llvm-6502/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailRecursionElimination.cpp

673 lines
29 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- TailRecursionElimination.cpp - Eliminate Tail Calls ----------------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This file transforms calls of the current function (self recursion) followed
// by a return instruction with a branch to the entry of the function, creating
// a loop. This pass also implements the following extensions to the basic
// algorithm:
//
// 1. Trivial instructions between the call and return do not prevent the
// transformation from taking place, though currently the analysis cannot
// support moving any really useful instructions (only dead ones).
// 2. This pass transforms functions that are prevented from being tail
// recursive by an associative and commutative expression to use an
// accumulator variable, thus compiling the typical naive factorial or
// 'fib' implementation into efficient code.
// 3. TRE is performed if the function returns void, if the return
// returns the result returned by the call, or if the function returns a
// run-time constant on all exits from the function. It is possible, though
// unlikely, that the return returns something else (like constant 0), and
// can still be TRE'd. It can be TRE'd if ALL OTHER return instructions in
// the function return the exact same value.
// 4. If it can prove that callees do not access their caller stack frame,
// they are marked as eligible for tail call elimination (by the code
// generator).
//
// There are several improvements that could be made:
//
// 1. If the function has any alloca instructions, these instructions will be
// moved out of the entry block of the function, causing them to be
// evaluated each time through the tail recursion. Safely keeping allocas
// in the entry block requires analysis to proves that the tail-called
// function does not read or write the stack object.
// 2. Tail recursion is only performed if the call immediately precedes the
// return instruction. It's possible that there could be a jump between
// the call and the return.
// 3. There can be intervening operations between the call and the return that
// prevent the TRE from occurring. For example, there could be GEP's and
// stores to memory that will not be read or written by the call. This
// requires some substantial analysis (such as with DSA) to prove safe to
// move ahead of the call, but doing so could allow many more TREs to be
// performed, for example in TreeAdd/TreeAlloc from the treeadd benchmark.
// 4. The algorithm we use to detect if callees access their caller stack
// frames is very primitive.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#define DEBUG_TYPE "tailcallelim"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallPtrSet.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/CaptureTracking.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/InlineCost.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/Loads.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
#include "llvm/IR/DerivedTypes.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
#include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Module.h"
#include "llvm/Pass.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CFG.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CallSite.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
#include "llvm/Support/ValueHandle.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
using namespace llvm;
STATISTIC(NumEliminated, "Number of tail calls removed");
STATISTIC(NumRetDuped, "Number of return duplicated");
STATISTIC(NumAccumAdded, "Number of accumulators introduced");
namespace {
struct TailCallElim : public FunctionPass {
const TargetTransformInfo *TTI;
static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid
TailCallElim() : FunctionPass(ID) {
initializeTailCallElimPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const;
virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F);
private:
CallInst *FindTRECandidate(Instruction *I,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
bool EliminateRecursiveTailCall(CallInst *CI, ReturnInst *Ret,
BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
bool FoldReturnAndProcessPred(BasicBlock *BB,
ReturnInst *Ret, BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
bool ProcessReturningBlock(ReturnInst *RI, BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
bool CanMoveAboveCall(Instruction *I, CallInst *CI);
Value *CanTransformAccumulatorRecursion(Instruction *I, CallInst *CI);
};
}
char TailCallElim::ID = 0;
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(TailCallElim, "tailcallelim",
"Tail Call Elimination", false, false)
INITIALIZE_AG_DEPENDENCY(TargetTransformInfo)
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(TailCallElim, "tailcallelim",
"Tail Call Elimination", false, false)
// Public interface to the TailCallElimination pass
FunctionPass *llvm::createTailCallEliminationPass() {
return new TailCallElim();
}
void TailCallElim::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {
AU.addRequired<TargetTransformInfo>();
}
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
/// CanTRE - Scan the specified basic block for alloca instructions.
/// If it contains any that are variable-sized or not in the entry block,
/// returns false.
static bool CanTRE(AllocaInst *AI) {
// Because of PR962, we don't TRE allocas outside the entry block.
// If this alloca is in the body of the function, or if it is a variable
// sized allocation, we cannot tail call eliminate calls marked 'tail'
// with this mechanism.
