We need to use a logical or instead of a bitwise or to preserve
poison behavior. Poison from the second condition should not
propagate if the first condition is true.
We were already handling this correctly in FoldBranchToCommonDest(),
but not in this fold. (There are still other folds with this issue.)
When passingValueIsAlwaysUndefined scans for an instruction between an
inst with a null or undef argument and its first use, it was checking
for instructions that may have side effects, which is a superset of the
instructions it intended to find (as per the comments, control flow
changing instructions that would prevent reaching the uses). Switch
to using isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor() instead.
Without this change, when enabling -fwhole-program-vtables, which causes
assumes to be inserted by clang, we can get different simplification
decisions. In particular, when building with instrumentation FDO it can
affect the optimizations decisions before FDO matching, leading to some
mismatches.
I had to modify d83507-knowledge-retention-bug.ll since this fix enables
more aggressive optimization of that code such that it no longer tested
the original bug it was meant to test. I removed the undef which still
provokes the original failure (confirmed by temporarily reverting the
fix) and also changed it to just invoke the passes of interest to narrow
the testing.
Similarly I needed to adjust code for UnreachableEliminate.ll to avoid
an undef which was causing the function body to get optimized away with
this fix.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101507
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.
We can just eagerly pre-check all the instructions that we *could*
sink that we'd actually want to sink them, clamping the number of
instructions that we'll sink to stop just before the first unprofitable one.
While doing speculative execution opt, it conservatively drops all insn's debug info in the merged `ThenBB`(see the loop at line 2384) including the dangling probe. The missing debug info of the dangling probe will cause the wrong inference computation.
So we should avoid dropping the debug info from pseudo probe, this change try to fix this by moving the to-be dangling probe to the merging target BB before the debug info is dropped.
Reviewed By: hoy, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101195
Debug intrinsics are free to hoist and should be skipped when looking
for terminator-only blocks. As a consequence, we have to delegate to the
main hoisting loop to hoist any dbg intrinsics instead of jumping to the
terminator case directly.
This fixes PR49982.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100640
Such attributes can either be unset, or set to "true" or "false" (as string).
throughout the codebase, this led to inelegant checks ranging from
if (Fn->getFnAttribute("no-jump-tables").getValueAsString() == "true")
to
if (Fn->hasAttribute("no-jump-tables") && Fn->getFnAttribute("no-jump-tables").getValueAsString() == "true")
Introduce a getValueAsBool that normalize the check, with the following
behavior:
no attributes or attribute set to "false" => return false
attribute set to "true" => return true
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99299
As a side-effect of the change to default HoistCommonInsts to false
early in the pipeline, we fail to convert conditional branch & phis to
selects early on, which prevents vectorization for loops that contain
conditional branches that effectively are selects (or if the loop gets
vectorized, it will get vectorized very inefficiently).
This patch updates SimplifyCFG to perform hoisting if the only
instruction in both BBs is an equal branch. In this case, the only
additional instructions are selects for phis, which should be cheap.
Even though we perform hoisting, the benefits of this kind of hoisting
should by far outweigh the negatives.
For example, the loop in the code below will not get vectorized on
AArch64 with the current default, but will with the patch. This is a
fundamental pattern we should definitely vectorize. Besides that, I
think the select variants should be easier to use for reasoning across
other passes as well.
https://clang.godbolt.org/z/sbjd8Wshx
```
double clamp(double v) {
if (v < 0.0)
return 0.0;
if (v > 6.0)
return 6.0;
return v;
}
void loop(double* X, double *Y) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 20000; i++) {
X[i] = clamp(Y[i]);
}
}
```
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100329
Follow up to a6d2a8d6f5. These were found by simply grepping for "::assume", and are the subset of that result which looked cleaner to me using the isa/dyn_cast patterns.
Add the subclass, update a few places which check for the intrinsic to use idiomatic dyn_cast, and update the public interface of AssumptionCache to use the new class. A follow up change will do the same for the newer assumption query/bundle mechanisms.
When converting a switch with two cases and a default into a
select, also handle the denegerate case where two cases have the
same value.
Generate this case directly as
%or = or i1 %cmp1, %cmp2
%res = select i1 %or, i32 %val, i32 %default
rather than
%sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i32 %val, i32 %default
%res = select i1 %cmp2, i32 %val, i32 %sel1
as InstCombine is going to canonicalize to the former anyway.
