summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* [Transforms] Fix some Clang-tidy modernize-use-using and Include What You ↵Eugene Zelenko2017-09-133-63/+133
| | | | | | Use warnings; other minor fixes (NFC). llvm-svn: 313198
* [GVNHoist] Factor out reachability to search for anticipable instructions ↵Aditya Kumar2017-09-131-288/+418
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | quickly Factor out the reachability such that multiple queries to find reachability of values are fast. This is based on finding the ANTIC points in the CFG which do not change during hoisting. The ANTIC points are basically the dominance-frontiers in the inverse graph. So we introduce a data structure (CHI nodes) to keep track of values flowing out of a basic block. We only do this for values with multiple occurrences in the function as they are the potential hoistable candidates. This patch allows us to hoist instructions to a basic block with >2 successors, as well as deal with infinite loops in a trivial way. Relevant test cases are added to show the functionality as well as regression fixes from PR32821. Regression from previous GVNHoist: We do not hoist fully redundant expressions because fully redundant expressions are already handled by NewGVN Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35918 Reviewers: dberlin, sebpop, gberry, llvm-svn: 313116
* Make promoteLoopAccessesToScalars independent of AliasSet [NFC]Alina Sbirlea2017-09-121-47/+52
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: The current promoteLoopAccessesToScalars method receives an AliasSet, but the information used is in fact a list of Value*, known to must alias. Create the list ahead of time to make this method independent of the AliasSet class. While there is no functionality change, this adds overhead for creating a set of Value*, when promotion would normally exit earlier. This is meant to be as a first refactoring step in order to start replacing AliasSetTracker with MemorySSA. And while the end goal is to redesign LICM, the first few steps will focus on adding MemorySSA as an alternative to the AliasSetTracker using most of the existing functionality. Reviewers: mkuper, danielcdh, dberlin Subscribers: sanjoy, chandlerc, gberry, davide, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35439 llvm-svn: 313075
* [DivRempairs] add a pass to optimize div/rem pairs (PR31028)Sanjay Patel2017-09-093-0/+208
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass. I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028 The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and undo the hoisting that is done here. Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others). Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121 llvm-svn: 312862
* Re-enable "[IRCE] Identify loops with latch comparison against current IV value"Max Kazantsev2017-09-081-13/+51
| | | | | | | | Re-applying after the found bug was fixed. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36215 llvm-svn: 312783
* diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InductiveRangeCheckElimination.cpp ↵Max Kazantsev2017-09-081-49/+11
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | b/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InductiveRangeCheckElimination.cpp index f72a808..9fa49fd 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InductiveRangeCheckElimination.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InductiveRangeCheckElimination.cpp @@ -450,20 +450,10 @@ struct LoopStructure { // equivalent to: // // intN_ty inc = IndVarIncreasing ? 