into Analysis as a standalone function, since there's no need for
it to be in VMCore. Also, update it to use isKnownNonZero and
other goodies available in Analysis, making it more precise,
enabling more aggressive optimization.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146610 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
On ARM, peephole optimization for ABS creates a trivial cfg triangle which tempts machine sink to sink instructions in code which is really straight line code. Sometimes this sinking may alter register allocator input such that use and def of a reg is divided by a branch in between, which may result in extra spills. Now mahine sink avoids sinking if final sink destination is post dominator.
Radar 10266272.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146604 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
r0 = mov #0
r0 = moveq #1
Then the second instruction has an implicit data dependency on the first
instruction. Sadly I have yet to come up with a small test case that
demonstrate the post-ra scheduler taking advantage of this.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146583 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to finalize MI bundles (i.e. add BUNDLE instruction and computing register def
and use lists of the BUNDLE instruction) and a pass to unpack bundles.
- Teach more of MachineBasic and MachineInstr methods to be bundle aware.
- Switch Thumb2 IT block to MI bundles and delete the hazard recognizer hack to
prevent IT blocks from being broken apart.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146542 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Fast ISel isn't able to handle 'insertvalue' and it causes a large slowdown
during -O0 compilation. We don't necessarily need to generate an aggregate of
the values here if they're just going to be extracted directly afterwards.
<rdar://problem/10530851>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146481 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
undefined result. This adds new ISD nodes for the new semantics,
selecting them when the LLVM intrinsic indicates that the undef behavior
is desired. The new nodes expand trivially to the old nodes, so targets
don't actually need to do anything to support these new nodes besides
indicating that they should be expanded. I've done this for all the
operand types that I could figure out for all the targets. Owners of
various targets, please review and let me know if any of these are
incorrect.
Note that the expand behavior is *conservatively correct*, and exactly
matches LLVM's current behavior with these operations. Ideally this
patch will not change behavior in any way. For example the regtest suite
finds the exact same instruction sequences coming out of the code
generator. That's why there are no new tests here -- all of this is
being exercised by the existing test suite.
Thanks to Duncan Sands for reviewing the various bits of this patch and
helping me get the wrinkles ironed out with expanding for each target.
Also thanks to Chris for clarifying through all the discussions that
this is indeed the approach he was looking for. That said, there are
likely still rough spots. Further review much appreciated.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146466 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
subdirectories to traverse into.
- Originally I wanted to avoid this and just autoscan, but this has one key
flaw in that new subdirectories can not automatically trigger a rerun of the
llvm-build tool. This is particularly a pain when switching back and forth
between trees where one has added a subdirectory, as the dependencies will
tend to be wrong. This will also eliminates FIXME implicitly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146436 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If we create new intervals for a variable that is being spilled, then those new intervals are not guaranteed to also spill. This means that anything reading from the original spilling value might not get the correct value if spills were missed.
Fixes <rdar://problem/10546864>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146428 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
clients to decide whether to look inside bundled instructions and whether
the query should return true if any / all bundled instructions have the
queried property.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146168 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We must not issue a bitcast operation for integer-promotion of vector types, because the
location of the values in the vector may be different.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146150 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
generator to it. For non-bundle instructions, these behave exactly the same
as the MC layer API.
For properties like mayLoad / mayStore, look into the bundle and if any of the
bundled instructions has the property it would return true.
For properties like isPredicable, only return true if *all* of the bundled
instructions have the property.
For properties like canFoldAsLoad, isCompare, conservatively return false for
bundles.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146026 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This flag is used when bundling machine instructions. It indicates
whether the operand reads a value defined inside or outside its bundle.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145997 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
1. Added opcode BUNDLE
2. Taught MachineInstr class to deal with bundled MIs
3. Changed MachineBasicBlock iterator to skip over bundled MIs; added an iterator to walk all the MIs
4. Taught MachineBasicBlock methods about bundled MIs
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145975 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The new register allocator is much more able to split back up ranges too constrained by register classes.
Fixes <rdar://problem/10466609>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145899 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This was actually a bit of a mess. TLI.setPrefLoopAlignment was clearly
documented as taking log2(bytes) units, but the x86 target would still
set a preferred loop alignment of '16'.
CodePlacementOpt passed this number on to the basic block, and
AsmPrinter interpreted it as bytes.
Now both MachineFunction and MachineBasicBlock use logarithmic
alignments.
Obviously, MachineConstantPool still measures alignments in bytes, so we
can emulate the thrill of using as.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145889 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
change, now you need a TargetOptions object to create a TargetMachine. Clang
patch to follow.
