637 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Hyojin Sung
4673f10568 [SimlifyCFG] Prevent passes from destroying canonical loop structure, especially for nested loops
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).
    
The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes.

llvm-svn: 264697
2016-03-29 04:08:57 +00:00
Reid Kleckner
ba85781f58 Revert "[SimlifyCFG] Prevent passes from destroying canonical loop structure, especially for nested loops"
This reverts commit r264596.

It does not compile.

llvm-svn: 264604
2016-03-28 18:07:40 +00:00
Hyojin Sung
0ada5b0d14 [SimlifyCFG] Prevent passes from destroying canonical loop structure, especially for nested loops
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being 
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).

The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually 
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes. 

llvm-svn: 264596
2016-03-28 17:22:25 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
796db35f62 [SimplifyCFG] propagate branch metadata when creating select (PR26636)
llvm-svn: 264527
2016-03-26 23:30:50 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
9e23fedaf0 propagate 'unpredictable' metadata on select instructions
This is similar to D18133 where we allowed profile weights on select instructions. 
This extends that change to also allow the 'unpredictable' attribute of branches to apply to selects.

A test to check that 'unpredictable' metadata is preserved when cloning instructions was checked in at:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL263648

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18220

llvm-svn: 263716
2016-03-17 15:30:52 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
ee52b6e77d allow branch weight metadata on select instructions (PR26636)
As noted in:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26636

This doesn't accomplish anything on its own. It's the first step towards preserving 
and using branch weights with selects.

The next step would be to make sure we're propagating the info in all of the other
places where we create selects (SimplifyCFG, InstCombine, etc). I don't think there's
an easy fix to make this happen; we have to look at each transform individually to 
determine how to correctly propagate the weights.

Along with that step, we need to then use the weights when making subsequent transform
decisions such as discussed in http://reviews.llvm.org/D16836.

The inliner test is independent but closely related. It verifies that metadata is
preserved when both branches and selects are cloned.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18133

llvm-svn: 263482
2016-03-14 20:18:59 +00:00
Mehdi Amini
ba9fba81d6 Remove PreserveNames template parameter from IRBuilder
This reapplies r263258, which was reverted in r263321 because
of issues on Clang side.

From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 263393
2016-03-13 21:05:13 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
5658b58936 remove unnecessary cast; NFC
llvm-svn: 263343
2016-03-12 18:17:41 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
2e0027706a fix formatting; NFC
llvm-svn: 263342
2016-03-12 18:05:53 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
5781d840dd use range loops; NFCI
llvm-svn: 263341
2016-03-12 16:52:17 +00:00
Eric Christopher
35abd051c0 Temporarily revert:
commit ae14bf6488e8441f0f6d74f00455555f6f3943ac
Author: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
Date:   Fri Mar 11 17:15:50 2016 +0000

    Remove PreserveNames template parameter from IRBuilder

    Summary:
    Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
    discard Value names in release builds.

    Reviewers: chandlerc

    Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits

    Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023

    From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>

    git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@263258
    91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

until we can figure out what to do about clang and Release build testing.

This reverts commit 263258.

llvm-svn: 263321
2016-03-12 01:47:22 +00:00
Mehdi Amini
99eab3dd06 Remove PreserveNames template parameter from IRBuilder
Summary:
Following r263086, we are now relying on a flag on the Context to
discard Value names in release builds.

Reviewers: chandlerc

Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18023

From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 263258
2016-03-11 17:15:50 +00:00
David Majnemer
ee0cbbbe69 [SimplifyCFG] Use a more elegant solution than r261731
The cleanupret instruction has an invariant that it's 'from' operand be
a cleanuppad.  This invariant was violated when we removed a dead block
which removed a cleanuppad leaving behind a cleanupret with an undef
'from' operand.

This was solved in r261731 by staving off the removal of the dead block
to a later pass.

However, it occured to me that we do not need to do this.
Instead, we can simply avoid processing the cleanupret if it has an
undef 'from' operand because we know that it will be removed soon.

llvm-svn: 261754
2016-02-24 17:30:48 +00:00
David Majnemer
ec72e37220 [SimplifyCFG] Do not blindly remove unreachable blocks
DeleteDeadBlock was called indiscriminately, leading to cleanuprets with
undef cleanuppad references.

Instead, try to drain the BB of most of it's instructions if it is
unreachable.  We can then remove the BB if it solely consists of a
terminator (and maybe some phis).

llvm-svn: 261731
2016-02-24 10:02:16 +00:00
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
e9bc579c37 ADT: Remove == and != comparisons between ilist iterators and pointers
I missed == and != when I removed implicit conversions between iterators
and pointers in r252380 since they were defined outside ilist_iterator.