1 : -1; - // pred_ty predicate = IndVarIncreasing - // ? IsSignedPredicate ? ICMP_SLT : ICMP_ULT - // : IsSignedPredicate ? ICMP_SGT : ICMP_UGT; + // pred_ty predicate = IndVarIncreasing ? ICMP_SLT : ICMP_SGT; // - // - // for (intN_ty iv = IndVarStart; predicate(IndVarBase, LoopExitAt); - // iv = IndVarNext) + // for (intN_ty iv = IndVarStart; predicate(iv, LoopExitAt); iv = IndVarBase) // ... body ... - // - // Here IndVarBase is either current or next value of the induction variable. - // in the former case, IsIndVarNext = false and IndVarBase points to the - // Phi node of the induction variable. Otherwise, IsIndVarNext = true and - // IndVarBase points to IV increment instruction. - // Value *IndVarBase; Value *IndVarStart; @@ -471,13 +461,12 @@ struct LoopStructure { Value *LoopExitAt; bool IndVarIncreasing; bool IsSignedPredicate; - bool IsIndVarNext; LoopStructure() : Tag(""), Header(nullptr), Latch(nullptr), LatchBr(nullptr), LatchExit(nullptr), LatchBrExitIdx(-1), IndVarBase(nullptr), IndVarStart(nullptr), IndVarStep(nullptr), LoopExitAt(nullptr), - IndVarIncreasing(false), IsSignedPredicate(true), IsIndVarNext(false) {} + IndVarIncreasing(false), IsSignedPredicate(true) {} template <typename M> LoopStructure map(M Map) const { LoopStructure Result; @@ -493,7 +482,6 @@ struct LoopStructure { Result.LoopExitAt = Map(LoopExitAt); Result.IndVarIncreasing = IndVarIncreasing; Result.IsSignedPredicate = IsSignedPredicate; - Result.IsIndVarNext = IsIndVarNext; return Result; } @@ -841,42 +829,21 @@ LoopStructure::parseLoopStructure(ScalarEvolution &SE, return false; }; - // `ICI` can either be a comparison against IV or a comparison of IV.next. - // Depending on the interpretation, we calculate the start value differently. + // `ICI` is interpreted as taking the backedge if the *next* value of the + // induction variable satisfies some constraint. - // Pair {IndVarBase; IsIndVarNext} semantically designates whether the latch - // comparisons happens against the IV before or after its value is - // incremented. Two valid combinations for them are: - // - // 1) { phi [ iv.start, preheader ], [ iv.next, latch ]; false }, - // 2) { iv.next; true }. - // - // The latch comparison happens against IndVarBase which can be either current - // or next value of the induction variable. const SCEVAddRecExpr *IndVarBase = cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(LeftSCEV); bool IsIncreasing = false; bool IsSignedPredicate = true; - bool IsIndVarNext = false; ConstantInt *StepCI; if (!IsInductionVar(IndVarBase, IsIncreasing, StepCI)) { FailureReason = "LHS in icmp not induction variable"; return None; } - const SCEV *IndVarStart = nullptr; - // TODO: Currently we only handle comparison against IV, but we can extend - // this analysis to be able to deal with comparison against sext(iv) and such. - if (isa<PHINode>(LeftValue) && - cast<PHINode>(LeftValue)->getParent() == Header) - // The comparison is made against current IV value. - IndVarStart = IndVarBase->getStart(); - else { - // Assume that the comparison is made against next IV value. - const SCEV *StartNext = IndVarBase->getStart(); - const SCEV *Addend = SE.getNegativeSCEV(IndVarBase->getStepRecurrence(SE)); - IndVarStart = SE.getAddExpr(StartNext, Addend); - IsIndVarNext = true; - } + const SCEV *StartNext = IndVarBase->getStart(); + const SCEV *Addend = SE.getNegativeSCEV(IndVarBase->getStepRecurrence(SE)); + const SCEV *IndVarStart = SE.getAddExpr(StartNext, Addend); const SCEV *Step = SE.getSCEV(StepCI); ConstantInt *One = ConstantInt::get(IndVarTy, 1); @@ -1060,7 +1027,6 @@ LoopStructure::parseLoopStructure(ScalarEvolution &SE, Result.IndVarIncreasing = IsIncreasing; Result.LoopExitAt = RightValue; Result.IsSignedPredicate = IsSignedPredicate; - Result.IsIndVarNext = IsIndVarNext; FailureReason = nullptr; @@ -1350,9 +1316,8 @@ LoopConstrainer::RewrittenRangeInfo LoopConstrainer::changeIterationSpaceEnd( BranchToContinuation); NewPHI->addIncoming(PN->getIncomingValueForBlock(Preheader), Preheader); - auto *FixupValue = - LS.IsIndVarNext ? PN->getIncomingValueForBlock(LS.Latch) : PN; - NewPHI->addIncoming(FixupValue, RRI.ExitSelector); + NewPHI->addIncoming(PN->getIncomingValueForBlock(LS.Latch), + RRI.ExitSelector); RRI.PHIValuesAtPseudoExit.push_back(NewPHI); } @@ -1735,10 +1700,7 @@ bool InductiveRangeCheckElimination::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) { } LoopStructure LS = MaybeLoopStructure.getValue(); const SCEVAddRecExpr *IndVar = - cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE.getSCEV(LS.IndVarBase)); - if (LS.IsIndVarNext) - IndVar = cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE.getMinusSCEV(IndVar, - SE.getSCEV(LS.IndVarStep))); + cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE.getMinusSCEV(SE.getSCEV(LS.IndVarBase), SE.getSCEV(LS.IndVarStep))); Optional<InductiveRangeCheck::Range> SafeIterRange; Instruction *ExprInsertPt = Preheader->getTerminator(); diff --git a/test/Transforms/IRCE/latch-comparison-against-current-value.ll b/test/Transforms/IRCE/latch-comparison-against-current-value.ll deleted file mode 100644 index afea0e6..0000000 --- a/test/Transforms/IRCE/latch-comparison-against-current-value.ll +++ /dev/null @@ -1,182 +0,0 @@ -; RUN: opt -verify-loop-info -irce-print-changed-loops -irce -S < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s - -; Check that IRCE is able to deal with loops where the latch comparison is -; done against current value of the IV, not the IV.next. - -; CHECK: irce: in function test_01: constrained Loop at depth 1 containing: %loop<header><exiting>,%in.bounds<latch><exiting> -; CHECK: irce: in function test_02: constrained Loop at depth 1 containing: %loop<header><exiting>,%in.bounds<latch><exiting> -; CHECK-NOT: irce: in function test_03: constrained Loop at depth 1 containing: %loop<header><exiting>,%in.bounds<latch><exiting> -; CHECK-NOT: irce: in function test_04: constrained Loop at depth 1 containing: %loop<header><exiting>,%in.bounds<latch><exiting> - -; SLT condition for increasing loop from 0 to 100. -define void @test_01(i32* %arr, i32* %a_len_ptr) #0 { - -; CHECK: test_01 -; CHECK: entry: -; CHECK-NEXT: %exit.mainloop.at = load i32, i32* %a_len_ptr, !range !0 -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND2:%[^ ]+]] = icmp slt i32 0, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND2]], label %loop.preheader, label %main.pseudo.exit -; CHECK: loop: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx = phi i32 [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ], [ 0, %loop.preheader ] -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.next = add nuw nsw i32 %idx, 1 -; CHECK-NEXT: %abc = icmp slt i32 %idx, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 true, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds.loopexit1 -; CHECK: in.bounds: -; CHECK-NEXT: %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx -; CHECK-NEXT: store i32 0, i32* %addr -; CHECK-NEXT: %next = icmp slt i32 %idx, 100 -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND3:%[^ ]+]] = icmp slt i32 %idx, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND3]], label %loop, label %main.exit.selector -; CHECK: main.exit.selector: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.lcssa = phi i32 [ %idx, %in.bounds ] -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND4:%[^ ]+]] = icmp slt i32 %idx.lcssa, 100 -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND4]], label %main.pseudo.exit, label %exit -; CHECK-NOT: loop.preloop: -; CHECK: loop.postloop: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.postloop = phi i32 [ %idx.copy, %postloop ], [ %idx.next.postloop, %in.bounds.postloop ] -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.next.postloop = add nuw nsw i32 %idx.postloop, 1 -; CHECK-NEXT: %abc.postloop = icmp slt i32 %idx.postloop, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %abc.postloop, label %in.bounds.postloop, label %out.of.bounds.loopexit - -entry: - %len = load i32, i32* %a_len_ptr, !range !0 - br label %loop - -loop: - %idx = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ] - %idx.next = add nsw nuw i32 %idx, 1 - %abc = icmp slt i32 %idx, %len - br i1 %abc, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds - -in.bounds: - %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx - store i32 0, i32* %addr - %next = icmp slt i32 %idx, 100 - br i1 %next, label %loop, label %exit - -out.of.bounds: - ret void - -exit: - ret void -} - -; ULT condition for increasing loop from 0 to 100. -define void @test_02(i32* %arr, i32* %a_len_ptr) #0 { - -; CHECK: test_02 -; CHECK: entry: -; CHECK-NEXT: %exit.mainloop.at = load i32, i32* %a_len_ptr, !range !0 -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND2:%[^ ]+]] = icmp