One small functionality change in PTX. PTX had commented out the machine
verifier parts in their copy of printAndVerify. That now calls the version in
LLVMTargetMachine. Users of PTX who need verification disabled should rely on
not passing the command-line flag to enable it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145714 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
non_lazy_symbol_pointers section (__IMPORT,__pointers). Ignore the 'hidden' part
since that will place it in the wrong section.
<rdar://problem/10443720>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145356 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Conservatively returns zero when the GV does not specify an alignment nor is it
initialized. Previously it returns ABI alignment for type of the GV. However, if
the type is a "packed" type, then the under-specified alignments is attached to
the load / store instructions. In that case, the alignment of the type cannot be
trusted.
rdar://10464621
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145300 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
than ABI alignment. These are loads / stores from / to "packed" data structures.
Their alignments are intentionally under-specified.
rdar://10301431
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
fallthrough) in cases where we might fail to rotate an exit to an outer
loop onto the end of the loop chain.
Having *some* rotation, but not performing this rotation, is the primary
fix of thep performance regression with -enable-block-placement for
Olden/em3d (a whopping 30% regression). Still working on reducing the
test case that actually exercises this and the new rotation strategy out
of this code, but I want to check if this regresses other test cases
first as that may indicate it isn't the correct fix.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145195 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
was centered around the premise of laying out a loop in a chain, and
then rotating that chain. This is good for preserving contiguous layout,
but bad for actually making sane rotations. In order to keep it safe,
I had to essentially make it impossible to rotate deeply nested loops.
The information needed to correctly reason about a deeply nested loop is
actually available -- *before* we layout the loop. We know the inner
loops are already fused into chains, etc. We lose information the moment
we actually lay out the loop.
The solution was the other alternative for this algorithm I discussed
with Benjamin and some others: rather than rotating the loop
after-the-fact, try to pick a profitable starting block for the loop's
layout, and then use our existing layout logic. I was worried about the
complexity of this "pick" step, but it turns out such complexity is
needed to handle all the important cases I keep teasing out of benchmarks.
This is, I'm afraid, a bit of a work-in-progress. It is still
misbehaving on some likely important cases I'm investigating in Olden.
It also isn't really tested. I'm going to try to craft some interesting
nested-loop test cases, but it's likely to be extremely time consuming
and I don't want to go there until I'm sure I'm testing the correct
behavior. Sadly I can't come up with a way of getting simple, fine
grained test cases for this logic. We need complex loop structures to
even trigger much of it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
heavily on AnalyzeBranch. That routine doesn't behave as we want given
that rotation occurs mid-way through re-ordering the function. Instead
merely check that there are not unanalyzable branching constructs
present, and then reason about the CFG via successor lists. This
actually simplifies my mental model for all of this as well.
The concrete result is that we now will rotate more loop chains. I've
added a test case from Olden highlighting the effect. There is still
a bit more to do here though in order to regain all of the performance
in Olden.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145179 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
pass. This is designed to achieve one of the important optimizations
that the old code placement pass did, but more simply.
This is a somewhat rough and *very* conservative version of the
transform. We could get a lot fancier here if there are profitable cases
to do so. In particular, this only looks for a single pattern, it
insists that the loop backedge being rotated away is the last backedge
in the chain, and it doesn't provide any means of doing better in-loop
placement due to the rotation. However, it appears that it will handle
the important loops I am finding in the LLVM test suite.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145158 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
need lots of fanciness around retaining a reference to a Chain's slot in
the BlockToChain map, but that's all gone now. We can just go directly
to allocating the new chain (which will update the mapping for us) and
using it.
Somewhat gross mechanically generated test case replicates the issue
Duncan spotted when actually testing this out.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145120 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
conflicts, we should only be adding the first block of the chain to the
list, lest we try to merge into the middle of that chain. Most of the
places we were doing this we already happened to be looking at the first
block, but there is no reason to assume that, and in some cases it was
clearly wrong.
I've added a couple of tests here. One already worked, but I like having
an explicit test for it. The other is reduced from a test case Duncan
reduced for me and used to crash. Now it is handled correctly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145119 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
further. This invariant just wasn't going to work in the face of
unanalyzable branches; we need to be resillient to the phenomenon of
chains poking into a loop and poking out of a loop. In fact, we already
were, we just needed to not assert on it.