BasicBlock *BB = AI->getParent();
return BB == &BB->getParent()->getEntryBlock() &&
isa<ConstantInt>(AI->getArraySize());
}
namespace {
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
struct AllocaCaptureTracker : public CaptureTracker {
AllocaCaptureTracker() : Captured(false) {}
void tooManyUses() LLVM_OVERRIDE { Captured = true; }
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) LLVM_OVERRIDE {
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
Value *V = U->getUser();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
UsesAlloca.insert(V);
return true;
}
bool captured(Use *U) LLVM_OVERRIDE {
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
if (isa<ReturnInst>(U->getUser()))
return false;
Captured = true;
return true;
}
bool Captured;
SmallPtrSet<const Value *, 16> UsesAlloca;
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
};
} // end anonymous namespace
bool TailCallElim::runOnFunction(Function &F) {
// If this function is a varargs function, we won't be able to PHI the args
// right, so don't even try to convert it...
if (F.getFunctionType()->isVarArg()) return false;
TTI = &getAnalysis<TargetTransformInfo>();
BasicBlock *OldEntry = 0;
bool TailCallsAreMarkedTail = false;
SmallVector<PHINode*, 8> ArgumentPHIs;
bool MadeChange = false;
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
// CanTRETailMarkedCall - If false, we cannot perform TRE on tail calls
// marked with the 'tail' attribute, because doing so would cause the stack
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
// size to increase (real TRE would deallocate variable sized allocas, TRE
// doesn't).
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
bool CanTRETailMarkedCall = true;
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
// Find calls that can be marked tail.
AllocaCaptureTracker ACT;
for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), EE = F.end(); BB != EE; ++BB) {
for (BasicBlock::iterator I = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); I != E; ++I) {
if (AllocaInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(I)) {
CanTRETailMarkedCall &= CanTRE(AI);
PointerMayBeCaptured(AI, &ACT);
// If any allocas are captured, exit.
if (ACT.Captured)
return false;
}
}
}
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
// Second pass, change any tail recursive calls to loops.
//
// FIXME: The code generator produces really bad code when an 'escaping
// alloca' is changed from being a static alloca to being a dynamic alloca.
// Until this is resolved, disable this transformation if that would ever
// happen. This bug is PR962.
if (ACT.UsesAlloca.empty()) {
for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), E = F.end(); BB != E; ++BB) {
if (ReturnInst *Ret = dyn_cast<ReturnInst>(BB->getTerminator())) {
bool Change = ProcessReturningBlock(Ret, OldEntry, TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
ArgumentPHIs, !CanTRETailMarkedCall);
if (!Change && BB->getFirstNonPHIOrDbg() == Ret)
Change = FoldReturnAndProcessPred(BB, Ret, OldEntry,
TailCallsAreMarkedTail, ArgumentPHIs,
!CanTRETailMarkedCall);
MadeChange |= Change;
}
}
}
// If we eliminated any tail recursions, it's possible that we inserted some
// silly PHI nodes which just merge an initial value (the incoming operand)
// with themselves. Check to see if we did and clean up our mess if so. This
// occurs when a function passes an argument straight through to its tail
// call.
if (!ArgumentPHIs.empty()) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = ArgumentPHIs.size(); i != e; ++i) {
PHINode *PN = ArgumentPHIs[i];
// If the PHI Node is a dynamic constant, replace it with the value it is.
if (Value *PNV = SimplifyInstruction(PN)) {
PN->replaceAllUsesWith(PNV);
PN->eraseFromParent();
}
}
}
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
// At this point, we know that the function does not have any captured
// allocas. If additionally the function does not call setjmp, mark all calls
// in the function that do not access stack memory with the tail keyword. This
// implies ensuring that there does not exist any path from a call that takes
// in an alloca but does not capture it and the call which we wish to mark
// with "tail".
