The fix for PR14972 in r177055 introduced a real think-o in the *store*
side, likely because I was much more focused on the load side. While we
can arbitrarily widen (or narrow) a loaded value, we can't arbitrarily
widen a value to be stored, as that changes the width of memory access!
Lock down the code path in the store rewriting which would do this to
only handle the intended circumstance.
All of the existing tests continue to pass, and I've added a test from
the PR.
llvm-svn: 178974
The fundamental problem is that SROA didn't allow for overly wide loads
where the bits past the end of the alloca were masked away and the load
was sufficiently aligned to ensure there is no risk of page fault, or
other trapping behavior. With such widened loads, SROA would delete the
load entirely rather than clamping it to the size of the alloca in order
to allow mem2reg to fire. This was exposed by a test case that neatly
arranged for GVN to run first, widening certain loads, followed by an
inline step, and then SROA which miscompiles the code. However, I see no
reason why this hasn't been plaguing us in other contexts. It seems
deeply broken.
Diagnosing all of the above took all of 10 minutes of debugging. The
really annoying aspect is that fixing this completely breaks the pass.
;] There was an implicit reliance on the fact that no loads or stores
extended past the alloca once we decided to rewrite them in the final
stage of SROA. This was used to encode information about whether the
loads and stores had been split across multiple partitions of the
original alloca. That required threading explicit tracking of whether
a *use* of a partition is split across multiple partitions.
Once that was done, another problem arose: we allowed splitting of
integer loads and stores iff they were loads and stores to the entire
alloca. This is a really arbitrary limitation, and splitting at least
some integer loads and stores is crucial to maximize promotion
opportunities. My first attempt was to start removing the restriction
entirely, but currently that does Very Bad Things by causing *many*
common alloca patterns to be fully decomposed into i8 operations and
lots of or-ing together to produce larger integers on demand. The code
bloat is terrifying. That is still the right end-goal, but substantial
work must be done to either merge partitions or ensure that small i8
values are eagerly merged in some other pass. Sadly, figuring all this
out took essentially all the time and effort here.
So the end result is that we allow splitting only when the load or store
at least covers the alloca. That ensures widened loads and stores don't
hurt SROA, and that we don't rampantly decompose operations more than we
have previously.
All of this was already fairly well tested, and so I've just updated the
tests to cover the wide load behavior. I can add a test that crafts the
pass ordering magic which caused the original PR, but that seems really
brittle and to provide little benefit. The fundamental problem is that
widened loads should Just Work.
llvm-svn: 177055
This was a silly oversight, we weren't pruning allocas which were used
by variable-length memory intrinsics from the set that could be widened
and promoted as integers. Fix that.
llvm-svn: 170353
This also cleans up a bit of the memcpy call rewriting by sinking some
irrelevant code further down and making the call-emitting code a bit
more concrete.
Previously, memcpy of a subvector would actually miscompile (!!!) the
copy into a single vector element copy. I have no idea how this ever
worked. =/ This is the memcpy half of PR14478 which we probably weren't
noticing previously because it didn't actually assert.
The rewrite relies on the newly refactored insert- and extractVector
functions to do the heavy lifting, and those are the same as used for
loads and stores which makes the test coverage a bit more meaningful
here.
llvm-svn: 170338
The first half of fixing this bug was actually in r170328, but was
entirely coincidental. It did however get me to realize the nature of
the bug, and adapt the test case to test more interesting behavior. In
turn, that uncovered the rest of the bug which I've fixed here.
This should fix two new asserts that showed up in the vectorize nightly
tester.
llvm-svn: 170333
PR14478 highlights a serious problem in SROA that simply wasn't being
exercised due to a lack of vector input code mixed with C-library
function calls. Part of SROA was written carefully to handle subvector
accesses via memset and memcpy, but the rewriter never grew support for
this. Fixing it required refactoring the subvector access code in other
parts of SROA so it could be shared, and then fixing the splat formation
logic and using subvector insertion (this patch).