This was found during a bootstrap with block placement turned on.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145100 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
successors, they just are all landing pad successors. We handle this the
same way as no successors. Comments attached for the next person to wade
through here and another lovely test case courtesy of Benjamin Kramer's
bugpoint reduction.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145098 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This was a bug in keeping track of the available domains when merging
domain values.
The wrong domain mask caused ExecutionDepsFix to try to move VANDPSYrr
to the integer domain which is only available in AVX2.
Also add an assertion to catch future attempts at emitting AVX2
instructions.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145096 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
reversed in the function's original ordering, and we happened to
encounter it while handling an outer unnatural CFG structure.
Thanks to the test case reduced from GCC's source by Benjamin Kramer.
This may also fix a crasher in gzip that Duncan reduced for me, but
I haven't yet gotten to testing that one.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145094 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
updateTerminator code didn't correctly handle EH terminators in one very
specific case. AnalyzeBranch would find no terminator instruction, and
so the fallback in updateTerminator is to assume fallthrough. This is
correct, but the destination of the fallthrough was assumed to be the
first successor.
This is *almost always* true, but in certain cases the loop
transformations will cause the landing pad to be the first successor!
Instead of this brittle logic, actually look through the successors for
a non-landing-pad accessor, and to assert if more than one is found.
This will hopefully fix some (if not all) of the self host miscompiles
with block placement. Thanks to Benjamin Kramer for reporting, Nick
Lewycky for an initial stab at a reduction, and Duncan for endless
advice on EH (which I know nothing about) as well as reviewing the
actual fix.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145062 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
dropping weights on the floor for invokes. This was impeding my writing
further test cases for invoke when interacting with probabilities and
block placement.
No test case as there doesn't appear to be a way to test this stuff. =/
Suggestions for a test case of course welcome. I hope to be able to add
test cases that indirectly cover this eventually by adding probabilities
to the exceptional edge and reordering blocks as a result.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145060 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
properly account for the *global* probability of the edge being taken.
This manifested as a very large number of unconditional branches to
blocks being merged against the CFG even though they weren't
particularly hot within the CFG.
The fix is to check whether the edge being merged is both locally hot
relative to other successors for the source block, and globally hot
compared to other (unmerged) predecessors of the destination block.
This introduces a new crasher on GCC single-source, but it's currently
behind a flag, and Ben has offered to work on the reduction. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145010 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
formation phase and into the initial walk of the basic blocks. We
essentially pre-merge all blocks where unanalyzable fallthrough exists,
as we won't be able to update the terminators effectively after any
reorderings. This is quite a bit more principled as there may be CFGs
where the second half of the unanalyzable pair has some analyzable
predecessor that gets placed first. Then it may get placed next,
implicitly breaking the unanalyzable branch even though we never even
looked at the part that isn't analyzable. I've included a test case that
triggers this (thanks Benjamin yet again!), and I'm hoping to synthesize
some more general ones as I dig into related issues.
Also, to make this new scheme work we have to be able to handle branches
into the middle of a chain, so add this check. We always fallback on the
incoming ordering.
Finally, this starts to really underscore a known limitation of the
current implementation -- we don't consider broken predecessors when
merging successors. This can caused major missed opportunities, and is
something I'm planning on looking at next (modulo more bug reports).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144994 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
ADDs. MaxOffs is used as a threshold to limit the size of the offset. Tradeoffs
being: (1) If we can't materialize the large constant then we'll cause fast-isel
to bail. (2) Too large of an offset can't be directly encoded in the ADD
resulting in a MOV+ADD. Generally not a bad thing because otherwise we would
have had ADD+ADD, but on Thumb this turns into a MOVS+MOVT+ADD. Working on a fix
for that. (3) Conversely, too low of a threshold we'll miss opportunities to
coalesce ADDs.
rdar://10412592
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144886 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
for a single miss and not all predecessor instructions that get selected by
the selection DAG instruction selector. This is still not exact (e.g., over
states misses when folded/dead instructions are present), but it is a step in
the right direction.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144832 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
and code model. This eliminates the need to pass OptLevel flag all over the
place and makes it possible for any codegen pass to use this information.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144788 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
There may be many invokes that share one landing pad, and the previous code
would record the landing pad once for each invoke. Besides the wasted
effort, a pair of volatile loads gets inserted every time the landing pad is
processed. The rest of the code can get optimized away when a landing pad
is processed repeatedly, but the volatile loads remain, resulting in code like:
LBB35_18:
Ltmp483:
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r2, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
ldr r4, [r7, #-72]
ldr r2, [r7, #-68]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144787 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This same basic code was in the older version of the SjLj exception handling,
but it was removed in the recent revisions to that code. It needs to be there.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144782 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
%arrayidx135 = getelementptr inbounds [4 x [4 x [4 x [4 x i32]]]]* %M0, i32 0, i64 0
%arrayidx136 = getelementptr inbounds [4 x [4 x [4 x i32]]]* %arrayidx135, i32 0, i64 %idxprom134
Prior to this commit, the GEP instruction that defines %arrayidx136 thought that
%arrayidx135 was a trivial kill. The GEP that defines %arrayidx135 doesn't
generate any code and thus %M0 gets folded into the second GEP. Thus, we need
to look through GEPs with all zero indices.