This is a small patch to make FoldBranchToCommonDest poison-safe by default.
After fc3f0c9c, only two syntactic changes are needed to fix unit tests.
This does not cause any assembly difference in testsuite as well (-O3, X86-64 Manjaro).
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99452
This *only* changes the cases where we *really* don't care
about the iteration order of the underlying contained,
namely when we will use the values from it to form DTU updates.
`FoldBranchToCommonDest()` has a certain budget (`-bonus-inst-threshold=`)
for bonus instruction duplication. And currently it calculates the cost
as-if it will actually duplicate into each predecessor.
But ignoring the budget, it won't always duplicate into each predecessor,
there are some correctness and profitability checks.
So when calculating the cost, we should first check into which blocks
will we *actually* duplicate, and only then use that block count
to do budgeting.
We clone bonus instructions to the end of the predecessor block,
and then use `SSAUpdater::RewriteUseAfterInsertions()`.
But that only deals with the cases where the use-to-be-rewritten
are either in different block from the def, or come after the def.
But in some loop cases, the external use may be in the beginning of
predecessor block, before the newly cloned bonus instruction.
`SSAUpdater::RewriteUseAfterInsertions()` does not deal with that.
Notably, the external use can't happen to be both in the same block
and *after* the newly-cloned instruction, because of the fold preconditions.
To properly handle these cases, when the use is in the same block,
we should instead use `SSAUpdater::RewriteUse()`.
TBN, they do the same thing for PHI users.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49510
Likely Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49689
2nd try (original: 27ae17a6b014) with fix/test for crash. We must make
sure that TTI is available before trying to use it because it is not
required (might be another bug).
Original commit message:
This is one step towards solving:
https://llvm.org/PR49336
In that example, we disregard the recommended usage of builtin_expect,
so an expensive (unpredictable) branch is folded into another branch
that is guarding it.
Here, we read the profile metadata to see if the 1st (predecessor)
condition is likely to cause execution to bypass the 2nd (successor)
condition before merging conditions by using logic ops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98898
This relands commit 99108c791de0285ee726a10e8274772b18cee73c (D95026) which was
reverted by 8d5a981a135a0f0ae0a10c59b7c8093aae1c28de because the underlying
problem (https://llvm.org/pr49495) is fixed.
This reverts commit 27ae17a6b0145a559c501c35ded0ab4e9dd69e8e.
There are bot failures that end with:
#4 0x00007fff7ae3c9b8 CrashRecoverySignalHandler(int) CrashRecoveryContext.cpp:0:0
#5 0x00007fff84e504d8 (linux-vdso64.so.1+0x4d8)
#6 0x00007fff7c419a5c llvm::TargetTransformInfo::getPredictableBranchThreshold() const (/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1.install/bin/../lib/libLLVMAnalysis.so.13git+0x479a5c)
...but not sure how to trigger that yet.
This is one step towards solving:
https://llvm.org/PR49336
In that example, we disregard the recommended usage of builtin_expect,
so an expensive (unpredictable) branch is folded into another branch
that is guarding it.
Here, we read the profile metadata to see if the 1st (predecessor)
condition is likely to cause execution to bypass the 2nd (successor)
condition before merging conditions by using logic ops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98898
The test is reduced from a C source example in:
https://llvm.org/PR49541
It's possible that the test could be reduced further or
the predicate generalized further, but it seems to require
a few ingredients (including the "late" SimplifyCFG options
on the RUN line) to fall into the infinite-loop trap.
This reverts commit 99108c791de0285ee726a10e8274772b18cee73c.
Clang is miscompiling LLVM with this change, a stage-2 build hits
multiple failures.
As a repro, I built clang in a stage1 directory and used it this way:
cmake -G Ninja ../llvm \
-DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=`pwd`/../build-stage1/bin/clang++ \
-DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=`pwd`/../build-stage1/bin/clang \
-DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86;NVPTX;AMDGPU" \
-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=mlir \
-DLLVM_BUILD_EXAMPLES=ON \
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \
-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=On
ninja check-mlir
This patch makes FoldBranchToCommonDest merge branch conditions into `select i1` rather than `and/or i1` when it is called by SimplifyCFG.
It is known that merging conditions into and/or is poison-unsafe, and this is towards making things *more* correct by removing possible miscompilations.
Currently, InstCombine simply consumes these selects into and/or of i1 (which is also unsafe), so the visible effect would be very small. The unsafe select -> and/or transformation will be removed in the future.