ult i32 0, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND2]], label %loop.preheader, label %main.pseudo.exit -; CHECK: loop: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx = phi i32 [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ], [ 0, %loop.preheader ] -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.next = add nuw nsw i32 %idx, 1 -; CHECK-NEXT: %abc = icmp ult i32 %idx, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 true, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds.loopexit1 -; CHECK: in.bounds: -; CHECK-NEXT: %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx -; CHECK-NEXT: store i32 0, i32* %addr -; CHECK-NEXT: %next = icmp ult i32 %idx, 100 -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND3:%[^ ]+]] = icmp ult i32 %idx, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND3]], label %loop, label %main.exit.selector -; CHECK: main.exit.selector: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.lcssa = phi i32 [ %idx, %in.bounds ] -; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND4:%[^ ]+]] = icmp ult i32 %idx.lcssa, 100 -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[COND4]], label %main.pseudo.exit, label %exit -; CHECK-NOT: loop.preloop: -; CHECK: loop.postloop: -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.postloop = phi i32 [ %idx.copy, %postloop ], [ %idx.next.postloop, %in.bounds.postloop ] -; CHECK-NEXT: %idx.next.postloop = add nuw nsw i32 %idx.postloop, 1 -; CHECK-NEXT: %abc.postloop = icmp ult i32 %idx.postloop, %exit.mainloop.at -; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %abc.postloop, label %in.bounds.postloop, label %out.of.bounds.loopexit - -entry: - %len = load i32, i32* %a_len_ptr, !range !0 - br label %loop - -loop: - %idx = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ] - %idx.next = add nsw nuw i32 %idx, 1 - %abc = icmp ult i32 %idx, %len - br i1 %abc, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds - -in.bounds: - %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx - store i32 0, i32* %addr - %next = icmp ult i32 %idx, 100 - br i1 %next, label %loop, label %exit - -out.of.bounds: - ret void - -exit: - ret void -} - -; Same as test_01, but comparison happens against IV extended to a wider type. -; This test ensures that IRCE rejects it and does not falsely assume that it was -; a comparison against iv.next. -; TODO: We can actually extend the recognition to cover this case. -define void @test_03(i32* %arr, i64* %a_len_ptr) #0 { - -; CHECK: test_03 - -entry: - %len = load i64, i64* %a_len_ptr, !range !1 - br label %loop - -loop: - %idx = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ] - %idx.next = add nsw nuw i32 %idx, 1 - %idx.ext = sext i32 %idx to i64 - %abc = icmp slt i64 %idx.ext, %len - br i1 %abc, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds - -in.bounds: - %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx - store i32 0, i32* %addr - %next = icmp slt i32 %idx, 100 - br i1 %next, label %loop, label %exit - -out.of.bounds: - ret void - -exit: - ret void -} - -; Same as test_02, but comparison happens against IV extended to a wider type. -; This test ensures that IRCE rejects it and does not falsely assume that it was -; a comparison against iv.next. -; TODO: We can actually extend the recognition to cover this case. -define void @test_04(i32* %arr, i64* %a_len_ptr) #0 { - -; CHECK: test_04 - -entry: - %len = load i64, i64* %a_len_ptr, !range !1 - br label %loop - -loop: - %idx = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %idx.next, %in.bounds ] - %idx.next = add nsw nuw i32 %idx, 1 - %idx.ext = sext i32 %idx to i64 - %abc = icmp ult i64 %idx.ext, %len - br i1 %abc, label %in.bounds, label %out.of.bounds - -in.bounds: - %addr = getelementptr i32, i32* %arr, i32 %idx - store i32 0, i32* %addr - %next = icmp ult i32 %idx, 100 - br i1 %next, label %loop, label %exit - -out.of.bounds: - ret void - -exit: - ret void -} - -!0 = !{i32 0, i32 50} -!1 = !{i64 0, i64 50} llvm-svn: 312775
* Sink some IntrinsicInst.h and Intrinsics.h out of llvm/includeReid Kleckner2017-09-072-0/+3
