| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(PR44100)
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Alive says this is OK.
llvm-svn: 364233
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Added more tests for multiple exiting blocks to the LatchExit.
Today these cases are not supported. Patch to follow soon.
llvm-svn: 350135
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Added -verify-loop-lcssa to test cases.
Updated comments in ConnectProlog.
llvm-svn: 350131
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
through lookup
During runtime unrolling on loops with multiple exits, we update the
exit blocks with the correct phi values from both original and remainder
loop.
In this process, we lookup the VMap for the mapped incoming phi values,
but did not update the VMap if a default entry was generated in the VMap
during the lookup. This default value is generated when constants or
values outside the current loop are looked up.
This patch fixes the assertion failure when null entries are present in
the VMap because of this lookup. Added a testcase that showcases the
problem.
llvm-svn: 313358
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The loop structure for the outer loop does not contain the epilog
preheader when we try to unroll inner loop with multiple exits and
epilog code is generated. For now, we just bail out in such cases.
Added a test case that shows the problem. Without this bailout, we would
trip on assert saying LCSSA form is incorrect for outer loop.
llvm-svn: 307676
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When unrolling under multiple exits which is under off-by-default option,
the assert that checks for VMap entry in loop exit values is too strong.
(assert if VMap entry did not exist, the value should be a
constant). However, values derived from
constants or from values outside loop, does not have a VMap entry too.
Removed the assert and added a testcase showcasing the property for
non-constant values.
llvm-svn: 307542
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
remainder generated
With the NFC refactoring in rL307417 (git SHA 987dd01), all the logic
is in place to support multiple exit/exiting blocks when prolog
remainder is generated.
This patch removed the assert that multiple exit blocks unrolling is only
supported when epilog remainder is generated.
Also, added test runs and checks with PROLOG prefix in
runtime-loop-multiple-exits.ll test cases.
llvm-svn: 307435
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
exit block
Currently, we do not support multiple exiting blocks to the
latch exit block. However, this bailout wasn't triggered when we had a
unique exit block (which is the latch exit), with multiple exiting
blocks to that unique exit.
Moved the bailout so that it's triggered in both cases and added
testcase.
llvm-svn: 307291
|
|
|
Summary:
Runtime unrolling is done for loops with a single exit block and a
single exiting block (and this exiting block should be the latch block).
This patch adds logic to support unrolling in the presence of multiple exit
blocks (which also means multiple exiting blocks).
Currently this is under an off-by-default option and is supported when
epilog code is generated. Support in presence of prolog code will be in
a future patch (we just need to add more tests, and update comments).
This patch is essentially an implementation patch. I have not added any
heuristic (in terms of branches added or code size) to decide when
this should be enabled.
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames, evstupac
Reviewed by: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33001
llvm-svn: 306846
|
