LCSSA when we promote to SSA registers inside of LICM.
Currently, this is actually necessary. The promotion logic in LICM uses
SSAUpdater which doesn't understand how to place LCSSA PHI nodes.
Teaching it to do so would be a very significant undertaking. It may be
worthwhile and I've left a FIXME about this in the code as well as
starting a thread on llvmdev to try to figure out the right long-term
solution.
For now, the PR needs to be fixed. Short of using the promition
SSAUpdater to place both the LCSSA PHI nodes and the promoted PHI nodes,
I don't see a cleaner or cheaper way of achieving this. Fortunately,
LCSSA is relatively lazy and sparse -- it should only update
instructions which need it. We can also skip the recursive variant when
we don't promote to SSA values.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200612 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts commit r200576. It broke 32-bit self-host builds by
vectorizing two calls to @llvm.bswap.i64, which we then fail to expand.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200602 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
transform accordingly. Based on similar code from Loop vectorization.
Subsequent commits will include vectorization of function calls to
vector intrinsics and form function calls to vector library calls.
Patch by Raul Silvera! (Much delayed due to my not running dcommit)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200576 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
loop vectorizer to not do so when runtime pointer checks are needed and
share code with the new (not yet enabled) load/store saturation runtime
unrolling. Also ensure that we only consider the runtime checks when the
loop hasn't already been vectorized. If it has, the runtime check cost
has already been paid.
I've fleshed out a test case to cover the scalar unrolling as well as
the vector unrolling and comment clearly why we are or aren't following
the pattern.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200530 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The entry block of a function starts with all the static allocas. The change
in r195513 splits the block before those allocas, which has the effect of
turning them into dynamic allocas. That breaks all sorts of things. Change to
split after the initial allocas, and also add a comment explaining why the
block is split.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200515 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
preserve loop simplify of enclosing loops.
The problem here starts with LoopRotation which ends up cloning code out
of the latch into the new preheader it is buidling. This can create
a new edge from the preheader into the exit block of the loop which
breaks LoopSimplify form. The code tries to fix this by splitting the
critical edge between the latch and the exit block to get a new exit
block that only the latch dominates. This sadly isn't sufficient.
The exit block may be an exit block for multiple nested loops. When we
clone an edge from the latch of the inner loop to the new preheader
being built in the outer loop, we create an exiting edge from the outer
loop to this exit block. Despite breaking the LoopSimplify form for the
inner loop, this is fine for the outer loop. However, when we split the
edge from the inner loop to the exit block, we create a new block which
is in neither the inner nor outer loop as the new exit block. This is
a predecessor to the old exit block, and so the split itself takes the
outer loop out of LoopSimplify form. We need to split every edge
entering the exit block from inside a loop nested more deeply than the
exit block in order to preserve all of the loop simplify constraints.
Once we try to do that, a problem with splitting critical edges
surfaces. Previously, we tried a very brute force to update LoopSimplify
form by re-computing it for all exit blocks. We don't need to do this,
and doing this much will sometimes but not always overlap with the
LoopRotate bug fix. Instead, the code needs to specifically handle the
cases which can start to violate LoopSimplify -- they aren't that
common. We need to see if the destination of the split edge was a loop
exit block in simplified form for the loop of the source of the edge.
For this to be true, all the predecessors need to be in the exact same
loop as the source of the edge being split. If the dest block was
originally in this form, we have to split all of the deges back into
this loop to recover it. The old mechanism of doing this was
conservatively correct because at least *one* of the exiting blocks it
rewrote was the DestBB and so the DestBB's predecessors were fixed. But
this is a much more targeted way of doing it. Making it targeted is
important, because ballooning the set of edges touched prevents
LoopRotate from being able to split edges *it* needs to split to
preserve loop simplify in a coherent way -- the critical edge splitting
would sometimes find the other edges in need of splitting but not
others.
Many, *many* thanks for help from Nick reducing these test cases
mightily. And helping lots with the analysis here as this one was quite
tricky to track down.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200393 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
because of the inside-out run of LoopSimplify in the LoopPassManager and
the fact that LoopSimplify couldn't be "preserved" across two
independent LoopPassManagers.
Anyways, in that case, IndVars wasn't correctly preserving an LCSSA PHI
node because it thought it was rewriting (via SCEV) the incoming value
to a loop invariant value. While it may well be invariant for the
current loop, it may be rewritten in terms of an enclosing loop's
values. This in and of itself is fine, as the LCSSA PHI node in the
enclosing loop for the inner loop value we're rewriting will have its
own LCSSA PHI node if used outside of the enclosing loop. With me so
far?
