the conditions for performing the transform when only the
function declaration is available: no longer allow turning
i32 into i64 for example. Only allow changing between
pointer types, and between pointer types and integers of
the same size. For return values ptr -> intptr was already
allowed; I added ptr -> ptr and intptr -> ptr while there.
As shown by a recent objc testcase, changing the way
parameters/return values are passed can be fatal when calling
code written in assembler that directly manipulates call
arguments and return values unless the transform has no
impact on the way they are passed at the codegen level.
While it is possible to imagine an ABI that treats integers
of pointer size differently to pointers, I don't think LLVM
supports any so the transform should now be safe while still
being useful.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51834 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the one case that ADCE catches that normal DCE doesn't: non-induction variable
loop computations.
This implementation handles this problem without using postdominators.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51668 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Analysis/ConstantFolding to fold ConstantExpr's, then make instcombine use it
to try to use targetdata to fold constant expressions on void instructions.
Also extend the icmp(inttoptr, inttoptr) folding to handle the case where
int size != ptr size.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51559 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The SimplifyCFG pass looks at basic blocks that contain only phi nodes,
followed by an unconditional branch. In a lot of cases, such a block (BB) can
be merged into their successor (Succ).
This merging is performed by TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock. It does
this by taking all phi nodes in the succesor block Succ and expanding them to
include the predecessors of BB. Furthermore, any phi nodes in BB are moved to
Succ and expanded to include the predecessors of Succ as well.
Before attempting this merge, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs checks to see if
all phi nodes can be properly merged. All functional changes are made to
this function, only comments were updated in
TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock.
In the original code, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs looks quite convoluted
and more like stack of checks added to handle different kinds of situations
than a comprehensive check. In particular the first check in the function did
some value checking for the case that BB and Succ have a common predecessor,
while the last check in the function simply rejected all cases where BB and
Succ have a common predecessor. The first check was still useful in the case
that BB did not contain any phi nodes at all, though, so it was not completely
useless.
Now, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs is restructured to to look a lot more
similar to the code that actually performs the merge. Both functions now look
at the same phi nodes in about the same order. Any conflicts (phi nodes with
different values for the same source) that could arise from merging or moving
phi nodes are detected. If no conflicts are found, the merge can happen.
Apart from only restructuring the checks, two main changes in functionality
happened.
Firstly, the old code rejected blocks with common predecessors in most cases.
The new code performs some extra checks so common predecessors can be handled
in a lot of cases. Wherever common predecessors still pose problems, the
blocks are left untouched.
Secondly, the old code rejected the merge when values (phi nodes) from BB were
used in any other place than Succ. However, it does not seem that there is any
situation that would require this check. Even more, this can be proven.
Consider that BB is a block containing of a single phi node "%a" and a branch
to Succ. Now, since the definition of %a will dominate all of its uses, BB
will dominate all blocks that use %a. Furthermore, since the branch from BB to
Succ is unconditional, Succ will also dominate all uses of %a.
Now, assume that one predecessor of Succ is not dominated by BB (and thus not
dominated by Succ). Since at least one use of %a (but in reality all of them)
is reachable from Succ, you could end up at a use of %a without passing
through it's definition in BB (by coming from X through Succ). This is a
contradiction, meaning that our original assumption is wrong. Thus, all
predecessors of Succ must also be dominated by BB (and thus also by Succ).
This means that moving the phi node %a from BB to Succ does not pose any
problems when the two blocks are merged, and any use checks are not needed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51478 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
and/or to handle more cases (such as this add-sitofp.ll testcase), and
port it to selectiondag's ComputeNumSignBits.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51469 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to accurately represent the integer. This triggers 9 times in 471.omnetpp,
though 8 of those seem to be inlined from the same place.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51271 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
type and the other operand is a constant into integer comparisons.
This happens surprisingly frequently (e.g. 10 times in 471.omnetpp),
which are things like this:
%tmp8283 = sitofp i32 %tmp82 to double
%tmp1013 = fcmp ult double %tmp8283, 0.0
Clearly comparing tmp82 against i32 0 is cheaper here.
this also triggers 8 times in gobmk, including this one:
%tmp375376 = sitofp i32 %tmp375 to double
%tmp377 = fcmp ogt double %tmp375376, 8.150000e+01
which is comparing an integer against 81.5 :).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51268 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
intersecting bits. This triggers all over the place, for example in lencode,
with adds of stuff like:
%tmp580 = mul i32 %tmp579, 2
%tmp582 = and i32 %b8, 1
and
%tmp28 = shl i32 %abs.i, 1
%sign.0 = select i1 %tmp23, i32 1, i32 0
and
%tmp344 = shl i32 %tmp343, 2
%tmp346 = and i32 %tmp96, 3
etc.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51263 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
is bitcast to return a floating point value. The result of the instruction may
not be used by the program afterwards, and LLVM will happily remove all
instructions except the call. But, on some platforms, if a value is returned as
a floating point, it may need to be removed from the stack (like x87). Thus, we
can't get rid of the bitcast even if there isn't a use of the value.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51134 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
also need to be checked for memory modifying instructions before we
can sink them. THis fixes the second half of PR2297.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@50860 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