| | | | | | | Many of these uses can get by with forward declarations. Hopefully this speeds up compilation after adding a single intrinsic. llvm-svn: 312759
* Disable jump threading into loop headersKrzysztof Parzyszek2017-09-061-4/+9
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Consider this type of a loop: for (...) { ... if (...) continue; ... } Normally, the "continue" would branch to the loop control code that checks whether the loop should continue iterating and which contains the (often) unique loop latch branch. In certain cases jump threading can "thread" the inner branch directly to the loop header, creating a second loop latch. Loop canonicalization would then transform this loop into a loop nest. The problem with this is that in such a loop nest neither loop is countable even if the original loop was. This may inhibit subsequent loop optimizations and be detrimental to performance. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36404 llvm-svn: 312664
* [GVNHoist] Move duplicated code to a helper function. NFCI.Davide Italiano2017-09-051-24/+21
| | | | llvm-svn: 312575
* NewGVN: Fix PR 34430 - we need to look through predicateinfo copies to ↵Daniel Berlin2017-09-051-31/+32
| | | | | | detect self-cycles of phi nodes. We also need to not ignore certain types of arguments when testing whether the phi has a backedge or was originally constant. llvm-svn: 312510
* NewGVN: Fix PR 34452 by passing instruction all the way down when we do ↵Daniel Berlin2017-09-051-7/+9
| | | | | | aggregate value simplification llvm-svn: 312509
* NewGVN: Detect copies through predicateinfoDaniel Berlin2017-09-051-1/+12
| | | | llvm-svn: 312508
* NewGVN: Change where check for original instruction in phi of ops leader ↵Daniel Berlin2017-09-051-3/+8
| | | | | | finding is done. Where we had it before, we would stop looking when we hit the original instruction, but skip it. Now we skip it and keep looking. llvm-svn: 312507
* Fix PR/33305. caused by trying to simplify expressions in phi of ops that ↵Daniel Berlin2017-09-021-50/+144
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | should have no leaders. Summary: After a discussion with Rekka, i believe this (or a small variant) should fix the remaining phi-of-ops problems. Rekka's algorithm for completeness relies on looking up expressions that should have no leader, and expecting it to fail (IE looking up expressions that can't exist in a predecessor, and expecting it to find nothing). Unfortunately, sometimes these expressions can be simplified to constants, but we need the lookup to fail anyway. Additionally, our simplifier outsmarts this by taking these "not quite right" expressions, and simplifying them into other expressions or walking through phis, etc. In the past, we've sometimes been able to find leaders for these expressions, incorrectly. This change causes us to not to try to phi of ops such expressions. We determine safety by seeing if they depend on a phi node in our block. This is not perfect, we can do a bit better, but this should be a "correctness start" that we can then improve. It also requires a bunch of caching that i'll eventually like to eliminate. The right solution, longer term, to the simplifier issues, is to make the query interface for the instruction simplifier/constant folder have the flags we need, so that we can keep most things going, but turn off the possibly-invalid parts (threading through phis, etc). This is an issue in another wrong code bug as well. Reviewers: davide, mcrosier Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37175 llvm-svn: 312401
* [Analysis, Transforms] Fix some Clang-tidy modernize and Include What You ↵Eugene Zelenko2017-09-012-131/+228
| | | | | | Use warnings; other minor fixes (NFC). llvm-svn: 312383
* NewGVN: Make sure we don't incorrectly use PredicateInfo when doing PHI of opsDaniel Berlin2017-09-011-3/+10
| | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: When we backtranslate expressions, we can't use the predicateinfo, since we are evaluating them in a different context. Reviewers: davide, mcrosier Subscribers: sanjoy, Prazek, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37174 llvm-svn: 312352
