| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- Instead of setting the suffixes in a bunch of places, just set one master
list in the top-level config. We now only modify the suffix list in a few
suites that have one particular unique suffix (.ml, .mc, .yaml, .td, .py).
- Aside from removing the need for a bunch of lit.local.cfg files, this enables
4 tests that were inadvertently being skipped (one in
Transforms/BranchFolding, a .s file each in DebugInfo/AArch64 and
CodeGen/PowerPC, and one in CodeGen/SI which is now failing and has been
XFAILED).
- This commit also fixes a bunch of config files to use config.root instead of
older copy-pasted code.
llvm-svn: 188513
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
schedule an alloca for another iteration in SROA. This only showed up
with a mixture of promotable and unpromotable selects and phis. Added
a test case for this.
llvm-svn: 187031
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
pending speculation for a phi node. The problem here is that we were
using growth of the specluation set as an indicator of whether
speculation would occur, and if the phi node is already in the set we
don't see it grow. This is a symptom of the fact that this signal is
a total hack.
Unfortunately, I couldn't really come up with a non-hacky way of
signaling that promotion remains valid *after* speculation occurs, such
that we only speculate when all else looks good for promotion. In the
end, I went with at least a much more explicit approach of doing the
work of queuing inside the phi and select processing and setting
a preposterously named flag to convey that we're in the special state of
requiring speculating before promotion.
Thanks to Richard Trieu and Nick Lewycky for the excellent work reducing
a testcase for this from a pretty giant, nasty assert in a big
application. =] The testcase was excellent.
llvm-svn: 187029
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
test case came from Benjamin and found the parallel bug in the vector
promotion code.
llvm-svn: 186666
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
SROA.
The crux of the issue is that now we track uses of a partition of the
alloca in two places: the iterators over the partitioning uses and the
previously collected split uses vector. We weren't accounting for the
fact that the split uses might invalidate integer widening in ways other
than due to their width (in this case due to being volatile).
Further reduced testcase added to the tests.
llvm-svn: 186655
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
end of a vector. This was found with ASan. I've had one other report of
a crasher, but thus far been unable to reproduce the crash. It may well
be fixed with this version, and if not I'd like to get more information
from the build bots about what is happening.
See r186316 for the full commit log for the new implementation of the
SROA algorithm.
llvm-svn: 186565
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a bot.
This reverts the commit which introduced a new implementation of the
fancy SROA pass designed to reduce its overhead. I'll skip the huge
commit log here, refer to r186316 if you're looking for how this all
works and why it works that way.
llvm-svn: 186332
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
different core implementation strategy.
Previously, SROA would build a relatively elaborate partitioning of an
alloca, associate uses with each partition, and then rewrite the uses of
each partition in an attempt to break apart the alloca into chunks that
could be promoted. This was very wasteful in terms of memory and compile
time because regardless of how complex the alloca or how much we're able
to do in breaking it up, all of the datastructure work to analyze the
partitioning was done up front.
The new implementation attempts to form partitions of the alloca lazily
and on the fly, rewriting the uses that make up that partition as it
goes. This has a few significant effects:
1) Much simpler data structures are used throughout.
2) No more double walk of the recursive use graph of the alloca, only
walk it once.
3) No more complex algorithms for associating a particular use with
a particular partition.
4) PHI and Select speculation is simplified and happens lazily.
5) More precise information is available about a specific use of the
alloca, removing the need for some side datastructures.
Ultimately, I think this is a much better implementation. It removes
about 300 lines of code, but arguably removes more like 500 considering
that some code grew in the process of being factored apart and cleaned
up for this all to work.
I've re-used as much of the old implementation as possible, which
includes the lion's share of code in the form of the rewriting logic.
The interesting new logic centers around how the uses of a partition are
sorted, and split into actual partitions.
Each instruction using a pointer derived from the alloca gets
a 'Partition' entry. This name is totally wrong, but I'll do a rename in
a follow-up commit as there is already enough churn here. The entry
describes the offset range accessed and the nature of the access. Once
we have all of these entries we sort them in a very specific way:
increasing order of begin offset, followed by whether they are
splittable uses (memcpy, etc), followed by the end offset or whatever.
Sorting by splittability is important as it simplifies the collection of
uses into a partition.
Once we have these uses sorted, we walk from the beginning to the end
building up a range of uses that form a partition of the alloca.
Overlapping unsplittable uses are merged into a single partition while
splittable uses are broken apart and carried from one partition to the
next. A partition is also introduced to bridge splittable uses between
the unsplittable regions when necessary.
