smaller integer loads and stores.
The high-level motivation is that the frontend sometimes generates
a single whole-alloca integer load or store during ABI lowering of
splittable allocas. We need to be able to break this apart in order to
see the underlying elements and properly promote them to SSA values. The
hope is that this fixes some performance regressions on x86-32 with the
new SROA pass.
Unfortunately, this causes quite a bit of churn in the test cases, and
bloats some IR that comes out. When we see an alloca that consists soley
of bits and bytes being extracted and re-inserted, we now do some
splitting first, before building widened integer "bucket of bits"
representations. These are always well folded by instcombine however, so
this shouldn't actually result in missed opportunities.
If this splitting of all-integer allocas does cause problems (perhaps
due to smaller SSA values going into the RA), we could potentially go to
some extreme measures to only do this integer splitting trick when there
are non-integer component accesses of an alloca, but discovering this is
quite expensive: it adds yet another complete walk of the recursive use
tree of the alloca.
Either way, I will be watching build bots and LNT bots to see what
fallout there is here. If anyone gets x86-32 numbers before & after this
change, I would be very interested.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166662 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
%V = mul i64 %N, 4
%t = getelementptr i8* bitcast (i32* %arr to i8*), i32 %V
into
%t1 = getelementptr i32* %arr, i32 %N
%t = bitcast i32* %t1 to i8*
incorporating the multiplication into the getelementptr.
This happens all the time in dragonegg, for example for
int foo(int *A, int N) {
return A[N];
}
because gcc turns this into byte pointer arithmetic before it hits the plugin:
D.1590_2 = (long unsigned int) N_1(D);
D.1591_3 = D.1590_2 * 4;
D.1592_5 = A_4(D) + D.1591_3;
D.1589_6 = *D.1592_5;
return D.1589_6;
The D.1592_5 line is a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, which is turned into a getelementptr
on a bitcast of A_4 to i8*, so this becomes exactly the kind of IR that the
transform fires on.
An analogous transform (with no testcases!) already existed for bitcasts of
arrays, so I rewrote it to share code with this one.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166474 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
every TU where it's implicitly instantiated, even if there's an implicit
instantiation for the same types available in another TU.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166470 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
deterministic, replace it with a DenseMap<std::pair<unsigned, unsigned>,
PHINode*> (we already have a map from BasicBlock to unsigned).
<rdar://problem/12541389>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166435 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Unreachable blocks can have invalid instructions. For example,
jump threading can produce self-referential instructions in
unreachable blocks. Also, we should not be spending time
optimizing unreachable code. Fixes PR14133.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166423 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
very small but very important bugfix:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->get();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
[...]
should have read:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->getUser();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
Fixes PR14143!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166407 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It passes all tests, produces better results than the old code but uses the
wrong pass, LoopDependenceAnalysis, which is old and unmaintained. "Why is it
still in tree?", you might ask. The answer is obviously: "To confuse developers."
Just swapping in the new dependency pass sends the pass manager into an infinte
loop, I'll try to figure out why tomorrow.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166399 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Requires a lot less code and complexity on loop-idiom's side and the more
precise analysis can catch more cases, like the one I included as a test case.
This also fixes the edge-case miscompilation from PR9481. I'm not entirely
sure that all cases are handled that the old checks handled but LDA will
certainly become smarter in the future.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166390 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We used a SCEV to detect that A[X] is consecutive. We assumed that X was
the induction variable. But X can be any expression that uses the induction
for example: X = i + 2;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166388 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is important for nested-loop reductions such as :
In the innermost loop, the induction variable does not start with zero:
for (i = 0 .. n)
for (j = 0 .. m)
sum += ...
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166387 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If the pointer is consecutive then it is safe to read and write. If the pointer is non-loop-consecutive then
it is unsafe to vectorize it because we may hit an ordering issue.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@166371 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