* [MergeICmps] Fix build of rL312315 on clang-with-thin-lto-windows:Clement Courbet2017-09-011-2/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | MergeICmps.cpp(68,15): error: chosen constructor is explicit in copy-initialization return {}; APInt.h(339,12): note: explicit constructor declared here explicit APInt() : BitWidth(1) { U.VAL = 0; } ^ MergeICmps.cpp(56,9): note: in implicit initialization of field 'Offset' with omitted initializer APInt Offset; ^ llvm-svn: 312326
* Reland rL312315: [MergeICmps] MergeICmps is a new optimization pass that ↵Clement Courbet2017-09-013-0/+647
| | | | | | | | | | turns chains of integer Add missing header. This reverts commit 86dd6335cf7607af22f383a9a8e072ba929848cf. llvm-svn: 312322
* Revert "[MergeICmps] MergeICmps is a new optimization pass that turns chains ↵Clement Courbet2017-09-013-643/+0
| | | | | | | | | | of integer" Break build This reverts commit d07ab866f7f88f81e49046d691a80dcd32d7198b. llvm-svn: 312317
* [MergeICmps] MergeICmps is a new optimization pass that turns chains of integerClement Courbet2017-09-013-0/+643
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | comparisons into memcmp. Thanks to recent improvements in the LLVM codegen, the memcmp is typically inlined as a chain of efficient hardware comparisons. This typically benefits C++ member or nonmember operator==(). For now this is disabled by default until: - https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33329 is complete - Benchmarks show that this is always useful. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33987 llvm-svn: 312315
* [Analysis] Fix some Clang-tidy modernize-use-using and Include What You Use ↵Eugene Zelenko2017-08-311-35/+46
| | | | | | warnings; other minor fixes. Also affected in files (NFC). llvm-svn: 312289
* [IRCE] Identify loops with latch comparison against current IV valueMax Kazantsev2017-08-311-11/+49
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Current implementation of parseLoopStructure interprets the latch comparison as a comarison against `iv.next`. If the actual comparison is made against the `iv` current value then the loop may be rejected, because this misinterpretation leads to incorrect evaluation of the latch start value. This patch teaches the IRCE to distinguish this kind of loops and perform the optimization for them. Now we use `IndVarBase` variable which can be either next or current value of the induction variable (previously we used `IndVarNext` which was always the value on next iteration). Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36215 llvm-svn: 312221
* [IRCE][NFC] Rename IndVarNext to IndVarBaseMax Kazantsev2017-08-311-21/+21
| | | | | | | | | Renaming as a preparation step to generalizing IRCE for comparison not only against the next value of an indvar, but also against the current. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36509 llvm-svn: 312215
* Refactor DIBuilder::createFragmentExpression into a static DIExpression memberAdrian Prantl2017-08-301-1/+8
| | | | | | NFC llvm-svn: 312165
* NewGVN: Make sure we add the correct user if we swapped the comparison operandsDaniel Berlin2017-08-301-2/+4
| | | | llvm-svn: 312162
* NewGVN: Allow simplification into variablesDaniel Berlin2017-08-301-22/+21
| | | | llvm-svn: 312161
* [GVNSink] Remove dependency on SmallPtrSet iteration order.Benjamin Kramer2017-08-301-0/+2
| | | | | | Found by LLVM_ENABLE_REVERSE_ITERATION. llvm-svn: 312156
* [LoopUnswitch] Fix a simple bug which disables loop unswitch for select ↵Wei Mi2017-08-291-4/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | statement This is to fix PR34257. rL309059 takes an early return when FindLIVLoopCondition fails to find a loop invariant condition. This is wrong and it will disable loop unswitch for select. The patch fixes the bug. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36985 llvm-svn: 312045
* [LSR] Fix Shadow IV in case of integer overflowMax Kazantsev2017-08-291-0/+8