I've looked at the performance PRs fairly closely. PR15471 no longer
will even load (the module is invalid). Not sure what is up there.
PR15412 improves by between 5% and 10%, however it is nearly impossible
to know what is holding it up as SROA (the entire pass) takes less time
than reading the IR for that test case. The analysis takes the same time
as running mem2reg on the final allocas. I suspect (without much
evidence) that the new implementation will scale much better however,
and it is just the small nature of the test cases that makes the changes
small and noisy. Either way, it is still simpler and cleaner I think.
llvm-svn: 186316
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
functionality change.
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
done
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186268
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
is the cannonical form.
Shuffles are more difficult to lower and we usually don't touch them, while we do optimize selects more often.
llvm-svn: 180875
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is an edge case that can happen if we modify a chain of multiple selects.
Update all operands in that case and remove the assert. PR15805.
llvm-svn: 179982
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The fix for PR14972 in r177055 introduced a real think-o in the *store*
side, likely because I was much more focused on the load side. While we
can arbitrarily widen (or narrow) a loaded value, we can't arbitrarily
widen a value to be stored, as that changes the width of memory access!
Lock down the code path in the store rewriting which would do this to
only handle the intended circumstance.
All of the existing tests continue to pass, and I've added a test from
the PR.
llvm-svn: 178974
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The fundamental problem is that SROA didn't allow for overly wide loads
where the bits past the end of the alloca were masked away and the load
was sufficiently aligned to ensure there is no risk of page fault, or
other trapping behavior. With such widened loads, SROA would delete the
load entirely rather than clamping it to the size of the alloca in order
to allow mem2reg to fire. This was exposed by a test case that neatly
arranged for GVN to run first, widening certain loads, followed by an
inline step, and then SROA which miscompiles the code. However, I see no
reason why this hasn't been plaguing us in other contexts. It seems
deeply broken.
Diagnosing all of the above took all of 10 minutes of debugging. The
really annoying aspect is that fixing this completely breaks the pass.
;] There was an implicit reliance on the fact that no loads or stores
extended past the alloca once we decided to rewrite them in the final
stage of SROA. This was used to encode information about whether the
loads and stores had been split across multiple partitions of the
original alloca. That required threading explicit tracking of whether
a *use* of a partition is split across multiple partitions.
Once that was done, another problem arose: we allowed splitting of
integer loads and stores iff they were loads and stores to the entire
alloca. This is a really arbitrary limitation, and splitting at least
some integer loads and stores is crucial to maximize promotion
opportunities. My first attempt was to start removing the restriction
entirely, but currently that does Very Bad Things by causing *many*
common alloca patterns to be fully decomposed into i8 operations and
lots of or-ing together to produce larger integers on demand. The code
bloat is terrifying. That is still the right end-goal, but substantial
work must be done to either merge partitions or ensure that small i8
values are eagerly merged in some other pass. Sadly, figuring all this
out took essentially all the time and effort here.
So the end result is that we allow splitting only when the load or store
at least covers the alloca. That ensures widened loads and stores don't
hurt SROA, and that we don't rampantly decompose operations more than we
have previously.
All of this was already fairly well tested, and so I've just updated the
tests to cover the wide load behavior. I can add a test that crafts the
pass ordering magic which caused the original PR, but that seems really
brittle and to provide little benefit. The fundamental problem is that
widened loads should Just Work.
llvm-svn: 177055
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
into the same file in the future.
llvm-svn: 170414
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
getScalarSizeInBits could not handle vectors of pointers.
llvm-svn: 170412
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This was a silly oversight, we weren't pruning allocas which were used
by variable-length memory intrinsics from the set that could be widened
and promoted as integers. Fix that.
llvm-svn: 170353
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This also cleans up a bit of the memcpy call rewriting by sinking some
irrelevant code further down and making the call-emitting code a bit
more concrete.
Previously, memcpy of a subvector would actually miscompile (!!!) the
copy into a single vector element copy. I have no idea how this ever
worked. =/ This is the memcpy half of PR14478 which we probably weren't
noticing previously because it didn't actually assert.
The rewrite relies on the newly refactored insert- and extractVector
functions to do the heavy lifting, and those are the same as used for
loads and stores which makes the test coverage a bit more meaningful
here.
llvm-svn: 170338
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The first half of fixing this bug was actually in r170328, but was
entirely coincidental. It did however get me to realize the nature of
the bug, and adapt the test case to test more interesting behavior. In
turn, that uncovered the rest of the bug which I've fixed here.