The PR isn't quite fixed yet, as memcpy is still broken in the same way.
I'm starting on that series of patches now.
Hopefully this will be enough to bring the bullet benchmark back to life
with the bb-vectorizer enabled, but that may require fixing memcpy as
well.
llvm-svn: 170301
When SROA was evaluating a mixture of i1 and i8 loads and stores, in
just a particular case, it would tickle a latent bug where we compared
bits to bytes rather than bits to bits. As a consequence of the latent
bug, we would allow integers through which were not byte-size multiples,
a situation the later rewriting code was never intended to handle.
In release builds this could trigger all manner of oddities, but the
reported issue in PR14548 was forming invalid bitcast instructions.
The only downside of this fix is that it makes it more clear that SROA
in its current form is not capable of handling mixed i1 and i8 loads and
stores. Sometimes with the previous code this would work by luck, but
usually it would crash, so I'm not terribly worried. I'll watch the LNT
numbers just to be sure.
llvm-svn: 169719
Now if we can transform an alloca into a single vector value, but it has
subvector, non-element accesses, we form the appropriate shufflevectors
to allow SROA to proceed. This fixes PR14055 which pointed out a very
common pattern that SROA couldn't handle -- mixed vec3 and vec4
operations on a single alloca.
llvm-svn: 168418
The issue is that we may end up with newly OOB loads when speculating
a load into the predecessors of a PHI node, and this confuses the new
integer splitting logic in some cases, triggering an assertion failure.
In fact, the branch in question must be dead code as it loads from
a too-narrow alloca. Add code to handle this gracefully and leave the
requisite FIXMEs for both optimizing more aggressively and doing more to
aid sanitizing invalid code which triggers these patterns.
llvm-svn: 168361
to properly handle the combinations of these with split integer loads
and stores. This essentially replaces Evan's r168227 by refactoring the
code in a different way, and trynig to mirror that refactoring in both
the load and store sides of the rewriting.
Generally speaking there was some really problematic duplicated code
here that led to poorly founded assumptions and then subtle bugs. Now
much of the code actually flows through and follows a more consistent
style and logical path. There is still a tiny bit of duplication on the
store side of things, but it is much less bad.
This also changes the logic to never re-use a load or store instruction
as that was simply too error prone in practice.
I've added a few tests (one a reduction of the one in Evan's original
patch, which happened to be the same as the report in PR14349). I'm
going to look at adding a few more tests for things I found and fixed in
passing (such as the volatile tests in the vectorizable predicate).
This patch has survived bootstrap, and modulo one bugfix survived
Duncan's test suite, but let me know if anything else explodes.
llvm-svn: 168346
integers in that the code to handle split alloca-wide integer loads or
stores doesn't come first. It should, for the same reasons as with
integers, and the PR attests to that. Also had to fix a busted assert in
that this test case also covers.
llvm-svn: 167051
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.
llvm-svn: 166662
a pointer. A very bad idea. Let's not do that. Fixes PR14105.
Note that this wasn't *that* glaring of an oversight. Originally, these
routines were only called on offsets within an alloca, which are
intrinsically positive. But over the evolution of the pass, they ended
up being called for arbitrary offsets, and things went downhill...
llvm-svn: 166095
includes extracting ints for copying elsewhere and inserting ints when
copying into the alloca. This should fix the CanSROA assertion coming
out of Clang's regression test suite.
llvm-svn: 165931
cases where we have partial integer loads and stores to an otherwise
promotable alloca to widen[1] those loads and stores to cover the entire
alloca and bitcast them into the appropriate type such that promotion
can proceed.