rdar://10443319
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144730 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
has a reference to it. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for codegen passes
since we don't get notified of MBB's being deleted (the original BB stays).
Use that fact to our advantage and after printing a function, check if
any of the IL BBs corresponds to a symbol that was not printed. This fixes
pr11202.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144674 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
block sequence when recovering from unanalyzable control flow
constructs, *always* use the function sequence. I'm not sure why I ever
went down the path of trying to use the loop sequence, it is
fundamentally not the correct sequence to use. We're trying to preserve
the incoming layout in the cases of unreasonable control flow, and that
is only encoded at the function level. We already have a filter to
select *exactly* the sub-set of blocks within the function that we're
trying to form into a chain.
The resulting code layout is also significantly better because of this.
In several places we were ending up with completely unreasonable control
flow constructs due to the ordering chosen by the loop structure for its
internal storage. This change removes a completely wasteful vector of
basic blocks, saving memory allocation in the common case even though it
costs us CPU in the fairly rare case of unnatural loops. Finally, it
fixes the latest crasher reduced out of GCC's single source. Thanks
again to Benjamin Kramer for the reduction, my bugpoint skills failed at
it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144627 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Two new TargetInstrInfo hooks lets the target tell ExecutionDepsFix
about instructions with partial register updates causing false unwanted
dependencies.
The ExecutionDepsFix pass will break the false dependencies if the
updated register was written in the previoius N instructions.
The small loop added to sse-domains.ll runs twice as fast with
dependency-breaking instructions inserted.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144602 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Keep track of the last instruction to define each register individually
instead of per DomainValue. This lets us track more accurately when a
register was last written.
Also track register ages across basic blocks. When entering a new
basic block, use the least stale predecessor def as a worst case
estimate for register age.
The register age is used to arbitrate between conflicting domains. The
most recently defined register wins.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144601 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
"kill". This looks like a bug upstream. Since that's going to take some time
to understand, loosen the assertion and disable the optimization when
multiple kills are seen.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144568 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
instructions of the two-address operands) in order to avoid inserting copies.
This fixes the few regressions introduced when the two-address hack was
disabled (without regressing the improvements).
rdar://10422688
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144559 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
cleans up all the chains allocated during the processing of each
function so that for very large inputs we don't just grow memory usage
without bound.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144533 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
tests when I forcibly enabled block placement.
It is apparantly possible for an unanalyzable block to fallthrough to
a non-loop block. I don't actually beleive this is correct, I believe
that 'canFallThrough' is returning true needlessly for the code
construct, and I've left a bit of a FIXME on the verification code to
try to track down why this is coming up.
Anyways, removing the assert doesn't degrade the correctness of the algorithm.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144532 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
this pass. We're leaving already merged blocks on the worklist, and
scanning them again and again only to determine each time through that
indeed they aren't viable. We can instead remove them once we're going
to have to scan the worklist. This is the easy way to implement removing
them. If this remains on the profile (as I somewhat suspect it will), we
can get a lot more clever here, as the worklist's order is essentially
irrelevant. We can use swapping and fold the two loops to reduce
overhead even when there are many blocks on the worklist but only a few
of them are removed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144531 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
time it is queried to compute the probability of a single successor.
This makes computing the probability of every successor of a block in
sequence... really really slow. ;] This switches to a linear walk of the
successors rather than a quadratic one. One of several quadratic
behaviors slowing this pass down.
I'm not really thrilled with moving the sum code into the public
interface of MBPI, but I don't (at the moment) have ideas for a better
interface. My direction I'm thinking in for a better interface is to
have MBPI actually retain much more state and make *all* of these
queries cheap. That's a lot of work, and would require invasive changes.