Since they depend on getNodePtrUnchecked(), they indirectly rely on UB.
This commit removes all uses of these operators.  (I'll delete the
operators themselves in a separate commit so that it can be easily
reverted if necessary.)

There should be NFC here.

llvm-svn: 261498
2016-02-21 20:39:50 +00:00
Benjamin Kramer
7d537ae747 [SimplifyCFG] Use pointer identity to simplify predicate.
No functional change intended.

llvm-svn: 261427
2016-02-20 10:40:42 +00:00
David Majnemer
1efa23ddab [SimplifyCFG] Merge together cleanuppads
Cleanuppads may be merged together if one is the only predecessor of the
other in which case a simple transform can be performed: replace the
a cleanupret with a branch and remove an unnecessary cleanuppad.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17459

llvm-svn: 261390
2016-02-20 01:07:45 +00:00
Richard Trieu
7a08381403 Remove uses of builtin comma operator.
Cleanup for upcoming Clang warning -Wcomma.  No functionality change intended.

llvm-svn: 261270
2016-02-18 22:09:30 +00:00
Justin Lebar
db63949e8d [SimplifyCFG] Don't fold conditional branches that contain calls to convergent functions.
Summary:
Performing this optimization duplicates the call to the convergent
function and adds new control-flow dependencies, which is a no-no.

Reviewers: jingyue

Subscribers: broune, hfinkel, tra, resistor, joker.eph, arsenm, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17128

llvm-svn: 260730
2016-02-12 21:01:36 +00:00
Gerolf Hoflehner
2432bd0ddd [SimplifyCFG] Fix for "endless" loop after dead code removal (Alternative to
D16251)

Summary:
This is a simpler fix to the problem than the dominator approach in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16251. It adds only values into the gather() while loop
that have been seen before.

The actual endless loop is in the constant compare gather() routine in
Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp. The same value ret.0.off0.i is pushed back into the
queue:
%.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %.ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i

Here is what happens at the IR level:

for.cond.i:                                       ; preds = %if.end6.i,
%if.end.i54
%ix.0.i = phi i32 [ 0, %if.end.i54 ], [ %inc.i55, %if.end6.i ]
%ret.0.off0.i = phi i1 [false, %if.end.i54], [%.ret.0.off0.i, %if.end6.i] <<<
%cmp2.i = icmp ult i32 %ix.0.i, %11
br i1 %cmp2.i, label %for.body.i, label %LBJ_TmpSimpleNeedExt.exit

if.end6.i:                                        ; preds = %for.body.i
%cmp10.i = icmp ugt i32 %conv.i, %add9.i
%.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i <<<

When if.end.i54 gets eliminated which removes the definition of ret.0.off0.i.
The result is the expression %.ret.0.off0.i = or i1 %.ret.0.off0.i, %cmp10.i
(Note the first ‘or’ operand is now %.ret.0.off0.i, and *NOT* %ret.0.off0.i).
And
now there is use of .ret.0.off0.i before a definition which triggers the
“endless” loop in gather():

while(!DFT.empty()) {

    V = DFT.pop_back_val();   // V is .ret.0.off0.i

    if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V)) {
      // If it is a || (or && depending on isEQ), process the operands.
      if (I->getOpcode() == (isEQ ? Instruction::Or : Instruction::And)) {
        DFT.push_back(I->getOperand(1));  // This is now .ret.0.off0.i also
        DFT.push_back(I->getOperand(0));

        continue; // “endless loop” for .ret.0.off0.i
      }

Reviewers: reames, ahatanak

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16839

llvm-svn: 259730
2016-02-03 23:54:25 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
5264cc772c [SimplifyCFG] limit recursion depth when speculating instructions (PR26308)
This is a fix for:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26308

With the switch to using the TTI cost model in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL228826
...it became possible to hit a zero-cost cycle of instructions (gep -> phi -> gep...), 
so we need a cap for the recursion in DominatesMergePoint().

A recursion depth parameter was already added for a different reason in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL255660
...so we can just set a limit for it.

I pulled "10" out of the air and made it an independent parameter that we can play with.
It might be higher than it needs to be given the currently low default value of 
PHINodeFoldingThreshold (2). That's the starting cost value that we enter the recursion
with, and most instructions have cost set to TCC_Basic (1), so I don't think we're going
to speculate more than 2 instructions with the current parameters.

As noted in the review and the TODO comment, we can do better than just limiting recursion
depth.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16637

llvm-svn: 258971
2016-01-27 19:22:45 +00:00
David Majnemer
fccf5c6e01 Revert "Revert "[SimplifyCFG] allow speculation of exactly one expensive instruction (PR24818)""
This reverts commit r258903 which reverted r255660.  r258903 was an
accidental commit and should not have been committed.

llvm-svn: 258905
2016-01-27 02:59:41 +00:00
David Majnemer
c761afd1d1 [SimplifyCFG] Don't mistake icmp of and for a tree of comparisons
SimplifyCFG tries to turn complex branch conditions into a switch.
Some of it's logic attempts to reason about bitwise arithmetic produced
by InstCombine.  InstCombine can turn things like (X == 2) || (X == 3)
into (X & 1) == 2 and so SimplifyCFG tries to detect when this occurs so
that it can produce a switch instruction.

However, the legality checking was not sufficient to determine whether
or not this had occured.  Correctly check this case by requiring that
the right-hand side of the comparison be a power of two.

This fixes PR26323.

llvm-svn: 258904
2016-01-27 02:43:28 +00:00
David Majnemer
47de2140f7 Revert "[SimplifyCFG] allow speculation of exactly one expensive instruction (PR24818)"
This reverts commit r255660.

llvm-svn: 258903
2016-01-27 02:43:22 +00:00
Manuel Jacob
e902459c4b Change ConstantFoldInstOperands to take Instruction instead of opcode and type. NFC.
Summary:
The previous form, taking opcode and type, is moved to an internal
helper and the new form, taking an instruction, is a wrapper around this
helper.

Although this is a slight cleanup on its own, the main motivation is to
refactor the constant folding API to ease migration to opaque pointers.
This will be follow-up work.

Reviewers: eddyb

Subscribers: dblaikie, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16383

llvm-svn: 258391
2016-01-21 06:33:22 +00:00
Chen Li
509ff21300 Code refactoring for commit r257278.
llvm-svn: 257366
2016-01-11 19:20:53 +00:00
Chen Li
c375450e3f Fix a control flow problem in commit rL257277.
llvm-svn: 257278
2016-01-10 06:13:32 +00:00
Chen Li
1689c2f54b [SimplifyCFG] Extend SimplifyResume to handle phi of trivial landing pad.
Summary:
This is a fix of D13718. D13718 was committed but then reverted because of the following bug:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25299

This patch fixes the issue shown in the bug.

Reviewers: majnemer, reames

Subscribers: jevinskie, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14308

llvm-svn: 257277
2016-01-10 05:48:01 +00:00
Joseph Tremoulet
0d808888c1 [WinEH] Simplify unreachable catchpads
Summary:
At least for CoreCLR, a catchpad which immediately executes an
`unreachable` instruction indicates that the exception can never have a
matching type, and so such catchpads can be removed, and so can their
catchswitches if the catchswitch becomes empty.

Reviewers: rnk, andrew.w.kaylor, majnemer

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15846

llvm-svn: 256809
2016-01-05 02:37:41 +00:00
James Molloy
3d21dcf3ed [SimplifyCFG] Don't create unnecessary PHIs
In conditional store merging, we were creating PHIs when we didn't
need to. If the value to be predicated isn't defined in the block
we're predicating, then it doesn't need a PHI at all (because we only
deal with triangles and diamonds, any value not in the predicated BB
must dominate the predicated BB).

This fixes a large code size increase in some benchmarks in a popular embedded benchmark suite.

Now with a fix (and fixed tests) for the conformance issue seen in Chromium.

llvm-svn: 255767
2015-12-16 14:12:44 +00:00
Sanjay Patel
38a022623a [SimplifyCFG] allow speculation of exactly one expensive instruction (PR24818)
This is the last general step to allow more IR-level speculation with a safety harness in place in CodeGenPrepare.

The intent is to restore the behavior enabled by:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL228826

but prevent bad performance such as:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24818

Earlier patches in this sequence:
D12882 (disable SimplifyCFG speculation for expensive instructions)
D13297 (have CGP despeculate expensive ops)
D14630 (have CGP despeculate special versions of cttz/ctlz)

As shown in the test cases, we only have two instructions currently affected: ctz for some x86 and fdiv generally. 
Allowing exactly one expensive instruction is a bit of a hack, but it lines up with what is currently implemented
in CGP. If we make the despeculation more general in CGP, we can make the speculation here more liberal.