Well, the current loop and the enclosing loop may share an exiting
block and exit block, and when they do they also share LCSSA PHI nodes.
In this case, its not valid to RAUW through the LCSSA PHI node.
Expected crazy test included.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200372 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When estimating register pressure, don't count the induction variable mulitple
times. It is unlikely to be unrolled. This is currently disabled and hidden
behind a flag ("enable-ind-var-reg-heur").
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200371 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When simplifycfg moves an instruction, it must drop metadata it doesn't know
is still valid with the preconditions changes. In particular, it must drop
the range and tbaa metadata.
The patch implements this with an utility function to drop all metadata not
in a white list.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200322 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
vectorizer, placing it behind an off-by-default flag.
It turns out that block frequency isn't what we want at all, here or
elsewhere. This has been I think a nagging feeling for several of us
working with it, but Arnold has given some really nice simple examples
where the results are so comprehensively wrong that they aren't useful.
I'm planning to email the dev list with a summary of why its not really
useful and a couple of ideas about how to better structure these types
of heuristics.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200294 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
I searched Transforms/ and Analysis/ for 'ByVal' and updated those call
sites to check for inalloca if appropriate.
I added tests for any change that would allow an optimization to fire on
inalloca.
Reviewers: nlewycky
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2449
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200281 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
LCSSA from it caused a crasher with the LoopUnroll pass.
This crasher is really nasty. We destroy LCSSA form in a suprising way.
When unrolling a loop into an outer loop, we not only need to restore
LCSSA form for the outer loop, but for all children of the outer loop.
This is somewhat obvious in retrospect, but hey!
While this seems pretty heavy-handed, it's not that bad. Fundamentally,
we only do this when we unroll a loop, which is already a heavyweight
operation. We're unrolling all of these hypothetical inner loops as
well, so their size and complexity is already on the critical path. This
is just adding another pass over them to re-canonicalize.
I have a test case from PR18616 that is great for reproducing this, but
pretty useless to check in as it relies on many 10s of nested empty
loops that get unrolled and deleted in just the right order. =/ What's
worse is that investigating this has exposed another source of failure
that is likely to be even harder to test. I'll try to come up with test
cases for these fixes, but I want to get the fixes into the tree first
as they're causing crashes in the wild.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The vectorizer takes a loop like this and widens all instructions except for the
store. The stores are scalarized/unrolled and hidden behind an "if" block.
for (i = 0; i < 128; ++i) {
if (a[i] < 10)
a[i] += val;
}
for (i = 0; i < 128; i+=2) {
v = a[i:i+1];
v0 = (extract v, 0) + 10;
v1 = (extract v, 1) + 10;
if (v0 < 10)
a[i] = v0;
if (v1 < 10)
a[i] = v1;
}
The vectorizer relies on subsequent optimizations to sink instructions into the
conditional block where they are anticipated.
The flag "vectorize-num-stores-pred" controls whether and how many stores to
handle this way. Vectorization of conditional stores is disabled per default for
now.
This patch also adds a change to the heuristic when the flag
"enable-loadstore-runtime-unroll" is enabled (off by default). It unrolls small
loops until load/store ports are saturated. This heuristic uses TTI's
getMaxUnrollFactor as a measure for load/store ports.
I also added a second flag -enable-cond-stores-vec. It will enable vectorization
of conditional stores. But there is no cost model for vectorization of
conditional stores in place yet so this will not do good at the moment.
rdar://15892953
Results for x86-64 -O3 -mavx +/- -mllvm -enable-loadstore-runtime-unroll
-vectorize-num-stores-pred=1 (before the BFI change):
Performance Regressions:
Benchmarks/Ptrdist/yacr2/yacr2 7.35% (maze3() is identical but 10% slower)
Applications/siod/siod 2.18%
Performance improvements:
mesa -4.42%
libquantum -4.15%
With a patch that slightly changes the register heuristics (by subtracting the
induction variable on both sides of the register pressure equation, as the
induction variable is probably not really unrolled):
Performance Regressions:
Benchmarks/Ptrdist/yacr2/yacr2 7.73%
Applications/siod/siod 1.97%
Performance Improvements:
libquantum -13.05% (we now also unroll quantum_toffoli)
mesa -4.27%
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200270 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
uint32.