These partial loads and stores stem from an annoying confluence of ARM's
calling convention and ABI lowering and the FCA pre-splitting which
takes place in SROA. Clang lowers a { double, double } in-register
function argument as a [4 x i32] function argument to ensure it is
placed into integer 32-bit registers (a really unnerving implicit
contract between Clang and the ARM backend I would add). This results in
a FCA load of [4 x i32]* from the { double, double } alloca, and SROA
decomposes this into a sequence of i32 loads and stores. Inlining
proceeds, code gets folded, but at the end of the day, we still have i32
stores to the low and high halves of a double alloca. Widening these to
be i64 operations, and bitcasting them to double prior to loading or
storing allows promotion to proceed for these allocas.
I looked quite a bit changing the IR which Clang produces for this case
to be more friendly, but small changes seem unlikely to help. I think
the best representation we could use currently would be to pass 4 i32
arguments thereby avoiding any FCAs, but that would still require this
fix. It seems like it might eventually be nice to somehow encode the ABI
register selection choices outside of the parameter type system so that
the parameter can be a { double, double }, but the CC register
annotations indicate that this should be passed via 4 integer registers.
This patch does not address the second problem in PR14059, which is the
reverse: when a struct alloca is loaded as a *larger* single integer.
This patch also does not address some of the code quality issues with
the FCA-splitting. Those don't actually impede any optimizations really,
but they're on my list to clean up.
[1]: Pedantic footnote: for those concerned about memory model issues
here, this is safe. For the alloca to be promotable, it cannot escape or
have any use of its address that could allow these loads or stores to be
racing. Thus, widening is always safe.
llvm-svn: 165928
type coercion code, especially when targetting ARM. Things like [1
x i32] instead of i32 are very common there.
The goal of this logic is to ensure that when we are picking an alloca
type, we look through such wrapper aggregates and across any zero-length
aggregate elements to find the simplest type possible to form a type
partition.
This logic should (generally speaking) rarely fire. It only ends up
kicking in when an alloca is accessed using two different types (for
instance, i32 and float), and the underlying alloca type has wrapper
aggregates around it. I noticed a significant amount of this occurring
looking at stepanov_abstraction generated code for arm, and suspect it
happens elsewhere as well.
Note that this doesn't yet address truly heinous IR productions such as
PR14059 is concerning. Those result in mismatched *sizes* of types in
addition to mismatched access and alloca types.
llvm-svn: 165870
are in fact identity operations. We detect these and kill their
partitions so that even splitting is unaffected by them. This is
particularly important because Clang relies on emitting identity memcpy
operations for struct copies, and these fold away to constants very
often after inlining.
Fixes the last big performance FIXME I have on my plate.
llvm-svn: 165285
Currently, we re-visit allocas when something changes about the way they
might be *split* to allow better scalarization to take place. However,
we weren't handling the case when the *promotion* is what would change
the behavior of SROA. When an address derived from an alloca is stored
into another alloca, we consider the first to have escaped. If the
second is ever promoted to an SSA value, we will suddenly be able to run
the SROA pass on the first alloca.
This patch adds explicit support for this form if iteration. When we
detect a store of a pointer derived from an alloca, we flag the
underlying alloca for reprocessing after promotion. The logic works hard
to only do this when there is definitely going to be promotion and it
might remove impediments to the analysis of the alloca.
Thanks to Nick for the great test case and Benjamin for some sanity
check review.
llvm-svn: 165223
Sorry for this being broken so long. =/
As part of this, switch all of the existing tests to be Little Endian,
which is the behavior I was asserting in them anyways! Add in a new
big-endian test that checks the interesting behavior there.
Another part of this is to tighten the rules abotu when we perform the
full-integer promotion. This logic now rejects cases where there fully
promoted integer is a non-multiple-of-8 bitwidth or cases where the
loads or stores touch bits which are in the allocated space of the
alloca but are not loaded or stored when accessing the integer. Sadly,
these aren't really observable today as the rest of the pass will
already ensure the invariants hold. However, the latter situation is
likely to become a potential concern in the future.