There has been efforts for updating optimizations to support the select form as well, and they are linked to D93065.
The safe transformation is fired when it is called by SimplifyCFG only. This is done by setting the new `PoisonSafe` argument as true.
Another place that calls FoldBranchToCommonDest is LoopSimplify. `PoisonSafe` flag is set to false in this case because enabling it has a nontrivial impact in performance because SCEV is more conservative with select form and InductiveRangeCheckElimination isn't aware of select form of and/or i1.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95026
This change fixes a couple places where the pseudo probe intrinsic blocks optimizations because they are not naturally removable. To unblock those optimizations, the blocking pseudo probes are moved out of the original blocks and tagged dangling, instead of allowing pseudo probes to be literally removed. The reason is that when the original block is removed, we won't be able to sample it. Instead of assigning it a zero weight, moving all its pseudo probes into another block and marking them dangling should allow the counts inference a chance to assign them a more reasonable weight. We have not seen counts quality degradation from our experiments.
The optimizations being unblocked are:
1. Removing conditional probes for if-converted branches. Conditional probes are tagged dangling when their homing branch arms are folded so that they will not be over-counted.
2. Unblocking jump threading from removing empty blocks. Pseudo probe prevents jump threading from removing logically empty blocks that only has one unconditional jump instructions.
3. Unblocking SimplifyCFG and MIR tail duplicate to thread empty blocks and blocks with redundant branch checks.
Since dangling probes are logically deleted, they should not consume any samples in LTO postLink. This can be achieved by setting their distribution factors to zero when dangled.
Reviewed By: wmi
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97481
This is a simple patch to update SimplifyCFG's passingValueIsAlwaysUndefined to inspect more attributes.
A new function `CallBase::isPassingUndefUB` checks attributes that imply noundef.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97244
SimplifyCFG is an utility pass, and the fact that it does not
preserve DomTree's, forces it's users to somehow workaround that,
likely by not preserving DomTrees's themselves.
Indeed, simplifycfg pass didn't know how to preserve dominator tree,
it took me just under a month (starting with e1133179587dd895962a2fe4d6eb0cb1e63b5ee2)
do rectify that, now it fully knows how to,
there's likely some problems with that still,
but i've dealt with everything i can spot so far.
I think we now can flip the switch.
Note that this is functionally an NFC change,
since this doesn't change the users to pass in the DomTree,
that is a separate question.
Reviewed By: kuhar, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94827
If i change it to AssertingVH instead, a number of existing tests fail,
which means we don't consistently remove from the set when deleting blocks,
which means newly-created blocks may happen to appear in that set
if they happen to occupy the same memory chunk as did some block
that was in the set originally.
There are many places where we delete blocks,
and while we could probably consistently delete from LoopHeaders
when deleting a block in transforms located in SimplifyCFG.cpp itself,
transforms located elsewhere (Local.cpp/BasicBlockUtils.cpp) also may
delete blocks, and it doesn't seem good to teach them to deal with it.
Since we at most only ever delete from LoopHeaders,
let's just delegate to WeakVH to do that automatically.
But to be honest, personally, i'm not sure that the idea
behind LoopHeaders is sound.
I have previously tried doing that in
b33fbbaa34f0fe9fb16789afc72ae424c1825b69 / d38205144febf4dc42c9270c6aa3d978f1ef65e1,
but eventually it was pointed out that the approach taken there
was just broken wrt how the uses of bonus instructions are updated
to account for the fact that they should now use either bonus instruction
or the cloned bonus instruction. In particluar, all that manual handling
of PHI nodes in successors was just wrong.
But, the fix is actually much much simpler than my initial approach:
just tell SSAUpdate about both instances of bonus instruction,
and let it deal with all the PHI handling.
Alive2 confirms that the reproducers from the original bugs (@pr48450*)
are now handled correctly.
This effectively reverts commit 59560e85897afc50090b6c3d920bacfd28b49d06,
effectively relanding b33fbbaa34f0fe9fb16789afc72ae424c1825b69.
NewBonusInst just took name from BonusInst, so BonusInst has no name,
so BonusInst.getName() makes no sense.
So we need to ask NewBonusInst for the name.
I'm intentionally structuring it this way, so that the actual fold only
does the fold, and no legality/correctness checks, all of which must be
done by the caller. This allows for the fold code to be more compact
and more easily grokable.