This should fix two new asserts that showed up in the vectorize nightly
tester.
llvm-svn: 170333
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PR14478 highlights a serious problem in SROA that simply wasn't being
exercised due to a lack of vector input code mixed with C-library
function calls. Part of SROA was written carefully to handle subvector
accesses via memset and memcpy, but the rewriter never grew support for
this. Fixing it required refactoring the subvector access code in other
parts of SROA so it could be shared, and then fixing the splat formation
logic and using subvector insertion (this patch).
The PR isn't quite fixed yet, as memcpy is still broken in the same way.
I'm starting on that series of patches now.
Hopefully this will be enough to bring the bullet benchmark back to life
with the bb-vectorizer enabled, but that may require fixing memcpy as
well.
llvm-svn: 170301
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 170271
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The alloca width is based on the alloc size, not the type size.
llvm-svn: 170270
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 170015
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 170006
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When SROA was evaluating a mixture of i1 and i8 loads and stores, in
just a particular case, it would tickle a latent bug where we compared
bits to bytes rather than bits to bits. As a consequence of the latent
bug, we would allow integers through which were not byte-size multiples,
a situation the later rewriting code was never intended to handle.
In release builds this could trigger all manner of oddities, but the
reported issue in PR14548 was forming invalid bitcast instructions.
The only downside of this fix is that it makes it more clear that SROA
in its current form is not capable of handling mixed i1 and i8 loads and
stores. Sometimes with the previous code this would work by luck, but
usually it would crash, so I'm not terribly worried. I'll watch the LNT
numbers just to be sure.
llvm-svn: 169719
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Patch by Alexander Zinenko.
llvm-svn: 169547
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
integer type.
Fixes PR14465.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D148
llvm-svn: 169084
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now if we can transform an alloca into a single vector value, but it has
subvector, non-element accesses, we form the appropriate shufflevectors
to allow SROA to proceed. This fixes PR14055 which pointed out a very
common pattern that SROA couldn't handle -- mixed vec3 and vec4
operations on a single alloca.
llvm-svn: 168418
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The issue is that we may end up with newly OOB loads when speculating
a load into the predecessors of a PHI node, and this confuses the new
integer splitting logic in some cases, triggering an assertion failure.
In fact, the branch in question must be dead code as it loads from
a too-narrow alloca. Add code to handle this gracefully and leave the
requisite FIXMEs for both optimizing more aggressively and doing more to
aid sanitizing invalid code which triggers these patterns.
llvm-svn: 168361
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to properly handle the combinations of these with split integer loads
and stores. This essentially replaces Evan's r168227 by refactoring the
code in a different way, and trynig to mirror that refactoring in both
the load and store sides of the rewriting.
Generally speaking there was some really problematic duplicated code
here that led to poorly founded assumptions and then subtle bugs. Now
much of the code actually flows through and follows a more consistent
style and logical path. There is still a tiny bit of duplication on the
store side of things, but it is much less bad.
This also changes the logic to never re-use a load or store instruction
as that was simply too error prone in practice.
I've added a few tests (one a reduction of the one in Evan's original
patch, which happened to be the same as the report in PR14349). I'm
going to look at adding a few more tests for things I found and fixed in
passing (such as the volatile tests in the vectorizable predicate).
This patch has survived bootstrap, and modulo one bugfix survived
Duncan's test suite, but let me know if anything else explodes.
llvm-svn: 168346
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
is narrower than the stored value. rdar://12713675
llvm-svn: 168227
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
integers in that the code to handle split alloca-wide integer loads or
stores doesn't come first. It should, for the same reasons as with
integers, and the PR attests to that. Also had to fix a busted assert in
that this test case also covers.
llvm-svn: 167051
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
smaller integer loads and stores.
The high-level motivation is that the frontend sometimes generates
a single whole-alloca integer load or store during ABI lowering of
splittable allocas. We need to be able to break this apart in order to
see the underlying elements and properly promote them to SSA values. The
hope is that this fixes some performance regressions on x86-32 with the
new SROA pass.
Unfortunately, this causes quite a bit of churn in the test cases, and
bloats some IR that comes out. When we see an alloca that consists soley
of bits and bytes being extracted and re-inserted, we now do some
splitting first, before building widened integer "bucket of bits"
representations. These are always well folded by instcombine however, so
this shouldn't actually result in missed opportunities.