Thanks to Benjamin and Duncan for early review of this patch. I'm still
looking into whether there are further endianness issues, please let me
know if anyone sees BE failures persisting past this.
llvm-svn: 165219
a memcpy to reflect that '0' has a different meaning when applied to
a load or store. Now we correctly use underaligned loads and stores for
the test case added.
llvm-svn: 165101
necessary during rewriting. As part of this, fix a real think-o here
where we might have left off an alignment specification when the address
is in fact underaligned. I haven't come up with any way to trigger this,
as there is always some other factor that reduces the alignment, but it
certainly might have been an observable bug in some way I can't think
of. This also slightly changes the strategy for placing explicit
alignments on loads and stores to only do so when the alignment does not
match that required by the ABI. This causes a few redundant alignments
to go away from test cases.
I've also added a couple of tests that really push on the alignment that
we end up with on loads and stores. More to come here as I try to fix an
underlying bug I have conjectured and produced test cases for, although
it's not clear if this bug is the one currently hitting dragonegg's
gcc47 bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 165100
scheduled for processing on the worklist eventually gets deleted while
we are processing another alloca, fixing the original test case in
PR13990.
To facilitate this, add a remove_if helper to the SetVector abstraction.
It's not easy to use the standard abstractions for this because of the
specifics of SetVectors types and implementation.
Finally, a nice small test case is included. Thanks to Benjamin for the
fantastic reduced test case here! All I had to do was delete some empty
basic blocks!
llvm-svn: 165065
alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.
llvm-svn: 164937
a pair of instructions, one for the used pointer and the second for the
user. This simplifies the representation and also makes it more dense.
This was noticed because of the miscompile in PR13926. In that case, we
were running up against a fundamental "bad idea" in the speculation of
PHI and select instructions: the speculation and rewriting are
interleaved, which requires phi speculation to also perform load
rewriting! This is bad, and causes us to miss opportunities to do (for
example) vector rewriting only exposed after PHI speculation, etc etc.
It also, in the old system, required us to insert *new* load uses into
the current partition's use list, which would then be ignored during
rewriting because we had already extracted an end iterator for the use
list. The appending behavior (and much of the other oddities) stem from
the strange de-duplication strategy in the PartitionUse builder.
Amusingly, all this went without notice for so long because it could
only be triggered by having *different* GEPs into the same partition of
the same alloca, where both different GEPs were operands of a single
PHI, and where the GEP which was not encountered first also had multiple
uses within that same PHI node... Hence the insane steps required to
reproduce.
So, step one in fixing this fundamental bad idea is to make the
PartitionUse actually contain a Use*, and to make the builder do proper
deduplication instead of funky de-duplication. This is enough to remove
the appending behavior, and fix the miscompile in PR13926, but there is
more work to be done here. Subsequent commits will lift the speculation
into its own visitor. It'll be a useful step toward potentially
extracting all of the speculation logic into a generic utility
transform.
The existing PHI test case for repeated operands has been made more
extreme to catch even these issues. This test case, run through the old
pass, will exactly reproduce the miscompile from PR13926. ;] We were so
close here!
llvm-svn: 164925
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.
Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.
Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]
llvm-svn: 164891
rewriter in SROA to carry a proper alignment. This involves
interrogating various sources of alignment, etc. This is a more complete
and principled fix to PR13920 as well as related bugs pointed out by Eli
in review and by inspection in the area.
Also by inspection fix the integer and vector promotion paths to create
aligned loads and stores. I still need to work up test cases for
these... Sorry for the delay, they were found purely by inspection.
llvm-svn: 164689
This should really, really fix PR13916. For real this time. The
underlying bug is... a bit more subtle than I had imagined.
The setup is a code pattern that leads to an @llvm.memcpy call with two
equal pointers to an alloca in the source and dest. Now, not any pattern
will do. The alloca needs to be formed just so, and both pointers should
be wrapped in different bitcasts etc. When this precise pattern hits,
a funny sequence of events transpires. First, we correctly detect the
potential for overlap, and correctly optimize the memcpy. The first
time. However, we do simplify the set of users of the alloca, and that
causes us to run the alloca back through the SROA pass in case there are
knock-on simplifications. At this point, a curious thing has happened.