A follow-up patch will adjust the cost for sqrt and possibly other typically expensive math intrinsics (currently
everything is cheap by default). GPU targets would likely want to override those expensive default costs (just as
they probably should already override the cost of div/rem) because just about any math is cheaper than control-flow
on those targets.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15213

llvm-svn: 255660
2015-12-15 17:38:29 +00:00
Reid Kleckner
db9a91e324 Revert "Don't create unnecessary PHIs"
This reverts commit r255489.

It causes test failures in Chromium and does not appear to respect the
AlternativeV parameter.

llvm-svn: 255562
2015-12-14 22:36:57 +00:00
David Majnemer
bbfc7219ef [IR] Remove terminatepad
It turns out that terminatepad gives little benefit over a cleanuppad
which calls the termination function.  This is not sufficient to
implement fully generic filters but MSVC doesn't support them which
makes terminatepad a little over-designed.

Depends on D15478.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15479

llvm-svn: 255522
2015-12-14 18:34:23 +00:00
James Molloy
2b1e101e99 Don't create unnecessary PHIs
In conditional store merging, we were creating PHIs when we didn't
need to. If the value to be predicated isn't defined in the block
we're predicating, then it doesn't need a PHI at all (because we only
deal with triangles and diamonds, any value not in the predicated BB
must dominate the predicated BB).

This fixes a large code size increase in some benchmarks in a popular embedded benchmark suite.

llvm-svn: 255489
2015-12-14 10:57:01 +00:00
David Majnemer
8a1c45d6e8 [IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
  but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
  experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers.  They cannot
  be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
  This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
  It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
  funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
  control flow edges.  Because of this, we are forced to carefully
  analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
  nesting among funclets.  While we have logic to clone funclets when
  they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
  representation which forbade them upfront.

Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
  flow, just a bunch of simple operands;  catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
  the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
  the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad.  Their presence can be inferred
  implicitly using coloring information.

N.B.  The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for.  An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.

Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139

llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 05:38:55 +00:00
Weiming Zhao
45d4cb9a14 [Utils] Put includes in correct order. NFC.
Summary:
    Followed the guidelines in:
    http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#include-style
    
    However, I noticed that uppercase named headers come before lowercase ones
    throughout the codebase. So kept them as is.
    
    Patch by Mandeep Singh Grang <mgrang@codeaurora.org>

Reviewers: majnemer, davide, jmolloy, atrick

Subscribers: sanjoy

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14939

llvm-svn: 254005
2015-11-24 18:57:06 +00:00
Igor Laevsky
7310c68e85 Revert "Revert "Strip metadata when speculatively hoisting instructions (r252604)"
Failing clang test is now fixed by the r253458.

llvm-svn: 253459
2015-11-18 14:50:18 +00:00
Renato Golin
0e77d72b0a Revert "Strip metadata when speculatively hoisting instructions"
This reverts commit r252604, as it broke all ARM and AArch64 buildbots, as
well as some x86, et al.

llvm-svn: 252623
2015-11-10 18:01:16 +00:00
Igor Laevsky
01c3692a10 Strip metadata when speculatively hoisting instructions
This is fix for PR24059.

When we are hoisting instruction above some condition it may turn out
that metadata on this instruction was control dependant on the condition.
This metadata becomes invalid and we need to drop it.

This patch should cover most obvious places of speculative execution (which
I have found by greping isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute). I think there are more
cases but at least this change covers the severe ones.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14398

llvm-svn: 252604
2015-11-10 14:10:31 +00:00
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
83c4b68720 ADT: Remove last implicit ilist iterator conversions, NFC
Some implicit ilist iterator conversions have crept back into Analysis,
Transforms, Hexagon, and llvm-stress.  This removes them.

I'll commit a patch immediately after this to disallow them (in a
separate patch so that it's easy to revert if necessary).

llvm-svn: 252371
2015-11-07 00:01:16 +00:00
Sanjoy Das
55ea67cea7 [ValueTracking] Add parameters to isImpliedCondition; NFC
Summary:
This change makes the `isImpliedCondition` interface similar to the rest
of the functions in ValueTracking (in that it takes a DataLayout,
AssumptionCache etc.).  This is an NFC, intended to make a later diff
less noisy.

Depends on D14369

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14391

llvm-svn: 252333
2015-11-06 19:01:08 +00:00
James Molloy
9e959ac397 [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional stores
We were correctly skipping dbginfo intrinsics and terminators, but the initial bailout wasn't, causing it to bail out on almost any block.

llvm-svn: 252152
2015-11-05 08:40:19 +00:00
James Molloy
4de84ddec9 [SimplifyCFG] Merge conditional stores
We can often end up with conditional stores that cannot be speculated. They can come from fairly simple, idiomatic code:

  if (c & flag1)
    *a = x;
  if (c & flag2)
    *a = y;
  ...

