LLVM's include tree and the use of using declarations to hide the
'legacy' namespace for the old pass manager.
This undoes the primary modules-hostile change I made to keep
out-of-tree targets building. I sent an email inquiring about whether
this would be reasonable to do at this phase and people seemed fine with
it, so making it a reality. This should allow us to start bootstrapping
with modules to a certain extent along with making it easier to mix and
match headers in general.
The updates to any code for users of LLVM are very mechanical. Switch
from including "llvm/PassManager.h" to "llvm/IR/LegacyPassManager.h".
Qualify the types which now produce compile errors with "legacy::". The
most common ones are "PassManager", "PassManagerBase", and
"FunctionPassManager".
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229094 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The issues with the new unroll analyzer are more fundamental than code
cleanup, algorithm, or data structure changes. I've sent an email to the
original commit thread with details and a proposal for how to redesign
things. I'm disabling this for now so that we don't spend time
debugging issues with it in its current state.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229064 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
UnrollAnalyzer.
Now they share a single worklist and have less implicit state between
them. There was no real benefit to separating these two things out.
I'm going to subsequently refactor things to share even more code.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229062 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
contained in it each time we try to add it to the worklist, just check
this when pulling it off the worklist. That way we do it at most once
per instruction with the cost of the worklist set we would need to pay
anyways.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229060 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
vector.
In addition to dramatically reducing the work required for contrived
example loops, this also has to correct some serious latent bugs in the
cost computation. Previously, we might add an instruction onto the
worklist once for every load which it used and was simplified. Then we
would visit it many times and accumulate "savings" each time.
I mean, fortunately this couldn't matter for things like calls with 100s
of operands, but even for binary operators this code seems like it must
be double counting the savings.
I just noticed this by inspection and due to the runtime problems it can
introduce, I don't have any test cases for cases where the cost produced
by this routine is unacceptable.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229059 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In the unroll analyzer, it is checking each user to see if that user
will become dead. However, it first checked if that user was missing
from the simplified values map, and then if was also missing from the
dead instructions set. We add everything from the simplified values map
to the dead instructions set, so the first step is completely subsumed
by the second. Moreover, the first step requires *inserting* something
into the simplified value map which isn't what we want at all.
This also replaces a dyn_cast with a cast as an instruction cannot be
used by a non-instruction.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229057 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
check.
Also hoist this into the enqueue process as it is faster even than
testing the worklist set, we should just directly filter these out much
like we filter out constants and such.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229056 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We don't just want to handle duplicate operands within an instruction,
but also duplicates across operands of different instructions. I should
have gone straight to this, but I had convinced myself that it wasn't
going to be necessary briefly. I've come to my senses after chatting
more with Nick, and am now happier here.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229054 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
into the worklist. This avoids allocating lots of worklist memory for
them when there are large numbers of repeated operands.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229052 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
reasonably quickly.
I don't have a reduced test case, but for a version of FFMPEG, this
makes the loop unroller start finishing at all (after over 15 minutes of
running, it hadn't terminated for me, no idea if it was a true infloop
or just exponential work).
The key thing here is to check the DeadInstructions set when pulling
things off the worklist. Without this, we would re-walk the user list of
already dead instructions again and again and again. Consider phi nodes
with many, many operands and other patterns.
The other important aspect of this is that because we would keep
re-visiting instructions that were already known dead, we kept adding
their cost savings to this! This would cause our cost savings to be
*insanely* inflated from this.
While I was here, I also rotated the operand walk out of the worklist
loop to make the code easier to read. There is still work to be done to
minimize worklist traffic because we don't de-duplicate operands. This
means we may add the same instruction onto the worklist 1000s of times
if it shows up in 1000s of operansd to a PHI node for example.
Still, with this patch, the ffmpeg testcase I have finishes quickly and
I can't measure the runtime impact of the unroll analysis any more. I'll
probably try to do a few more cleanups to this code, but not sure how
much cleanup I can justify right now.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229038 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
readable.
The biggest thing that was causing me problems is recognizing the
references vs. poniters here. I also found that for maps naming the loop
variable as KeyValue helps make it obvious why you don't actually use it
directly. Finally, using 'auto' instead of 'User *' doesn't seem like
a good tradeoff. Much like with the other cases, I like to know its
a pointer, and 'User' is just as long and tells the reader a lot more.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229033 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
hard to type and read for me, and is inconsistent with the other
abbreviation in the base class "Inst". For most of these (where they are
used widely) I prefer just spelling it out as Instruction. I've changed
two of the short-lived variables to use "Inst" to match the base class.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@229028 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is much more efficient. In particular, the query with the user
instruction has to insert a false for every missing instruction into the
set. This is just a cleanup a long the way to fixing the underlying
algorithm problems here.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228994 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When we try to estimate number of potentially removed instructions in
loop unroller, we analyze first N iterations and then scale the
computed number by TripCount/N. We should bail out early if N is 0.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228988 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We can't solve the full subgraph isomorphism problem. But we can
allow obvious cases, where for example two instructions of different
types are out of order. Due to them having different types/opcodes,
there is no ambiguity.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228931 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
When trying to canonicalize negative constants out of
multiplication expressions, we need to check that the
constant is not INT_MIN which cannot be negated.