if (!F.callsFunctionThatReturnsTwice()) {
for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), E = F.end(); BB != E; ++BB) {
for (BasicBlock::iterator I = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); I != E; ++I) {
if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(I)) {
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
if (!ACT.UsesAlloca.count(CI)) {
CI->setTailCall();
MadeChange = true;
}
}
Teach TailRecursionElimination to handle certain cases of nocapture escaping allocas. Without the changes introduced into this patch, if TRE saw any allocas at all, TRE would not perform TRE *or* mark callsites with the tail marker. Because TRE runs after mem2reg, this inadequacy is not a death sentence. But given a callsite A without escaping alloca argument, A may not be able to have the tail marker placed on it due to a separate callsite B having a write-back parameter passed in via an argument with the nocapture attribute. Assume that B is the only other callsite besides A and B only has nocapture escaping alloca arguments (*NOTE* B may have other arguments that are not passed allocas). In this case not marking A with the tail marker is unnecessarily conservative since: 1. By assumption A has no escaping alloca arguments itself so it can not access the caller's stack via its arguments. 2. Since all of B's escaping alloca arguments are passed as parameters with the nocapture attribute, we know that B does not stash said escaping allocas in a manner that outlives B itself and thus could be accessed indirectly by A. With the changes introduced by this patch: 1. If we see any escaping allocas passed as a capturing argument, we do nothing and bail early. 2. If we do not see any escaping allocas passed as captured arguments but we do see escaping allocas passed as nocapture arguments: i. We do not perform TRE to avoid PR962 since the code generator produces significantly worse code for the dynamic allocas that would be created by the TRE algorithm. ii. If we do not return twice, mark call sites without escaping allocas with the tail marker. *NOTE* This excludes functions with escaping nocapture allocas. 3. If we do not see any escaping allocas at all (whether captured or not): i. If we do not have usage of setjmp, mark all callsites with the tail marker. ii. If there are no dynamic/variable sized allocas in the function, attempt to perform TRE on all callsites in the function. Based off of a patch by Nick Lewycky. rdar://14324281. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@186057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-07-11 04:40:01 +00:00
}
}
}
return MadeChange;
}
/// CanMoveAboveCall - Return true if it is safe to move the specified
/// instruction from after the call to before the call, assuming that all
/// instructions between the call and this instruction are movable.
///
bool TailCallElim::CanMoveAboveCall(Instruction *I, CallInst *CI) {
// FIXME: We can move load/store/call/free instructions above the call if the
// call does not mod/ref the memory location being processed.
if (I->mayHaveSideEffects()) // This also handles volatile loads.
return false;
if (LoadInst *L = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(I)) {
// Loads may always be moved above calls without side effects.
if (CI->mayHaveSideEffects()) {
// Non-volatile loads may be moved above a call with side effects if it
// does not write to memory and the load provably won't trap.
// FIXME: Writes to memory only matter if they may alias the pointer
// being loaded from.
if (CI->mayWriteToMemory() ||
!isSafeToLoadUnconditionally(L->getPointerOperand(), L,
L->getAlignment()))
return false;
}
}
// Otherwise, if this is a side-effect free instruction, check to make sure
// that it does not use the return value of the call. If it doesn't use the
// return value of the call, it must only use things that are defined before
// the call, or movable instructions between the call and the instruction
// itself.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = I->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i)
if (I->getOperand(i) == CI)
return false;
return true;
}
// isDynamicConstant - Return true if the specified value is the same when the
// return would exit as it was when the initial iteration of the recursive
// function was executed.
//
// We currently handle static constants and arguments that are not modified as
// part of the recursion.
//
static bool isDynamicConstant(Value *V, CallInst *CI, ReturnInst *RI) {
if (isa<Constant>(V)) return true; // Static constants are always dyn consts
// Check to see if this is an immutable argument, if so, the value
// will be available to initialize the accumulator.
if (Argument *Arg = dyn_cast<Argument>(V)) {
// Figure out which argument number this is...
unsigned ArgNo = 0;
Function *F = CI->getParent()->getParent();
for (Function::arg_iterator AI = F->arg_begin(); &*AI != Arg; ++AI)
++ArgNo;
// If we are passing this argument into call as the corresponding
// argument operand, then the argument is dynamically constant.
// Otherwise, we cannot transform this function safely.
if (CI->getArgOperand(ArgNo) == Arg)
return true;
}
// Switch cases are always constant integers. If the value is being switched
// on and the return is only reachable from one of its cases, it's
// effectively constant.
if (BasicBlock *UniquePred = RI->getParent()->getUniquePredecessor())
if (SwitchInst *SI = dyn_cast<SwitchInst>(UniquePred->getTerminator()))
if (SI->getCondition() == V)
return SI->getDefaultDest() != RI->getParent();
// Not a constant or immutable argument, we can't safely transform.
return false;
}
// getCommonReturnValue - Check to see if the function containing the specified
// tail call consistently returns the same runtime-constant value at all exit
// points except for IgnoreRI. If so, return the returned value.
