| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is a follow on to aaea24802bf5. In post commit discussion, Artur and I realized we could cleanup the code using Uses; this patch does so.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As a reminder, a "widenable branch" is the pattern "br i1 (and i1 X, WC()), label %taken, label %untaken" where "WC" is the widenable condition intrinsics. The semantics of such a branch (derived from the semantics of WC) is that a new condition can be added into the condition arbitrarily without violating legality.
Broaden the definition in two ways:
Allow swapped operands to the br (and X, WC()) form
Allow widenable branch w/trivial condition (i.e. true) which takes form of br i1 WC()
The former is just general robustness (e.g. for X = non-instruction this is what instcombine produces). The later is specifically important as partial unswitching of a widenable range check produces exactly this form above the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70502
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
With the widenable condition construct, we have the ability to reason about branches which can be 'widened' (i.e. made to fail more often). We've got a couple o transforms which leverage this. This patch just cleans up the API a bit.
This is prep work for generalizing our definition of a widenable branch slightly. At the moment "br i1 (and A, wc()), ..." is considered widenable, but oddly, neither "br i1 (and wc(), B), ..." or "br i1 wc(), ..." is. That clearly needs addressed, so first, let's centralize the code in one place.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We had a subtle, but nasty bug in our definition of a widenable branch, and thus in the transforms which used that utility. Specifically, we returned true for any branch which included a widenable condition within it's condition, regardless of whether that widenable condition also had other uses.
The problem is that the result of the WC() call is defined to be one particular value. As such, all users must agree as to what that value is. If we widen a branch without also updating *all other users* of the WC in the same way, we have broken the required semantics.
Most of the textual diff is updating existing transforms not to leave dead uses hanging around. They're largely NFC as the dead instructions would be immediately deleted by other passes. The reason to make these changes is so that the transforms preserve the widenable branch form.
In practice, we don't get bitten by this only because it isn't profitable to CSE WC() calls and the lowering pass from guards uses distinct WC calls per branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69916
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The code was failing to actually check for the presence of the call to widenable_condition. The whole point of specifying the widenable_condition intrinsic was allowing widening transforms. A normal branch is not widenable. A normal branch leading to a deopt is not widenable (in general).
I added a test case via LoopPredication, but GuardWidening has an analogous bug. Those are the only two passes actually using this utility just yet. Noticed while working on LoopPredication for non-widenable branches; POC in D60111.
llvm-svn: 357493
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 351803
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch adds a function to detect guards expressed in explicit control
flow form as branch by `and` with widenable condition intrinsic call:
%wc = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%guard_cond = and i1, %some_cond, %wc
br i1 %guard_cond, label %guarded, label %deopt
deopt:
<maybe some non-side-effecting instructions>
deoptimize()
This form can be used as alternative to implicit control flow guard
representation expressed by `experimental_guard` intrinsic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56074
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 351791
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
|
|
rL340921 has been reverted by rL340923 due to linkage dependency
from Transform/Utils to Analysis which is not allowed. In this patch
this has been fixed, a new utility function moved to Analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51152
llvm-svn: 341014
|