When folding branches to common destination, the updated branch weights
can exceed uint32 by more than factor of 2. We should keep halving the
weights until they can fit into uint32.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200262 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
cold loops as-if they were being optimized for size.
Nothing fancy here. Simply test case included. The nice thing is that we
can now incrementally build on top of this to drive other heuristics.
All of the infrastructure work is done to get the profile information
into this layer.
The remaining work necessary to make this a fully general purpose loop
unroller for very hot loops is to make it a fully general purpose loop
unroller. Things I know of but am not going to have time to benchmark
and fix in the immediate future:
1) Don't disable the entire pass when the target is lacking vector
registers. This really doesn't make any sense any more.
2) Teach the unroller at least and the vectorizer potentially to handle
non-if-converted loops. This is trivial for the unroller but hard for
the vectorizer.
3) Compute the relative hotness of the loop and thread that down to the
various places that make cost tradeoffs (very likely only the
unroller makes sense here, and then only when dealing with loops that
are small enough for unrolling to not completely blow out the LSD).
I'm still dubious how useful hotness information will be. So far, my
experiments show that if we can get the correct logic for determining
when unrolling actually helps performance, the code size impact is
completely unimportant and we can unroll in all cases. But at least
we'll no longer burn code size on cold code.
One somewhat unrelated idea that I've had forever but not had time to
implement: mark all functions which are only reachable via the global
constructors rigging in the module as optsize. This would also decrease
the impact of any more aggressive heuristics here on code size.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200219 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to stabilize a test that really is trying to test generic behavior and
not a specific target's behavior.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200215 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
object and fewer pointless variables.
Also, add a clarifying comment and a FIXME because the code which
disables *all* vectorization if we can't use implicit floating point
instructions just makes no sense at all.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200214 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
powers of two. This is essentially always the correct thing given the
impact on alignment, scaling factors that can be used in addressing
modes, etc. Also, fix the management of the unroll vs. small loop cost
to more accurately model things with this world.
Enhance a test case to actually exercise more of the unroll machinery if
using synthetic constants rather than a specific target model. Before
this change, with the added flags this test will unroll 3 times instead
of either 2 or 4 (the two sensible answers).
While I don't expect this to make a huge difference, if there are lots
of loops sitting right on the edge of hitting the 'small unroll' factor,
they might change behavior. However, I've benchmarked moving the small
loop cost up and down in many various ways and by a huge factor (2x)
without seeing more than 0.2% code size growth. Small adjustments such
as the series that led up here have led to about 1% improvement on some
benchmarks, but it is very close to the noise floor so I mostly checked
that nothing regressed. Let me know if you see bad behavior on other
targets but I don't expect this to be a sufficiently dramatic change to
trigger anything.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200213 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
with the unrolling behavior in the loop vectorizer. No functionality
changed at this point.
These are a bit hack-y, but talking with Hal, there doesn't seem to be
a cleaner way to easily experiment with different thresholds here and he
was also interested in them so I wanted to commit them. Suggestions for
improvement are very welcome here.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200212 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
number of vector registers rather than toggling between vector and
scalar register number based on VF. I don't have a test case as
I spotted this by inspection and on X86 it only makes a difference if
your target is lacking SSE and thus has *no* vector registers.
If someone wants to add a test case for this for ARM or somewhere else
where this is more significant, that would be awesome.
Also made the variable name a bit more sensible while I'm here.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200211 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
LoopVectorize pass.
The logic here doesn't make much sense. We *only* unrolled if the
unvectorized loop was a reduction loop with a single basic block *and*
small loop body. The reduction part in particular doesn't make much
sense. Instead, if we just fall through to the vectorized unroll logic
it makes more sense of unrolling if there is a vectorized reduction that
could be hacked on by the SLP vectorizer *or* if the loop is small.
This is mostly a cleanup and nothing in the test suite really exercises
this, but I did run benchmarks across this change and saw no really
significant changes.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200198 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a FunctionPass. With this change the loop vectorizer no longer is a loop
pass and can readily depend on function analyses. In particular, with
this change we no longer have to form a loop pass manager to run the
loop vectorizer which simplifies the entire pass management of LLVM.
The next step here is to teach the loop vectorizer to leverage profile
information through the profile information providing analysis passes.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200074 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the loops in a function, and teach LICM to work in the presance of
LCSSA.
Previously, LCSSA was a loop pass. That made passes requiring it also be
loop passes and unable to depend on function analysis passes easily. It
also caused outer loops to have a different "canonical" form from inner
loops during analysis. Instead, we go into LCSSA form and preserve it
through the loop pass manager run.
