Two related things:
1. Fixes a bug when calculating the offset in GetLinearExpression. The code
previously used zext to extend the offset, so negative offsets were converted
to large positive ones.
2. Enhance aliasGEP to deduce that, if the difference between two GEP
allocations is positive and all the variables that govern the offset are also
positive (i.e. the offset is strictly after the higher base pointer), then
locations that fit in the gap between the two base pointers are NoAlias.
Patch by Nick White!
llvm-svn: 218714
The annotation instructions are dropped during codegen and have no
impact on size. In some cases, the annotations were preventing the
unroller from unrolling a loop because the annotation calls were
pushing the cost over the unrolling threshold.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5335
llvm-svn: 218525
The doFinalization method checks that the LoopToAliasSetMap is
empty. LICM populates that map as it runs through the loop nest,
deleting the entries for child loops as it goes. However, if a child
loop is deleted by another pass (e.g. unrolling) then the loop will
never be deleted from the map because LICM walks the loop nest to
find entries it can delete.
The fix is to delete the loop from the map and free the alias set
when the loop is deleted from the loop nest.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5305
llvm-svn: 218387
for LVI algorithm. For a specific value to be lowered, when the number of basic
blocks being checked for overdefined lattice value is larger than
lvi-overdefined-BB-threshold, or the times of encountering overdefined value
for a single basic block is larger than lvi-overdefined-threshold, the LVI
algorithm will stop further lowering the lattice value.
llvm-svn: 218231
shim between the TargetTransformInfo immutable pass and the Subtarget
via the TargetMachine and Function. Migrate a single call from
BasicTargetTransformInfo as an example and provide shims where TargetMachine
begins taking a Function to determine the subtarget.
No functional change.
llvm-svn: 218004
Some ICmpInsts when anded/ored with another ICmpInst trivially reduces
to true or false depending on whether or not all integers or no integers
satisfy the intersected/unioned range.
This sort of trivial looking code can come about when InstCombine
performs a range reduction-type operation on sdiv and the like.
This fixes PR20916.
llvm-svn: 217750
"Unroll" is not the appropriate name for this variable. Clang already uses
the term "interleave" in pragmas and metadata for this.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5066
llvm-svn: 217528
This adds a basic (but important) use of @llvm.assume calls in ScalarEvolution.
When SE is attempting to validate a condition guarding a loop (such as whether
or not the loop count can be zero), this check should also include dominating
assumptions.
llvm-svn: 217348
This change teaches LazyValueInfo to use the @llvm.assume intrinsic. Like with
the known-bits change (r217342), this requires feeding a "context" instruction
pointer through many functions. Aside from a little refactoring to reuse the
logic that turns predicates into constant ranges in LVI, the only new code is
that which can 'merge' the range from an assumption into that otherwise
computed. There is also a small addition to JumpThreading so that it can have
LVI use assumptions in the same block as the comparison feeding a conditional
branch.
With this patch, we can now simplify this as expected:
int foo(int a) {
__builtin_assume(a > 5);
if (a > 3) {
bar();
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
llvm-svn: 217345
This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits
using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few
patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this
change adds several other patterns for simple cases.
r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask
that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also
had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds:
assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we
can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v.
assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate known bits from the a to v.
assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate inverted known bits from the a to v.
assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in
b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted
known bits from the a to v.
assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can
propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those
bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate
known bits from the a to v.
assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them
to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate
them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them
to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate
them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c.
assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero
assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero
assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one
assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one
assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits
assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power
of 2, transfer one more)
A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The
problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to
check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific
conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to
trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change
here.
llvm-svn: 217343
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
This adds a set of utility functions for collecting 'ephemeral' values. These
are LLVM IR values that are used only by @llvm.assume intrinsics (directly or
indirectly), and thus will be removed prior to code generation, implying that
they should be considered free for certain purposes (like inlining). The
inliner's cost analysis, and a few other passes, have been updated to account
for ephemeral values using the provided functionality.
This functionality is important for the usability of @llvm.assume, because it
limits the "non-local" side-effects of adding llvm.assume on inlining, loop
unrolling, etc. (these are hints, and do not generate code, so they should not
directly contribute to estimates of execution cost).
llvm-svn: 217335
This adds an immutable pass, AssumptionTracker, which keeps a cache of
@llvm.assume call instructions within a module. It uses callback value handles
to keep stale functions and intrinsics out of the map, and it relies on any
code that creates new @llvm.assume calls to notify it of the new instructions.
The benefit is that code needing to find @llvm.assume intrinsics can do so
directly, without scanning the function, thus allowing the cost of @llvm.assume
handling to be negligible when none are present.