Reviewers: mcrosier
Reviewed By: mcrosier
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7286
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228872 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
A DAGRootSet models an induction variable being used in a rerollable
loop. For example:
x[i*3+0] = y1
x[i*3+1] = y2
x[i*3+2] = y3
Base instruction -> i*3
+---+----+
/ | \
ST[y1] +1 +2 <-- Roots
| |
ST[y2] ST[y3]
There may be multiple DAGRootSets, for example:
x[i*2+0] = ... (1)
x[i*2+1] = ... (1)
x[i*2+4] = ... (2)
x[i*2+5] = ... (2)
x[(i+1234)*2+5678] = ... (3)
x[(i+1234)*2+5679] = ... (3)
This concept is similar to the "Scale" member used previously, but allows
multiple independent sets of roots based off the same induction variable.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228821 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
I realized that my early fix for this was overly complicated. Rather than scatter checks around in a bunch of places, just exit early when we visit the poll function itself.
Thinking about it a bit, the whole inlining mechanism used with gc.safepoint_poll could probably be cleaned up a bit. Originally, poll insertion was fused with gc relocation rewriting. It might be worth going back to see if we can simplify the chain of events now that these two are seperated. As one thought, maybe it makes sense to rewrite calls inside the helper function before inlining it to the many callers. This would require us to visit the poll function before any other functions though..
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228634 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
for any padding introduced by SROA. In particular, do not emit debug info
for an alloca that represents only the padding introduced by a previous
iteration.
Fixes PR22495.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228632 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
intermediate representation. This
- increases consistency by using the same granularity everywhere
- allows for pieces < 1 byte
- DW_OP_piece didn't actually allow storing an offset.
Part of PR22495.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228631 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
It's important that our users immediately know what gc.safepoint_poll
is. Also fix the style of the declaration of CreateGCStatepoint, in
preparation for another change that will wrap it.
Reviewers: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7517
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228626 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is just adding really simple tests which should have been part of the original submission. When doing so, I discovered that I'd mistakenly removed required pieces when preparing the patch for upstream submission. I fixed two such bugs in this submission.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228610 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The only difference between deleteIfDeadInstruction and
RecursivelyDeleteTriviallyDeadInstructions is that the former also
manually invalidates SCEV. That's unnecessary because SCEV automatically
gets informed when an instruction is deleted via a ValueHandle. NFC.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228508 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If complete-unroll could help us to optimize away N% of instructions, we
might want to do this even if the final size would exceed loop-unroll
threshold. However, we don't want to unroll huge loop, and we are add
AbsoluteThreshold to avoid that - this threshold will never be crossed,
even if we expect to optimize 99% instructions after that.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228434 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It is a variation of SimplifyBinOp, but it takes into account
FastMathFlags.
It is needed in inliner and loop-unroller to accurately predict the
transformation's outcome (previously we dropped the flags and were too
conservative in some cases).
Example:
float foo(float *a, float b) {
float r;
if (a[1] * b)
r = /* a lot of expensive computations */;
else
r = 1;
return r;
}
float boo(float *a) {
return foo(a, 0.0);
}
Without this patch, we don't inline 'foo' into 'boo'.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228432 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Complete loop unrolling can make some loads constant, thus enabling a
lot of other optimizations. To catch such cases, we look for loads that
might become constants and estimate number of instructions that would be
simplified or become dead after substitution.
Example:
Suppose we have:
int a[] = {0, 1, 0};
v = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i ++)
v += b[i]*a[i];
If we completely unroll the loop, we would get:
v = b[0]*a[0] + b[1]*a[1] + b[2]*a[2]
Which then will be simplified to:
v = b[0]* 0 + b[1]* 1 + b[2]* 0
And finally:
v = b[1]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228265 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We were previously doing a post-order traversal and operating on the
list in reverse, however this would occasionaly cause backedges for
loops to be visited before some of the other blocks in the loop.
We know use a reverse post-order traversal, which avoids this issue.
The reverse post-order traversal is not completely ideal, so we need
to manually fixup the list to ensure that inner loop backedges are
visited before outer loop backedges.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228186 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228090 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Straight-line strength reduction (SLSR) is implemented in GCC but not yet in
LLVM. It has proven to effectively simplify statements derived from an unrolled
loop, and can potentially benefit many other cases too. For example,
LLVM unrolls
#pragma unroll
foo (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
sum += foo((b + i) * s);
}
into
sum += foo(b * s);
sum += foo((b + 1) * s);
sum += foo((b + 2) * s);
However, no optimizations yet reduce the internal redundancy of the three
expressions:
b * s
(b + 1) * s
(b + 2) * s
With SLSR, LLVM can optimize these three expressions into:
t1 = b * s
t2 = t1 + s
t3 = t2 + s
This commit is only an initial step towards implementing a series of such
optimizations. I will implement more (see TODO in the file commentary) in the
near future. This optimization is enabled for the NVPTX backend for now.
However, I am more than happy to push it to the standard optimization pipeline
after more thorough performance tests.
Test Plan: test/StraightLineStrengthReduce/slsr.ll
Reviewers: eliben, HaoLiu, meheff, hfinkel, jholewinski, atrick
Reviewed By: jholewinski, atrick
Subscribers: karthikthecool, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7310
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@228016 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