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | When LSR processes code like int accumulator = 0; for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { accummulator += i; use((double) accummulator); } It may decide to replace integer `accumulator` with a double Shadow IV to get rid of casts. The problem with that is that the `accumulator`'s value may overflow. Starting from this moment, the behavior of integer and double accumulators will differ. This patch strenghtens up the conditions of Shadow IV mechanism applicability. We only allow it for IVs that are proved to be `AddRec`s with `nsw`/`nuw` flag. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37209 llvm-svn: 311986
* [LoopUnroll] Add a cl::opt to force peeling, for testing purposes.Davide Italiano2017-08-281-0/+6
| | | | | | Will be used to test the patch proposed in D37153. llvm-svn: 311915
* Untabify.NAKAMURA Takumi2017-08-281-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 311875
* [NewGVN] Use `auto` when the type is obvious NFCI.Davide Italiano2017-08-261-2/+2
| | | | llvm-svn: 311838
* NewGVN: Fix PR33204 - We need to add memory users when we bypass memorydefs ↵Daniel Berlin2017-08-261-4/+8
| | | | | | for loads, not just when we do it for stores. llvm-svn: 311829
* [LoopInterchange] Skip zext instructions when looking for induction var.Florian Hahn2017-08-251-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: SimplifyIndVar may introduce zext instructions to widen arguments of the loop exit check. They should not prevent us from splitting the loop at the induction variable, but maybe the check should be more conservative, e.g. making sure it only extends arguments used by a comparison? Reviewers: karthikthecool, mcrosier, mzolotukhin Reviewed By: mcrosier Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34879 llvm-svn: 311783
* [Profile] backward propagate profile info in JumpThreadingXinliang David Li2017-08-241-1/+115
| | | | | | | | Take-2 after fixing bugs in the original patch. Differential Revsion: http://reviews.llvm.org/D36864 llvm-svn: 311727
* [Reassociate] Do not drop debug location if replacement is missingMikael Holmen2017-08-241-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: When reassociating an expression, do not drop the instruction's original debug location in case the replacement location is missing. The debug location must at least not be dropped for inlinable callsites of debug-info-bearing functions in debug-info-bearing functions. Failing to do so would result in an "inlinable function " "call in a function with debug info must have a !dbg location" error in the verifier. As preserving the original debug location is not expected to result in overly jumpy debug line information, it is preserved for all other cases too. This fixes PR34231: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34231 Original patch by David Stenberg Reviewers: davide, craig.topper, mcrosier, dblaikie, aprantl Reviewed By: davide, aprantl Subscribers: aprantl Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36865 llvm-svn: 311642
* NewGVN: We weren't properly simplifying selects with equal arguments due to ↵Daniel Berlin2017-08-241-1/+1
| | | | | | a thinko. llvm-svn: 311626
* LowerAtomic: Don't skip optnone functions; atomic still need lowering (PR34020)Hans Wennborg2017-08-231-2/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | The lowering isn't really an optimization, so optnone shouldn't make a difference. ARM relies on the pass running when using "-mthread-model single", because in that mode, it doesn't run AtomicExpand. See bug for more details. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37040 llvm-svn: 311565
* [Reassociate] Don't canonicalize x + (-Constant * y) -> x - (Constant * y)..Chad Rosier2017-08-231-0/+6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | ..if the resulting subtract will be broken up later. This can cause us to get into an infinite loop. x + (-5.0 * y) -> x - (5.0 * y) ; Canonicalize neg const x - (5.0 * y) -> x + (0 - (5.0 * y)) ; Break up subtract x + (0 - (5.0 * y)) -> x + (-5.0 * y) ; Replace 0-X with X*-1. PR34078 llvm-svn: 311554
* [ADCE][Dominators] Reapply: Teach ADCE to preserve dominatorsJakub Kuderski2017-08-221-7/+49