Note that this has the same problem as LoopSimplify that prevents
enabling its verification -- loop passes which run at the end of the loop
pass manager and don't preserve these are valid, but the subsequent loop
pass runs of outer loops that do preserve this pass trigger too much
verification and fail because the inner loop no longer verifies.
The other problem this exposed is that LICM was completely unable to
handle LCSSA form. It didn't preserve it and it actually would give up
on moving instructions in many cases when they were used by an LCSSA phi
node. I've taught LICM to support detecting LCSSA-form PHI nodes and to
hoist and sink around them. This may actually let LICM fire
significantly more because we put everything into LCSSA form to rotate
the loop before running LICM. =/ Now LICM should handle that fine and
preserve it correctly. The down side is that LICM has to require LCSSA
in order to preserve it. This is just a fact of life for LCSSA. It's
entirely possible we should completely remove LCSSA from the optimizer.
The test updates are essentially accomodating LCSSA phi nodes in the
output of LICM, and the fact that we now completely sink every
instruction in ashr-crash below the loop bodies prior to unrolling.
With this change, LCSSA is computed only three times in the pass
pipeline. One of them could be removed (and potentially a SCEV run and
a separate LoopPassManager entirely!) if we had a LoopPass variant of
InstCombine that ran InstCombine on the loop body but refused to combine
away LCSSA PHI nodes. Currently, this also prevents loop unrolling from
being in the same loop pass manager is rotate, LICM, and unswitch.
There is one thing that I *really* don't like -- preserving LCSSA in
LICM is quite expensive. We end up having to re-run LCSSA twice for some
loops after LICM runs because LICM can undo LCSSA both in the current
loop and the parent loop. I don't really see good solutions to this
other than to completely move away from LCSSA and using tools like
SSAUpdater instead.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200067 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts commit r200058 and adds the using directive for
ARMTargetTransformInfo to silence two g++ overload warnings.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200062 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit caused -Woverloaded-virtual warnings. The two new
TargetTransformInfo::getIntImmCost functions were only added to the superclass,
and to the X86 subclass. The other targets were not updated, and the
warning highlighted this by pointing out that e.g. ARMTTI::getIntImmCost was
hiding the two new getIntImmCost variants.
We could pacify the warning by adding "using TargetTransformInfo::getIntImmCost"
to the various subclasses, or turning it off, but I suspect that it's wrong to
leave the functions unimplemnted in those targets. The default implementations
return TCC_Free, which I don't think is right e.g. for ARM.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200058 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Retry commit r200022 with a fix for the build bot errors. Constant expressions
have (unlike instructions) module scope use lists and therefore may have users
in different functions. The fix is to simply ignore these out-of-function uses.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200034 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This pass identifies expensive constants to hoist and coalesces them to
better prepare it for SelectionDAG-based code generation. This works around the
limitations of the basic-block-at-a-time approach.
First it scans all instructions for integer constants and calculates its
cost. If the constant can be folded into the instruction (the cost is
TCC_Free) or the cost is just a simple operation (TCC_BASIC), then we don't
consider it expensive and leave it alone. This is the default behavior and
the default implementation of getIntImmCost will always return TCC_Free.
If the cost is more than TCC_BASIC, then the integer constant can't be folded
into the instruction and it might be beneficial to hoist the constant.
Similar constants are coalesced to reduce register pressure and
materialization code.
When a constant is hoisted, it is also hidden behind a bitcast to force it to
be live-out of the basic block. Otherwise the constant would be just
duplicated and each basic block would have its own copy in the SelectionDAG.
The SelectionDAG recognizes such constants as opaque and doesn't perform
certain transformations on them, which would create a new expensive constant.
This optimization is only applied to integer constants in instructions and
simple (this means not nested) constant cast experessions. For example:
%0 = load i64* inttoptr (i64 big_constant to i64*)
Reviewed by Eric
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200022 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Sweep the codebase for common typos. Includes some changes to visible function
names that were misspelt.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@200018 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We completely skipped promotion in LICM if the loop has a preheader or
dedicated exits, but not *both*. We hoist if there is a preheader, and
sink if there are dedicated exits, but either hoisting or sinking can
move loop invariant code out of the loop!
I have no idea if this has a practical consequence. If anyone has ideas
for a test case, let me know.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199966 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Argument promotion can replace an argument of a call with an alloca. This
requires clearing the tail marker as it is very likely that the callee is now
using an alloca in the caller.
This fixes pr14710.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199909 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
function and a FunctionPass.
This has many benefits. The motivating use case was to be able to
compute function analysis passes *after* running LoopSimplify (to avoid
invalidating them) and then to run other passes which require
LoopSimplify. Specifically passes like unrolling and vectorization are
critical to wire up to BranchProbabilityInfo and BlockFrequencyInfo so
that they can be profile aware. For the LoopVectorize pass the only
things in the way are LoopSimplify and LCSSA. This fixes LoopSimplify
and LCSSA is next on my list.
There are also a bunch of other benefits of doing this:
- It is now very feasible to make more passes *preserve* LoopSimplify
because they can simply run it after changing a loop. Because
subsequence passes can assume LoopSimplify is preserved we can reduce
the runs of this pass to the times when we actually mutate a loop
structure.
- The new pass manager should be able to more easily support loop passes
factored in this way.
- We can at long, long last observe that LoopSimplify is preserved
across SCEV. This *halves* the number of times we run LoopSimplify!!!
Now, getting here wasn't trivial. First off, the interfaces used by
LoopSimplify are all over the map regarding how analysis are updated. We
end up with weird "pass" parameters as a consequence. I'll try to clean
at least some of this up later -- I'll have to have it all clean for the
new pass manager.
Next up I discovered a really frustrating bug. LoopUnroll *claims* to
preserve LoopSimplify. That's actually a lie. But the way the
LoopPassManager ends up running the passes, it always ran LoopSimplify
on the unrolled-into loop, rectifying this oversight before any
verification could kick in and point out that in fact nothing was
preserved. So I've added code to the unroller to *actually* simplify the
surrounding loop when it succeeds at unrolling.
The only functional change in the test suite is that we now catch a case
that was previously missed because SCEV and other loop transforms see
their containing loops as simplified and thus don't miss some
opportunities. One test case has been converted to check that we catch
this case rather than checking that we miss it but at least don't get
the wrong answer.
Note that I have #if-ed out all of the verification logic in
LoopSimplify! This is a temporary workaround while extracting these bits
from the LoopPassManager. Currently, there is no way to have a pass in
the LoopPassManager which preserves LoopSimplify along with one which
does not. The LPM will try to verify on each loop in the nest that
LoopSimplify holds but the now-Function-pass cannot distinguish what
loop is being verified and so must try to verify all of them. The inner
most loop is clearly no longer simplified as there is a pass which
didn't even *attempt* to preserve it. =/ Once I get LCSSA out (and maybe
LoopVectorize and some other fixes) I'll be able to re-enable this check
and catch any places where we are still failing to preserve
LoopSimplify. If this causes problems I can back this out and try to
commit *all* of this at once, but so far this seems to work and allow
much more incremental progress.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199884 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
inconsistent results for different orderings of alloca slices. The
fundamental issue is that it is just always a mistake to return early
from this function. There is no effective early exit to leverage. This
patch stops trynig to do so and simplifies the code a bit as
a consequence.
Original diagnosis and patch by James Molloy with some name tweaks by me
in part reflecting feedback from Duncan Smith on the mailing list.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199771 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This logic hadn't been updated to handle FastMathFlags, and it took me a while to detect it because it doesn't show up in a simple search for CreateFAdd.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199629 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
intrinsics.
Reported on the list by Evan with a couple of attempts to fix, but it
took a while to dig down to the root cause. There are two overlapping
bugs here, both centering around the circumstance of discovering
a memcpy operand which is known to be completely outside the bounds of
the alloca.
First, we need to kill the *other* side of the memcpy if it was added to
this alloca. Otherwise we'll factor it into our slicing and try to
rewrite it even though we know for a fact that it is dead. This is made
more tricky because we can visit the sides in either order. So we have
to both kill the other side and skip instructions marked as dead. The
latter really should be goodness in every case, but here is a matter of
correctness.
Second, we need to actually remove the *uses* of the alloca by the
memcpy when queuing it for later deletion. Otherwise it may still be
using the alloca when we go to promote it (if the rewrite re-uses the
existing alloca instruction). Do this by factoring out the
use-clobbering used when for nixing a Phi argument and re-using it
across the operands of a to-be-deleted instruction.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199590 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a reduction.
Really. Under certain circumstances (the use list of an instruction has to be
set up right - hence the extra pass in the test case) we would not recognize
when a value in a potential reduction cycle was used multiple times by the
reduction cycle.
Fixes PR18526.
radar://15851149
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199570 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
