| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Restructure caching"
This reverts commits 7e18aeba5062cd4324a9efb7bc25c9dbc4a34c2c (D70376) 21fbd5587cdfa11dabb3aeb0ead2d3d5fd0b490d (D69914) due to increased memory usage.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a rebase of the change over D70376, which fixes an LVI cache
invalidation issue that also affected this patch.
-----
Related to D69686. As noted there, LVI currently behaves differently
for integer and pointer values: For integers, the block value is always
valid inside the basic block, while for pointers it is only valid at
the end of the basic block. I believe the integer behavior is the
correct one, and CVP relies on it via its getConstantRange() uses.
The reason for the special pointer behavior is that LVI checks whether
a pointer is dereferenced in a given basic block and marks it as
non-null in that case. Of course, this information is valid only after
the dereferencing instruction, or in conservative approximation,
at the end of the block.
This patch changes the treatment of dereferencability: Instead of
including it inside the block value, we instead treat it as something
similar to an assume (it essentially is a non-nullness assume) and
incorporate this information in intersectAssumeOrGuardBlockValueConstantRange()
if the context instruction is the terminator of the basic block.
This happens either when determining an edge-value internally in LVI,
or when a terminator was explicitly passed to getValueAt(). The latter
case makes this change not fully NFC, because we can now fold
terminator icmps based on the dereferencability information in the
same block. This is the reason why I changed one JumpThreading test
(it would optimize the condition away without the change).
Of course, we do not want to recompute dereferencability on each
intersectAssume call, so we need a new cache for this. The
dereferencability analysis requires walking the entire basic block
and computing underlying objects of all memory operands. This was
previously done separately for each queried pointer value. In the
new implementation (both because this makes the caching simpler,
and because it is faster), I instead only walk the full BB once and
cache all the dereferenced pointers. So the traversal is now performed
only once per BB, instead of once per queried pointer value.
I think the overall model now makes more sense than before, and there
will be no more pitfalls due to differing integer/pointer behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69914
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
python 3.6.
Reverting to figure out if it's a problem in python or the compiler for now.
This reverts commit 885a05f48a5d320946c89590b73a764e5884fe4f.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix cache invalidation by not guarding the dereferenced pointer cache
erasure by SeenBlocks. SeenBlocks is only populated when actually
caching a value in the block, which doesn't necessarily have to happen
just because dereferenced pointers were calculated.
-----
Related to D69686. As noted there, LVI currently behaves differently
for integer and pointer values: For integers, the block value is always
valid inside the basic block, while for pointers it is only valid at
the end of the basic block. I believe the integer behavior is the
correct one, and CVP relies on it via its getConstantRange() uses.
The reason for the special pointer behavior is that LVI checks whether
a pointer is dereferenced in a given basic block and marks it as
non-null in that case. Of course, this information is valid only after
the dereferencing instruction, or in conservative approximation,
at the end of the block.
This patch changes the treatment of dereferencability: Instead of
including it inside the block value, we instead treat it as something
similar to an assume (it essentially is a non-nullness assume) and
incorporate this information in intersectAssumeOrGuardBlockValueConstantRange()
if the context instruction is the terminator of the basic block.
This happens either when determining an edge-value internally in LVI,
or when a terminator was explicitly passed to getValueAt(). The latter
case makes this change not fully NFC, because we can now fold
terminator icmps based on the dereferencability information in the
same block. This is the reason why I changed one JumpThreading test
(it would optimize the condition away without the change).
Of course, we do not want to recompute dereferencability on each
intersectAssume call, so we need a new cache for this. The
dereferencability analysis requires walking the entire basic block
and computing underlying objects of all memory operands. This was
previously done separately for each queried pointer value. In the
new implementation (both because this makes the caching simpler,
and because it is faster), I instead only walk the full BB once and
cache all the dereferenced pointers. So the traversal is now performed
only once per BB, instead of once per queried pointer value.
I think the overall model now makes more sense than before, and there
will be no more pitfalls due to differing integer/pointer behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69914
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 15bc4dc9a8949f9cffd46ec647baf0818d28fb28.
clang-cmake-x86_64-sde-avx512-linux buildbot reported quite a few
compile-time regressions in test-suite, will investigate.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Related to D69686. As noted there, LVI currently behaves differently
for integer and pointer values: For integers, the block value is always
valid inside the basic block, while for pointers it is only valid at
the end of the basic block. I believe the integer behavior is the
correct one, and CVP relies on it via its getConstantRange() uses.
The reason for the special pointer behavior is that LVI checks whether
a pointer is dereferenced in a given basic block and marks it as
non-null in that case. Of course, this information is valid only after
the dereferencing instruction, or in conservative approximation,
at the end of the block.
This patch changes the treatment of dereferencability: Instead of
including it inside the block value, we instead treat it as something
similar to an assume (it essentially is a non-nullness assume) and
incorporate this information in intersectAssumeOrGuardBlockValueConstantRange()
if the context instruction is the terminator of the basic block.
This happens either when determining an edge-value internally in LVI,
or when a terminator was explicitly passed to getValueAt(). The latter
case makes this change not fully NFC, because we can now fold
terminator icmps based on the dereferencability information in the
same block. This is the reason why I changed one JumpThreading test
(it would optimize the condition away without the change).
Of course, we do not want to recompute dereferencability on each
intersectAssume call, so we need a new cache for this. The
dereferencability analysis requires walking the entire basic block
and computing underlying objects of all memory operands. This was
previously done separately for each queried pointer value. In the
new implementation (both because this makes the caching simpler,
and because it is faster), I instead only walk the full BB once and
cache all the dereferenced pointers. So the traversal is now performed
only once per BB, instead of once per queried pointer value.
I think the overall model now makes more sense than before, and there
will be no more pitfalls due to differing integer/pointer behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69914
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
|
|
This patch makes the DoesKMove argument non-optional, to force people
to think about it. Most cases where it is false are either code hoisting
or code sinking, where we pick one instruction from a set of
equal instructions among different code paths.
Reviewers: dberlin, nlopes, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47475
llvm-svn: 340606
|