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This patch teaches ADCE to preserve both DominatorTrees and PostDominatorTrees. This is reapplies the original patch r311057 that was reverted in r311381. The previous version wasn't using the batch update api for updating dominators, which in vary rare cases caused assertion failures. This also fixes PR34258. Reviewers: dberlin, chandlerc, sanjoy, davide, grosser, brzycki Reviewed By: davide Subscribers: grandinj, zhendongsu, llvm-commits, david2050 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35869 llvm-svn: 311467
* Revert "Reapply: [ADCE][Dominators] Teach ADCE to preserve dominators"Sanjoy Das2017-08-211-46/+7
| | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This partially reverts commit r311057 since it breaks ADCE. See PR34258. Reviewers: kuhar Subscribers: mcrosier, david2050, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36979 llvm-svn: 311381
* Revert 311208, 311209Xinliang David Li2017-08-211-112/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 311341
* Move helper classes into anonymous namespaces.Benjamin Kramer2017-08-201-0/+2
| | | | | | No functionality change intended. llvm-svn: 311288
* Fix comment /NFCXinliang David Li2017-08-181-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 311209
* [Profile] backward propagate profile info in JumpThreadingXinliang David Li2017-08-181-1/+112
| | | | | | Differential Revsion: http://reviews.llvm.org/D36864 llvm-svn: 311208
* [IRCE] Fix buggy behavior in ClampMax Kazantsev2017-08-181-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Clamp function was too optimistic when choosing signed or unsigned min/max function for calculations. In fact, `!IsSignedPredicate` guarantees us that `Smallest` and `Greatest` can be compared safely using unsigned predicates, but we did not check this for `S` which can in theory be negative. This patch makes Clamp use signed min/max for cases when it fails to prove `S` being non-negative, and it adds a test where such situation may lead to incorrect conditions calculation. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36873 llvm-svn: 311205
* [LoopRotate][Dominators] Use the incremental API to update DomTreeJakub Kuderski2017-08-171-66/+13
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This patch teaches LoopRotate to use the new incremental API to update the DominatorTree. Reviewers: dberlin, davide, grosser, sanjoy Reviewed By: dberlin, davide Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35581 llvm-svn: 311125
* [Dominators] Teach LoopUnswitch to use the incremental APIJakub Kuderski2017-08-171-13/+45
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This patch makes LoopUnswitch use new incremental API for updating dominators. It also updates SplitCriticalEdge, as it is called in LoopUnswitch. There doesn't seem to be any noticeable performance difference when bootstrapping clang with this patch. Reviewers: dberlin, davide, sanjoy, grosser, chandlerc Reviewed By: davide, grosser Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35528 llvm-svn: 311093
* Reapply: [ADCE][Dominators] Teach ADCE to preserve dominatorsJakub Kuderski2017-08-171-7/+46
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This patch teaches ADCE to preserve both DominatorTrees and PostDominatorTrees. I didn't notice any performance impact when bootstrapping clang with this patch. The patch was originally committed in r311039 and reverted in r311049. This revision fixes the problem with not adding a dependency on the DominatorTreeWrapperPass for the LegacyPassManager. Reviewers: dberlin, chandlerc, sanjoy, davide, grosser, brzycki Reviewed By: davide Subscribers: grandinj, zhendongsu, llvm-commits, david2050 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35869 llvm-svn: 311057
* Revert "[ADCE][Dominators] Teach ADCE to preserve dominators"Jakub Kuderski2017-08-161-43/+7
| | | | | | | This reverts commit r311039. The patch caused the `test/Bindings/OCaml/Output/scalar_opts.ml` to fail. llvm-svn: 311049
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud