterations
Reviewers: broune, dberlin, atrick, meheff
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9058
llvm-svn: 235151
Summary:
This fixes a left-over efficiency issue in D8950.
As Andrew and Daniel suggested, we can store the candidates in a stack
and pop the top element when it does not dominate the current
instruction. This reduces the worst-case time complexity to O(n).
Test Plan: a new test in nary-add.ll that exercises this optimization.
Reviewers: broune, dberlin, meheff, atrick
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9055
llvm-svn: 235129
Summary:
This transformation reassociates a n-ary add so that the add can partially reuse
existing instructions. For example, this pass can simplify
void foo(int a, int b) {
bar(a + b);
bar((a + 2) + b);
}
to
void foo(int a, int b) {
int t = a + b;
bar(t);
bar(t + 2);
}
saving one add instruction.
Fixes PR22357 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22357).
Test Plan: nary-add.ll
Reviewers: broune, dberlin, hfinkel, meheff, sanjoy, atrick
Reviewed By: sanjoy, atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8950
llvm-svn: 234855