Until then, this seems like the least bad (ie, least quadratic)
solution. Suggestions welcome.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144530 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
correctly handle blocks whose successor weights sum to more than
UINT32_MAX. This is slightly less efficient, but the entire thing is
already linear on the number of successors. Calling it within any hot
routine is a mistake, and indeed no one is calling it. It also
simplifies the code.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144527 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the sum of the edge weights not overflowing uint32, and crashed when
they did. This is generally safe as BranchProbabilityInfo tries to
provide this guarantee. However, the CFG can get modified during codegen
in a way that grows the *sum* of the edge weights. This doesn't seem
unreasonable (imagine just adding more blocks all with the default
weight of 16), but it is hard to come up with a case that actually
triggers 32-bit overflow. Fortuately, the single-source GCC build is
good at this. The solution isn't very pretty, but its no worse than the
previous code. We're already summing all of the edge weights on each
query, we can sum them, check for an overflow, compute a scale, and sum
them again.
I've included a *greatly* reduced test case out of the GCC source that
triggers it. It's a pretty lame test, as it clearly is just barely
triggering the overflow. I'd like to have something that is much more
definitive, but I don't understand the fundamental pattern that triggers
an explosion in the edge weight sums.
The buggy code is duplicated within this file. I'll colapse them into
a single implementation in a subsequent commit.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144526 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
get loop info structures associated with them, and so we need some way
to make forward progress selecting and placing basic blocks. The
technique used here is pretty brutal -- it just scans the list of blocks
looking for the first unplaced candidate. It keeps placing blocks like
this until the CFG becomes tractable.
The cost is somewhat unfortunate, it requires allocating a vector of all
basic block pointers eagerly. I have some ideas about how to simplify
and optimize this, but I'm trying to get the logic correct first.
Thanks to Benjamin Kramer for the reduced test case out of GCC. Sadly
there are other bugs that GCC is tickling that I'm reducing and working
on now.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144516 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This makes no difference for normal defs, but early clobber dead defs
now look like:
[Slot_EarlyClobber; Slot_Dead)
instead of:
[Slot_EarlyClobber; Slot_Register).
Live ranges for normal dead defs look like:
[Slot_Register; Slot_Dead)
as before.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144512 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
when we fail to place all the blocks of a loop. Currently this is
happening for unnatural loops, and this logic helps more immediately
point to the problem.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144504 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The old naming scheme (load/use/def/store) can be traced back to an old
linear scan article, but the names don't match how slots are actually
used.
The load and store slots are not needed after the deferred spill code
insertion framework was deleted.
The use and def slots don't make any sense because we are using
half-open intervals as is customary in C code, but the names suggest
closed intervals. In reality, these slots were used to distinguish
early-clobber defs from normal defs.
The new naming scheme also has 4 slots, but the names match how the
slots are really used. This is a purely mechanical renaming, but some
of the code makes a lot more sense now.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144503 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
branches that also may involve fallthrough. In the case of blocks with
no fallthrough, we can still re-order the blocks profitably. For example
instruction decoding will in some cases continue past an indirect jump,
making laying out its most likely successor there profitable.
Note, no test case. I don't know how to write a test case that exercises
this logic, but it matches the described desired semantics in
discussions with Jakob and others. If anyone has a nice example of IR
that will trigger this, that would be lovely.
Also note, there are still assertion failures in real world code with
this. I'm digging into those next, now that I know this isn't the cause.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144499 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
second algorithm, but only loosely. It is more heavily based on the last
discussion I had with Andy. It continues to walk from the inner-most
loop outward, but there is a key difference. With this algorithm we
ensure that as we visit each loop, the entire loop is merged into
a single chain. At the end, the entire function is treated as a "loop",
and merged into a single chain. This chain forms the desired sequence of
blocks within the function. Switching to a single algorithm removes my
biggest problem with the previous approaches -- they had different
behavior depending on which system triggered the layout. Now there is
exactly one algorithm and one basis for the decision making.
The other key difference is how the chain is formed. This is based
heavily on the idea Andy mentioned of keeping a worklist of blocks that
are viable layout successors based on the CFG. Having this set allows us
to consistently select the best layout successor for each block. It is
expensive though.
The code here remains very rough. There is a lot that needs to be done
to clean up the code, and to make the runtime cost of this pass much
lower. Very much WIP, but this was a giant chunk of code and I'd rather
folks see it sooner than later. Everything remains behind a flag of
course.
I've added a couple of tests to exercise the issues that this iteration
was motivated by: loop structure preservation. I've also fixed one test
that was exhibiting the broken behavior of the previous version.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@144495 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