There is no dominating or post-dominating store to a, so it is not legal to move the store unconditionally to the end of the sequence and cache the intermediate result in a register, as we would like to.

It is, however, legal to merge the stores together and do the store once:

  tmp = undef;
  if (c & flag1)
    tmp = x;
  if (c & flag2)
    tmp = y;
  if (c & flag1 || c & flag2)
    *a = tmp;

The real power in this optimization is that it allows arbitrary length ladders such as these to be completely and trivially if-converted. The typical code I'd expect this to trigger on often uses binary-AND with constants as the condition (as in the above example), which means the ending condition can simply be truncated into a single binary-AND too: 'if (c & (flag1|flag2))'. As in the general case there are bitwise operators here, the ladder can often be optimized further too.

This optimization involves potentially increasing register pressure. Even in the simplest case, the lifetime of the first predicate is extended. This can be elided in some cases such as using binary-AND on constants, but not in the general case. Threading 'tmp' through all branches can also increase register pressure.

The optimization as in this patch is enabled by default but kept in a very conservative mode. It will only optimize if it thinks the resultant code should be if-convertable, and additionally if it can thread 'tmp' through at least one existing PHI, so it will only ever in the worst case create one more PHI and extend the lifetime of a predicate.

This doesn't trigger much in LNT, unfortunately, but it does trigger in a big way in a third party test suite.

llvm-svn: 252051
2015-11-04 15:28:04 +00:00
Artur Pilipenko
5c5011d503 Preserve load alignment and dereferenceable metadata during some transformations
Reviewed By: hfinkel

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13953

llvm-svn: 251809
2015-11-02 17:53:51 +00:00
Philip Reames
846e3e41ed [SimplifyCFG] Constant fold a branch implied by it's incoming edge
The most common use case is when eliminating redundant range checks in an example like the following:
c = a[i+1] + a[i];

Note that all the smarts of the transform (the implication engine) is already in ValueTracking and is tested directly through InstructionSimplify.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040

llvm-svn: 251596
2015-10-29 03:11:49 +00:00
David Majnemer
492937095f [SimplifyCFG] Don't DCE catchret because the successor is unreachable
CatchReturnInst has side-effects: it runs a destructor.  This destructor
could conceivably run forever/call exit/etc. and should not be removed.

llvm-svn: 251461
2015-10-27 22:43:56 +00:00
Chen Li
7009cd3554 Revert rL251061 [SimplifyCFG] Extend SimplifyResume to handle phi of trivial landing pad.
llvm-svn: 251149
2015-10-23 21:13:01 +00:00
Chen Li
c6e28782d8 [SimplifyCFG] Extend SimplifyResume to handle phi of trivial landing pad.
Summary: Currently SimplifyResume can convert an invoke instruction to a call instruction if its landing pad is trivial. In practice we could have several invoke instructions with trivial landing pads and share a common rethrow block, and in the common rethrow block, all the landing pads join to a phi node. The patch extends SimplifyResume to check the phi of landing pad and their incoming blocks. If any of them is trivial, remove it from the phi node and convert the invoke instruction to a call instruction.  

Reviewers: hfinkel, reames

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13718

llvm-svn: 251061
2015-10-22 20:48:38 +00:00
David Majnemer
dc3b67b4ca [SimplifyCFG] Don't use-after-free an SSA value
SimplifyTerminatorOnSelect didn't consider the possibility that the
condition might be related to one of PHI nodes.

This fixes PR25267.

llvm-svn: 250922
2015-10-21 18:22:24 +00:00
Philip Reames
a956cc7f08 Revert 250343 and 250344
Turns out this approach is buggy.  In discussion about follow on work, Sanjoy pointed out that we could be subject to circular logic problems.  

Consider:
 if (i u< L) leave()
 if ((i + 1) u< L) leave()
 print(a[i] + a[i+1]) 

If we know that L is less than UINT_MAX, we could possible prove (in a control dependent way) that i + 1 does not overflow.  This gives us:
 if (i u< L) leave()
 if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave()
 print(a[i] + a[i+1]) 

If we now do the transform this patch proposed, we end up with:
 if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave_appropriately()
 print(a[i] + a[i+1]) 

That would be a miscompile when i==-1.  The problem here is that the control dependent nuw bits got used to prove something about the first condition.  That's obviously invalid.

This won't happen today, but since I plan to enhance LVI/CVP with exactly that transform at some point in the not too distant future...

llvm-svn: 250430
2015-10-15 16:51:00 +00:00