//
static Value *getCommonReturnValue(ReturnInst *IgnoreRI, CallInst *CI) {
Function *F = CI->getParent()->getParent();
Value *ReturnedValue = 0;
for (Function::iterator BBI = F->begin(), E = F->end(); BBI != E; ++BBI) {
ReturnInst *RI = dyn_cast<ReturnInst>(BBI->getTerminator());
if (RI == 0 || RI == IgnoreRI) continue;
// We can only perform this transformation if the value returned is
// evaluatable at the start of the initial invocation of the function,
// instead of at the end of the evaluation.
//
Value *RetOp = RI->getOperand(0);
if (!isDynamicConstant(RetOp, CI, RI))
return 0;
if (ReturnedValue && RetOp != ReturnedValue)
return 0; // Cannot transform if differing values are returned.
ReturnedValue = RetOp;
}
return ReturnedValue;
}
/// CanTransformAccumulatorRecursion - If the specified instruction can be
/// transformed using accumulator recursion elimination, return the constant
/// which is the start of the accumulator value. Otherwise return null.
///
Value *TailCallElim::CanTransformAccumulatorRecursion(Instruction *I,
CallInst *CI) {
if (!I->isAssociative() || !I->isCommutative()) return 0;
assert(I->getNumOperands() == 2 &&
"Associative/commutative operations should have 2 args!");
// Exactly one operand should be the result of the call instruction.
if ((I->getOperand(0) == CI && I->getOperand(1) == CI) ||
(I->getOperand(0) != CI && I->getOperand(1) != CI))
return 0;
// The only user of this instruction we allow is a single return instruction.
if (!I->hasOneUse() || !isa<ReturnInst>(I->use_back()))
return 0;
// Ok, now we have to check all of the other return instructions in this
// function. If they return non-constants or differing values, then we cannot
// transform the function safely.
return getCommonReturnValue(cast<ReturnInst>(I->use_back()), CI);
}
static Instruction *FirstNonDbg(BasicBlock::iterator I) {
while (isa<DbgInfoIntrinsic>(I))
++I;
return &*I;
}
CallInst*
TailCallElim::FindTRECandidate(Instruction *TI,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail) {
BasicBlock *BB = TI->getParent();
Function *F = BB->getParent();
if (&BB->front() == TI) // Make sure there is something before the terminator.
return 0;
// Scan backwards from the return, checking to see if there is a tail call in
// this block. If so, set CI to it.
CallInst *CI = 0;
BasicBlock::iterator BBI = TI;
while (true) {
CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(BBI);
if (CI && CI->getCalledFunction() == F)
break;
if (BBI == BB->begin())
return 0; // Didn't find a potential tail call.
--BBI;
}
// If this call is marked as a tail call, and if there are dynamic allocas in
// the function, we cannot perform this optimization.
if (CI->isTailCall() && CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail)
return 0;
// As a special case, detect code like this:
// double fabs(double f) { return __builtin_fabs(f); } // a 'fabs' call
// and disable this xform in this case, because the code generator will
// lower the call to fabs into inline code.
if (BB == &F->getEntryBlock() &&
FirstNonDbg(BB->front()) == CI &&
FirstNonDbg(llvm::next(BB->begin())) == TI &&
CI->getCalledFunction() &&
!TTI->isLoweredToCall(CI->getCalledFunction())) {
// A single-block function with just a call and a return. Check that
// the arguments match.
CallSite::arg_iterator I = CallSite(CI).arg_begin(),
E = CallSite(CI).arg_end();
Function::arg_iterator FI = F->arg_begin(),
FE = F->arg_end();
for (; I != E && FI != FE; ++I, ++FI)
if (*I != &*FI) break;
if (I == E && FI == FE)
return 0;
}
return CI;
}
bool TailCallElim::EliminateRecursiveTailCall(CallInst *CI, ReturnInst *Ret,
BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail) {
// If we are introducing accumulator recursion to eliminate operations after
// the call instruction that are both associative and commutative, the initial
// value for the accumulator is placed in this variable. If this value is set
// then we actually perform accumulator recursion elimination instead of
// simple tail recursion elimination. If the operation is an LLVM instruction
// (eg: "add") then it is recorded in AccumulatorRecursionInstr. If not, then
// we are handling the case when the return instruction returns a constant C
// which is different to the constant returned by other return instructions
// (which is recorded in AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal). This is a
// special case of accumulator recursion, the operation being "return C".