If this splitting of all-integer allocas does cause problems (perhaps
due to smaller SSA values going into the RA), we could potentially go to
some extreme measures to only do this integer splitting trick when there
are non-integer component accesses of an alloca, but discovering this is
quite expensive: it adds yet another complete walk of the recursive use
tree of the alloca.
Either way, I will be watching build bots and LNT bots to see what
fallout there is here. If anyone gets x86-32 numbers before & after this
change, I would be very interested.
llvm-svn: 166662
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a pointer. A very bad idea. Let's not do that. Fixes PR14105.
Note that this wasn't *that* glaring of an oversight. Originally, these
routines were only called on offsets within an alloca, which are
intrinsically positive. But over the evolution of the pass, they ended
up being called for arbitrary offsets, and things went downhill...
llvm-svn: 166095
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
includes extracting ints for copying elsewhere and inserting ints when
copying into the alloca. This should fix the CanSROA assertion coming
out of Clang's regression test suite.
llvm-svn: 165931
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
and generally clean up the memset handling. It had rotted a bit as the
other rewriting logic got polished more.
llvm-svn: 165930
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
cases where we have partial integer loads and stores to an otherwise
promotable alloca to widen[1] those loads and stores to cover the entire
alloca and bitcast them into the appropriate type such that promotion
can proceed.
These partial loads and stores stem from an annoying confluence of ARM's
calling convention and ABI lowering and the FCA pre-splitting which
takes place in SROA. Clang lowers a { double, double } in-register
function argument as a [4 x i32] function argument to ensure it is
placed into integer 32-bit registers (a really unnerving implicit
contract between Clang and the ARM backend I would add). This results in
a FCA load of [4 x i32]* from the { double, double } alloca, and SROA
decomposes this into a sequence of i32 loads and stores. Inlining
proceeds, code gets folded, but at the end of the day, we still have i32
stores to the low and high halves of a double alloca. Widening these to
be i64 operations, and bitcasting them to double prior to loading or
storing allows promotion to proceed for these allocas.
I looked quite a bit changing the IR which Clang produces for this case
to be more friendly, but small changes seem unlikely to help. I think
the best representation we could use currently would be to pass 4 i32
arguments thereby avoiding any FCAs, but that would still require this
fix. It seems like it might eventually be nice to somehow encode the ABI
register selection choices outside of the parameter type system so that
the parameter can be a { double, double }, but the CC register
annotations indicate that this should be passed via 4 integer registers.
This patch does not address the second problem in PR14059, which is the
reverse: when a struct alloca is loaded as a *larger* single integer.
This patch also does not address some of the code quality issues with
the FCA-splitting. Those don't actually impede any optimizations really,
but they're on my list to clean up.
[1]: Pedantic footnote: for those concerned about memory model issues
here, this is safe. For the alloca to be promotable, it cannot escape or
have any use of its address that could allow these loads or stores to be
racing. Thus, widening is always safe.
llvm-svn: 165928
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type coercion code, especially when targetting ARM. Things like [1
x i32] instead of i32 are very common there.
The goal of this logic is to ensure that when we are picking an alloca
type, we look through such wrapper aggregates and across any zero-length
aggregate elements to find the simplest type possible to form a type
partition.
This logic should (generally speaking) rarely fire. It only ends up
kicking in when an alloca is accessed using two different types (for
instance, i32 and float), and the underlying alloca type has wrapper
aggregates around it. I noticed a significant amount of this occurring
looking at stepanov_abstraction generated code for arm, and suspect it
happens elsewhere as well.
Note that this doesn't yet address truly heinous IR productions such as
PR14059 is concerning. Those result in mismatched *sizes* of types in
addition to mismatched access and alloca types.
llvm-svn: 165870
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
the new sroa pass handles it right).
llvm-svn: 165644
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks to Benjamin for the raw test case. This one took about 50 times
longer to reduce than to fix. =/
llvm-svn: 165476
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
are in fact identity operations. We detect these and kill their
partitions so that even splitting is unaffected by them. This is
particularly important because Clang relies on emitting identity memcpy
operations for struct copies, and these fold away to constants very
often after inlining.
Fixes the last big performance FIXME I have on my plate.
llvm-svn: 165285
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently, we re-visit allocas when something changes about the way they
might be *split* to allow better scalarization to take place. However,
we weren't handling the case when the *promotion* is what would change
the behavior of SROA. When an address derived from an alloca is stored
into another alloca, we consider the first to have escaped. If the
second is ever promoted to an SSA value, we will suddenly be able to run
the SROA pass on the first alloca.