If we happen to have an i8 alloca, we have direct i8 pointer values. So
we don't bother creating a cast, we rewrite the arguments to the memcpy
to dircetly refer to the alloca.
Now, in an unrelated area of the pass, we have clever logic which
ensures that when visiting each User of a particular pointer derived
from an alloca, we only visit that User once, and directly inspect all
of its operands which refer to that particular pointer value. However,
the mechanism used to detect memcpy's with the potential to overlap
relied upon getting visited once per *Use*, not once per *User*. This is
always true *unless* the same exact value is both source and dest. It
turns out that almost nothing actually produces that pattern though.
We can hand craft test cases that more directly test this behavior of
course, and those are included. Also, note that there is a significant
missed optimization here -- we prove in many cases that there is
a non-volatile memcpy call with identical source and dest addresses. We
shouldn't prevent splitting the alloca in that case, and in fact we
should just remove such memcpy calls eagerly. I'll address that in
a subsequent commit.
llvm-svn: 164669
only a missed optimization opportunity if the store is over-aligned, but a
miscompile if the store's new type has a higher natural alignment than the
memcpy did. Fixes PR13920!
llvm-svn: 164641
Chandler, it's not obvious that it's okay that this alloca gets into the list
twice to begin with. Please review and see whether this is the fix you really
want, but I wanted to get a fix checked in quickly.
llvm-svn: 164634
to chains or cycles between PHIs and/or selects. Also add a couple of
really nice test cases reduced from Kostya's reports in PR13905 and
PR13906. Both are fixed by this patch.
llvm-svn: 164596
integer promotion analogous to vector promotion. When there is an
integer alloca being accessed both as its integer type and as a narrower
integer type, promote the narrower access to "insert" and "extract" the
smaller integer from the larger one, and make the integer alloca
a candidate for promotion.
In the new formulation, we don't care about target legal integer or use
thresholds to control things. Instead, we only perform this promotion to
an integer type which the frontend has already emitted a load or store
for. This bounds the scope and prevents optimization passes from
coalescing larger and larger entities into a single integer.
llvm-svn: 164479
across the uses of the alloca. It's entirely possible for negative
numbers to come up here, and in some rare cases simply doing the 2's
complement arithmetic isn't the correct decision. Notably, we can't zext
the index of the GEP. The definition of GEP is that these offsets are
sign extended or truncated to the size of the pointer, and then wrapping
2's complement arithmetic used.
This patch fixes an issue that comes up with *no* input from the
buildbots or bootstrap afaict. The only place where it manifested,
disturbingly, is Clang's own regression test suite. A reduced and
targeted collection of tests are added to cope with this. Note that I've
tried to pin down the potential cases of overflow, but may have missed
some cases. I've tried to add a few cases to test this, but its hard
because LLVM has quite limited support for >64bit constructs.
llvm-svn: 164475
selects with a constant condition. This resulted in the operands
remaining live through the SROA rewriter. Most of the time, this just
caused some dead allocas to persist and get zapped by later passes, but
in one case found by Joerg, it caused a crash when we tried to *promote*
the alloca despite it having this dead use. We already have the
mechanisms in place to handle this, just wire select up to them.
llvm-svn: 164427
from the dragonegg build bots when we turned on the full version of the
pass. Included a much reduced test case for this pesky bug, despite
bugpoint's uncooperative behavior.
Also, I audited all the similar code I could find and didn't spot any
other cases where this mistake cropped up.
llvm-svn: 164178
working on FCA splitting. Instead of refusing to form a common type when
there are uses of a subsection of the alloca as well as a use of the
entire alloca, just skip the subsection uses and continue looking for
a whole-alloca use with a type that we can use.
This produces slightly prettier IR I think, and also fixes the other
failure in the test.
llvm-svn: 164146
Chandler Carruth