Value *AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal = 0;
Instruction *AccumulatorRecursionInstr = 0;
// Ok, we found a potential tail call. We can currently only transform the
// tail call if all of the instructions between the call and the return are
// movable to above the call itself, leaving the call next to the return.
// Check that this is the case now.
BasicBlock::iterator BBI = CI;
for (++BBI; &*BBI != Ret; ++BBI) {
if (CanMoveAboveCall(BBI, CI)) continue;
// If we can't move the instruction above the call, it might be because it
// is an associative and commutative operation that could be transformed
// using accumulator recursion elimination. Check to see if this is the
// case, and if so, remember the initial accumulator value for later.
if ((AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal =
CanTransformAccumulatorRecursion(BBI, CI))) {
// Yes, this is accumulator recursion. Remember which instruction
// accumulates.
AccumulatorRecursionInstr = BBI;
} else {
return false; // Otherwise, we cannot eliminate the tail recursion!
}
}
// We can only transform call/return pairs that either ignore the return value
// of the call and return void, ignore the value of the call and return a
// constant, return the value returned by the tail call, or that are being
// accumulator recursion variable eliminated.
if (Ret->getNumOperands() == 1 && Ret->getReturnValue() != CI &&
!isa<UndefValue>(Ret->getReturnValue()) &&
AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal == 0 &&
!getCommonReturnValue(0, CI)) {
// One case remains that we are able to handle: the current return
// instruction returns a constant, and all other return instructions
// return a different constant.
if (!isDynamicConstant(Ret->getReturnValue(), CI, Ret))
return false; // Current return instruction does not return a constant.
// Check that all other return instructions return a common constant. If
// so, record it in AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal.
AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal = getCommonReturnValue(Ret, CI);
if (!AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal)
return false;
}
BasicBlock *BB = Ret->getParent();
Function *F = BB->getParent();
// OK! We can transform this tail call. If this is the first one found,
// create the new entry block, allowing us to branch back to the old entry.
if (OldEntry == 0) {
OldEntry = &F->getEntryBlock();
BasicBlock *NewEntry = BasicBlock::Create(F->getContext(), "", F, OldEntry);
NewEntry->takeName(OldEntry);
OldEntry->setName("tailrecurse");
BranchInst::Create(OldEntry, NewEntry);
// If this tail call is marked 'tail' and if there are any allocas in the
// entry block, move them up to the new entry block.
TailCallsAreMarkedTail = CI->isTailCall();
if (TailCallsAreMarkedTail)
// Move all fixed sized allocas from OldEntry to NewEntry.
for (BasicBlock::iterator OEBI = OldEntry->begin(), E = OldEntry->end(),
NEBI = NewEntry->begin(); OEBI != E; )
if (AllocaInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(OEBI++))
if (isa<ConstantInt>(AI->getArraySize()))
AI->moveBefore(NEBI);
// Now that we have created a new block, which jumps to the entry
// block, insert a PHI node for each argument of the function.
// For now, we initialize each PHI to only have the real arguments
// which are passed in.
Instruction *InsertPos = OldEntry->begin();
for (Function::arg_iterator I = F->arg_begin(), E = F->arg_end();
I != E; ++I) {
PHINode *PN = PHINode::Create(I->getType(), 2,
I->getName() + ".tr", InsertPos);
I->replaceAllUsesWith(PN); // Everyone use the PHI node now!
PN->addIncoming(I, NewEntry);
ArgumentPHIs.push_back(PN);
}
}
// If this function has self recursive calls in the tail position where some
// are marked tail and some are not, only transform one flavor or another. We
// have to choose whether we move allocas in the entry block to the new entry
// block or not, so we can't make a good choice for both. NOTE: We could do
// slightly better here in the case that the function has no entry block
// allocas.
if (TailCallsAreMarkedTail && !CI->isTailCall())
return false;
// Ok, now that we know we have a pseudo-entry block WITH all of the
// required PHI nodes, add entries into the PHI node for the actual
// parameters passed into the tail-recursive call.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = CI->getNumArgOperands(); i != e; ++i)
ArgumentPHIs[i]->addIncoming(CI->getArgOperand(i), BB);
// If we are introducing an accumulator variable to eliminate the recursion,
// do so now. Note that we _know_ that no subsequent tail recursion
// eliminations will happen on this function because of the way the
// accumulator recursion predicate is set up.