This patch adds explicit support for this form if iteration. When we
detect a store of a pointer derived from an alloca, we flag the
underlying alloca for reprocessing after promotion. The logic works hard
to only do this when there is definitely going to be promotion and it
might remove impediments to the analysis of the alloca.
Thanks to Nick for the great test case and Benjamin for some sanity
check review.
llvm-svn: 165223
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sorry for this being broken so long. =/
As part of this, switch all of the existing tests to be Little Endian,
which is the behavior I was asserting in them anyways! Add in a new
big-endian test that checks the interesting behavior there.
Another part of this is to tighten the rules abotu when we perform the
full-integer promotion. This logic now rejects cases where there fully
promoted integer is a non-multiple-of-8 bitwidth or cases where the
loads or stores touch bits which are in the allocated space of the
alloca but are not loaded or stored when accessing the integer. Sadly,
these aren't really observable today as the rest of the pass will
already ensure the invariants hold. However, the latter situation is
likely to become a potential concern in the future.
Thanks to Benjamin and Duncan for early review of this patch. I'm still
looking into whether there are further endianness issues, please let me
know if anyone sees BE failures persisting past this.
llvm-svn: 165219
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a memcpy to reflect that '0' has a different meaning when applied to
a load or store. Now we correctly use underaligned loads and stores for
the test case added.
llvm-svn: 165101
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
necessary during rewriting. As part of this, fix a real think-o here
where we might have left off an alignment specification when the address
is in fact underaligned. I haven't come up with any way to trigger this,
as there is always some other factor that reduces the alignment, but it
certainly might have been an observable bug in some way I can't think
of. This also slightly changes the strategy for placing explicit
alignments on loads and stores to only do so when the alignment does not
match that required by the ABI. This causes a few redundant alignments
to go away from test cases.
I've also added a couple of tests that really push on the alignment that
we end up with on loads and stores. More to come here as I try to fix an
underlying bug I have conjectured and produced test cases for, although
it's not clear if this bug is the one currently hitting dragonegg's
gcc47 bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 165100
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
scheduled for processing on the worklist eventually gets deleted while
we are processing another alloca, fixing the original test case in
PR13990.
To facilitate this, add a remove_if helper to the SetVector abstraction.
It's not easy to use the standard abstractions for this because of the
specifics of SetVectors types and implementation.
Finally, a nice small test case is included. Thanks to Benjamin for the
fantastic reduced test case here! All I had to do was delete some empty
basic blocks!
llvm-svn: 165065
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 164940
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.
llvm-svn: 164937
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a pair of instructions, one for the used pointer and the second for the
user. This simplifies the representation and also makes it more dense.
This was noticed because of the miscompile in PR13926. In that case, we
were running up against a fundamental "bad idea" in the speculation of
PHI and select instructions: the speculation and rewriting are
interleaved, which requires phi speculation to also perform load
rewriting! This is bad, and causes us to miss opportunities to do (for
example) vector rewriting only exposed after PHI speculation, etc etc.
It also, in the old system, required us to insert *new* load uses into
the current partition's use list, which would then be ignored during
rewriting because we had already extracted an end iterator for the use
list. The appending behavior (and much of the other oddities) stem from
the strange de-duplication strategy in the PartitionUse builder.
Amusingly, all this went without notice for so long because it could
only be triggered by having *different* GEPs into the same partition of
the same alloca, where both different GEPs were operands of a single
PHI, and where the GEP which was not encountered first also had multiple
uses within that same PHI node... Hence the insane steps required to
reproduce.
So, step one in fixing this fundamental bad idea is to make the
PartitionUse actually contain a Use*, and to make the builder do proper
deduplication instead of funky de-duplication. This is enough to remove
the appending behavior, and fix the miscompile in PR13926, but there is
more work to be done here. Subsequent commits will lift the speculation
into its own visitor. It'll be a useful step toward potentially
extracting all of the speculation logic into a generic utility
transform.
The existing PHI test case for repeated operands has been made more
extreme to catch even these issues. This test case, run through the old
pass, will exactly reproduce the miscompile from PR13926. ;] We were so
close here!
llvm-svn: 164925
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.
Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.
Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]
llvm-svn: 164891
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
alignment guarantees attached, re-compute the alignment so that we
consider offsets which impact alignment.
llvm-svn: 164690
|
