LLVM 2.9. My understanding is that we plan to maintain compatibility with 2.9
until the 3.1 release. At that time we can generate new test cases using LLVM
3.0.
llvm-svn: 142958
bots. Original commit messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
llvm-svn: 142919
classifying many edges as exiting which were in fact not. These mainly
formed edges into sub-loops. It was also not correctly classifying all
returning edges out of loops as leaving the loop. With this match most
of the loop heuristics are more rational.
Several serious regressions on loop-intesive benchmarks like perlbench's
loop tests when built with -enable-block-placement are fixed by these
updated heuristics. Unfortunately they in turn uncover some other
regressions. There are still several improvemenst that should be made to
loop heuristics including trip-count, and early back-edge management.
llvm-svn: 142917
the dragonegg and llvm-gcc self-host buildbots. Original commit
messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
llvm-svn: 142916
introduce no-return or unreachable heuristics.
The return heuristics from the Ball and Larus paper don't work well in
practice as they pessimize early return paths. The only good hitrate
return heuristics are those for:
- NULL return
- Constant return
- negative integer return
Only the last of these three can possibly require significant code for
the returning block, and even the last is fairly rare and usually also
a constant. As a consequence, even for the cold return paths, there is
little code on that return path, and so little code density to be gained
by sinking it. The places where sinking these blocks is valuable (inner
loops) will already be weighted appropriately as the edge is a loop-exit
branch.
All of this aside, early returns are nearly as common as all three of
these return categories, and should actually be predicted as taken!
Rather than muddy the waters of the static predictions, just remain
silent on returns and let the CFG itself dictate any layout or other
issues.
However, the return heuristic was flagging one very important case:
unreachable. Unfortunately it still gave a 1/4 chance of the
branch-to-unreachable occuring. It also didn't do a rigorous job of
finding those blocks which post-dominate an unreachable block.
This patch builds a more powerful analysis that should flag all branches
to blocks known to then reach unreachable. It also has better worst-case
runtime complexity by not looping through successors for each block. The
previous code would perform an N^2 walk in the event of a single entry
block branching to N successors with a switch where each successor falls
through to the next and they finally fall through to a return.
Test case added for noreturn heuristics. Also doxygen comments improved
along the way.
llvm-svn: 142793
instructions.
This doesn't introduce any optimizations we weren't doing before (except
potentially due to pass ordering issues), now passes will eliminate them sooner
as part of their own cleanups.
llvm-svn: 142787
to bring it under direct test instead of merely indirectly testing it in
the BlockFrequencyInfo pass.
The next step is to start adding tests for the various heuristics
employed, and to start fixing those heuristics once they're under test.
llvm-svn: 142778
discussions with Andy. Fundamentally, the previous algorithm is both
counter productive on several fronts and prioritizing things which
aren't necessarily the most important: static branch prediction.
The new algorithm uses the existing loop CFG structure information to
walk through the CFG itself to layout blocks. It coalesces adjacent
blocks within the loop where the CFG allows based on the most likely
path taken. Finally, it topologically orders the block chains that have
been formed. This allows it to choose a (mostly) topologically valid
ordering which still priorizes fallthrough within the structural
constraints.
As a final twist in the algorithm, it does violate the CFG when it
discovers a "hot" edge, that is an edge that is more than 4x hotter than
the competing edges in the CFG. These are forcibly merged into
a fallthrough chain.
Future transformations that need te be added are rotation of loop exit
conditions to be fallthrough, and better isolation of cold block chains.
I'm also planning on adding statistics to model how well the algorithm
does at laying out blocks based on the probabilities it receives.
The old tests mostly still pass, and I have some new tests to add, but
the nested loops are still behaving very strangely. This almost seems
like working-as-intended as it rotated the exit branch to be
fallthrough, but I'm not convinced this is actually the best layout. It
is well supported by the probabilities for loops we currently get, but
those are pretty broken for nested loops, so this may change later.
llvm-svn: 142743
element types, even though the element extraction code does. It is surprising
that this bug has been here for so long. Fixes <rdar://problem/10318778>.
llvm-svn: 142740
able to constant fold load instructions where the argument is a constant.
Second, we should be able to watch multiple PHI nodes through the loop; this
patch only supports PHIs in loop headers, more can be done here.
With this patch, we now constant evaluate:
static const int arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) sum += arr[i];
return sum;
}
llvm-svn: 142731
Next step in the ongoing saga of NEON load/store assmebly parsing. Handle
VLD1 instructions that take a two-register register list.
Adjust the instruction definitions to only have the single encoded register
as an operand. The super-register from the pseudo is kept as an implicit def,
so passes which come after pseudo-expansion still know that the instruction
defines the other subregs.
llvm-svn: 142670
ZExtPromotedInteger and SExtPromotedInteger based on the operation we legalize.
SetCC return type needs to be legalized via PromoteTargetBoolean.
llvm-svn: 142660
it's a bit more plausible to use this instead of CodePlacementOpt. The
code for this was shamelessly stolen from CodePlacementOpt, and then
trimmed down a bit. There doesn't seem to be much utility in returning
true/false from this pass as we may or may not have rewritten all of the
blocks. Also, the statistic of counting how many loops were aligned
doesn't seem terribly important so I removed it. If folks would like it
to be included, I'm happy to add it back.
This was probably the most egregious of the missing features, and now
I'm going to start gathering some performance numbers and looking at
specific loop structures that have different layout between the two.
Test is updated to include both basic loop alignment and nested loop
alignment.
llvm-svn: 142645
canonical example I used when developing it, and is one of the primary
motivating real-world use cases for __builtin_expect (when burried under
a macro).
I'm working on more test cases here, but I'm trying to make sure both
that the pass is doing the right thing with the test cases and that they
aren't too brittle to changes elsewhere in the code generation pipeline.
Feedback and/or suggestions on how to test this are very welcome.
Especially feedback on whether testing the block comments is a good
strategy; I couldn't find any good examples to steal from but all the
other ideas I had were a lot uglier or more fragile.
llvm-svn: 142644