//
if (AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal) {
Instruction *AccRecInstr = AccumulatorRecursionInstr;
// Start by inserting a new PHI node for the accumulator.
pred_iterator PB = pred_begin(OldEntry), PE = pred_end(OldEntry);
PHINode *AccPN =
PHINode::Create(AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal->getType(),
std::distance(PB, PE) + 1,
"accumulator.tr", OldEntry->begin());
// Loop over all of the predecessors of the tail recursion block. For the
// real entry into the function we seed the PHI with the initial value,
// computed earlier. For any other existing branches to this block (due to
// other tail recursions eliminated) the accumulator is not modified.
// Because we haven't added the branch in the current block to OldEntry yet,
// it will not show up as a predecessor.
for (pred_iterator PI = PB; PI != PE; ++PI) {
BasicBlock *P = *PI;
if (P == &F->getEntryBlock())
AccPN->addIncoming(AccumulatorRecursionEliminationInitVal, P);
else
AccPN->addIncoming(AccPN, P);
}
if (AccRecInstr) {
// Add an incoming argument for the current block, which is computed by
// our associative and commutative accumulator instruction.
AccPN->addIncoming(AccRecInstr, BB);
// Next, rewrite the accumulator recursion instruction so that it does not
// use the result of the call anymore, instead, use the PHI node we just
// inserted.
AccRecInstr->setOperand(AccRecInstr->getOperand(0) != CI, AccPN);
} else {
// Add an incoming argument for the current block, which is just the
// constant returned by the current return instruction.
AccPN->addIncoming(Ret->getReturnValue(), BB);
}
// Finally, rewrite any return instructions in the program to return the PHI
// node instead of the "initval" that they do currently. This loop will
// actually rewrite the return value we are destroying, but that's ok.
for (Function::iterator BBI = F->begin(), E = F->end(); BBI != E; ++BBI)
if (ReturnInst *RI = dyn_cast<ReturnInst>(BBI->getTerminator()))
RI->setOperand(0, AccPN);
++NumAccumAdded;
}
// Now that all of the PHI nodes are in place, remove the call and
// ret instructions, replacing them with an unconditional branch.
BranchInst *NewBI = BranchInst::Create(OldEntry, Ret);
NewBI->setDebugLoc(CI->getDebugLoc());
BB->getInstList().erase(Ret); // Remove return.
BB->getInstList().erase(CI); // Remove call.
++NumEliminated;
return true;
}
bool TailCallElim::FoldReturnAndProcessPred(BasicBlock *BB,
ReturnInst *Ret, BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail) {
bool Change = false;
// If the return block contains nothing but the return and PHI's,
// there might be an opportunity to duplicate the return in its
// predecessors and perform TRC there. Look for predecessors that end
// in unconditional branch and recursive call(s).
SmallVector<BranchInst*, 8> UncondBranchPreds;
for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(BB), E = pred_end(BB); PI != E; ++PI) {
BasicBlock *Pred = *PI;
TerminatorInst *PTI = Pred->getTerminator();
if (BranchInst *BI = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(PTI))
if (BI->isUnconditional())
UncondBranchPreds.push_back(BI);
}
while (!UncondBranchPreds.empty()) {
BranchInst *BI = UncondBranchPreds.pop_back_val();
BasicBlock *Pred = BI->getParent();
if (CallInst *CI = FindTRECandidate(BI, CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail)){
DEBUG(dbgs() << "FOLDING: " << *BB
<< "INTO UNCOND BRANCH PRED: " << *Pred);
EliminateRecursiveTailCall(CI, FoldReturnIntoUncondBranch(Ret, BB, Pred),
OldEntry, TailCallsAreMarkedTail, ArgumentPHIs,
CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
++NumRetDuped;
Change = true;
}
}
return Change;
}
bool
TailCallElim::ProcessReturningBlock(ReturnInst *Ret, BasicBlock *&OldEntry,
bool &TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
SmallVectorImpl<PHINode *> &ArgumentPHIs,
bool CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail) {
CallInst *CI = FindTRECandidate(Ret, CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
if (!CI)
return false;
return EliminateRecursiveTailCall(CI, Ret, OldEntry, TailCallsAreMarkedTail,
ArgumentPHIs,
CannotTailCallElimCallsMarkedTail);
}