The current design is intended to be lightweight. We don't keep track of
anything until we need a list of assumptions in some function. The first time
this happens, we scan the function. After that, we add/remove @llvm.assume
calls from the cache in response to registration calls and ValueHandle
callbacks.
There are no new direct test cases for this pass, but because it calls it
validation function upon module finalization, we'll pick up detectable
inconsistencies from the other tests that touch @llvm.assume calls.
This pass will be used by follow-up commits that make use of @llvm.assume.
llvm-svn: 217334
Fixes this (the warning is right, the unsigned value is not negative):
lib/Analysis/StratifiedSets.h:689:53: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtautological-compare]
bool inbounds(StratifiedIndex N) const { return N >= 0 && N < Links.size(); }
llvm-svn: 216987
This provides an implementation of CFL alias analysis (including some
supporting data structures). Currently, we don't have any extremely fancy
features, sans some interprocedural analysis (i.e. no field sensitivity, etc.),
and we do best sitting behind BasicAA + TBAA. In such a configuration, we take
~0.6-0.8% of total compile time, and give ~7-8% NoAlias responses to queries
TBAA and BasicAA couldn't answer when bootstrapping LLVM. In testing this on
other projects, we've seen up to 10.5% of queries dropped by BasicAA+TBAA
answered with NoAlias by this algorithm.
Patch by George Burgess IV (with minor modifications by me -- mostly adapting
some BasicAA tests), thanks!
llvm-svn: 216970
Summary:
MemoryDependenceAnalysis is currently cautious when the QueryInstr is an atomic
load or store, but I forgot to check for atomic cmpxchg/atomicrmw. This patch
is a way of fixing that, and making it less brittle (i.e. no risk that I forget
another possible kind of atomic, even if the IR ends up changing in the future),
by adding a fallback checking mayReadOrWriteFromMemory.
Thanks to Philip Reames for finding this bug and suggesting this solution in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4845
Sadly, I don't see how to add a test for this, since the passes depending on
MemoryDependenceAnalysis won't trigger for an atomic rmw anyway. Does anyone
see a way for testing it?
Test Plan: none possible at first sight
Reviewers: jfb, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5019
llvm-svn: 216940
Even loads/stores that have a stronger ordering than monotonic can be safe.
The rule is no release-acquire pair on the path from the QueryInst, assuming that
the QueryInst is not atomic itself.
llvm-svn: 216771
Several combines involving icmp (shl C2, %X) C1 can be simplified
without introducing any new instructions. Move them to InstSimplify;
while we are at it, make them more powerful.
llvm-svn: 216642
It's incorrect to perform this simplification if the types differ.
A bitcast would need to be inserted for this to work.
This fixes PR20771.
llvm-svn: 216597
'shl nuw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)]
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI << CLO(CI)-1, CI] if CI is negative
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)-1] if CI is non-negative
llvm-svn: 216570
consider:
long long *f(long long *b, long long *e) {
return b + (e - b);
}
we would lower this to something like:
define i64* @f(i64* %b, i64* %e) {
%1 = ptrtoint i64* %e to i64
%2 = ptrtoint i64* %b to i64
%3 = sub i64 %1, %2
%4 = ashr exact i64 %3, 3
%5 = getelementptr inbounds i64* %b, i64 %4
ret i64* %5
}
This should fold away to just 'e'.
N.B. This adds m_SpecificInt as a convenient way to match against a
particular 64-bit integer when using LLVM's match interface.
llvm-svn: 216439
Take a StringRef instead of a "const char *".
Take a "std::error_code &" instead of a "std::string &" for error.
A create static method would be even better, but this patch is already a bit too
big.
llvm-svn: 216393
This patch adds support to recognize division by uniform power of 2 and modifies the cost table to vectorize division by uniform power of 2 whenever possible.
Updates Cost model for Loop and SLP Vectorizer.The cost table is currently only updated for X86 backend.
Thanks to Hal, Andrea, Sanjay for the review. (http://reviews.llvm.org/D4971)
llvm-svn: 216371
Given something like X01XX + X01XX, we know that the result must look
like X1XXX.
Adapted from a patch by Richard Smith, test-case written by me.
llvm-svn: 216250
- add check for volatile (probably unneeded, but I agree that we should be conservative about it).
- strengthen condition from isUnordered() to isSimple(), as I don't understand well enough Unordered semantics (and it also matches the comment better this way) to be confident in the previous behaviour (thanks for catching that one, I had missed the case Monotonic/Unordered).
- separate a condition in two.
- lengthen comment about aliasing and loads
- add tests in GVN/atomic.ll
llvm-svn: 215943
Hal Finkel