We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
This patch updates some code responsible the skip debug info to use
BasicBlock::instructionsWithoutDebug. I think this makes things slightly
simpler and more direct.
Reviewers: aprantl, vsk, hans, danielcdh
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46252
llvm-svn: 331221
Summary:
r327219 added wrappers to std::sort which randomly shuffle the container before sorting.
This will help in uncovering non-determinism caused due to undefined sorting
order of objects having the same key.
To make use of that infrastructure we need to invoke llvm::sort instead of std::sort.
Note: This patch is one of a series of patches to replace *all* std::sort to llvm::sort.
Refer the comments section in D44363 for a list of all the required patches.
Reviewers: kcc, pcc, danielcdh, jmolloy, sanjoy, dberlin, ruiu
Reviewed By: ruiu
Subscribers: ruiu, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45142
llvm-svn: 330059
Summary:
Currently merge conditional stores can't handle cases where PostBB (the block we need to move the store to) has more than 2 predecessors.
This patch removes that restriction by creating a new block with only the 2 predecessors we care about and an unconditional branch to the original block. This provides a place to put the store.
Reviewers: efriedma, jmolloy, ABataev
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39760
llvm-svn: 329142
Summary:
When building with libFuzzer, converting control flow to selects or
obscuring the original operands of CMPs reduces the effectiveness of
libFuzzer's heuristics.
This patch provides an attribute to disable or modify certain optimizations
for optimal fuzzing signal.
Provides a less aggressive alternative to https://reviews.llvm.org/D44057.
Reviewers: vitalybuka, davide, arsenm, hfinkel
Reviewed By: vitalybuka
Subscribers: junbuml, mehdi_amini, wdng, javed.absar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, kcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44232
llvm-svn: 328214
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
When hoisting common code from the "then" and "else" branches of a condition
to before the "if", the HoistThenElseCodeToIf routine will attempt to merge
the debug location associated with the two original copies of the hoisted
instruction.
This is a problem in the special case where the hoisted instruction is a
debug info intrinsic, since for those the debug location is considered
part of the intrinsic and attempting to modify it may resut in invalid
IR. This is the underlying cause of PR36410.
This patch fixes the problem by handling debug info intrinsics specially:
instead of hoisting one copy and merging the two locations, the code now
simply hoists both copies, each with its original location intact. Note
that this is still only done in the case where both original copies are
otherwise (i.e. apart from location metadata) identical.
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44312
llvm-svn: 327622
When hoisting common code from the "then" and "else" branches of a condition
to before the "if", there is no need to require that debug intrinsics match
before moving them (and merging them). Instead, we can simply always keep
all debug intrinsics from both sides of the "if".
This fixes PR36410, which describes a problem where as a result of the attempt
to merge debug locations for two debug intrinsics we end up with an invalid
intrinsic, where the scope indicated in the !dbg location no longer matches
the scope of the variable tracked by the intrinsic.
In addition, this has the benefit that we no longer throw away information
that is actually still valid, helping to generate better debug data.
Reviewed By: vsk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44312
llvm-svn: 327175
The commit rL308422 introduces a restriction for folding unconditional
branches. Specifically if empty block with unconditional branch leads to
header of the loop then elimination of this basic block is prohibited.
However it seems this condition is redundantly strict.
If elimination of this basic block does not introduce more back edges
then we can eliminate this block.
The patch implements this relax of restriction.
The test profile/Linux/counter_promo_nest.c in compiler-rt project
is updated to meet this change.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: pacxx
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324572
The patch causes the failure of the test
compiler-rt/test/profile/Linux/counter_promo_nest.c
To unblock buildbot, revert the patch while investigation is in progress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324214
The commit rL308422 introduces a restriction for folding unconditional
branches. Specifically if empty block with unconditional branch leads to
header of the loop then elimination of this basic block is prohibited.
However it seems this condition is redundantly strict.
If elimination of this basic block does not introduce more back edges
then we can eliminate this block.
The patch implements this relax of restriction.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: pacxx
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324208
The function can take a significant amount of time on some
complicated test cases, but for the currently only use of
the function we can stop the initialization much earlier
when we find out we are going to discard the result anyway
in the caller of the function.
Adding configurable cut-off points so that we avoid wasting time.
NFCI.
llvm-svn: 322248
If after if-conversion, most of the instructions in this new BB construct a long and slow dependence chain, it may be slower than cmp/branch, even if the branch has a high miss rate, because the control dependence is transformed into data dependence, and control dependence can be speculated, and thus, the second part can execute in parallel with the first part on modern OOO processor.
This patch checks for the long dependence chain, and give up if-conversion if find one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39352
llvm-svn: 321377
If a block has N predecessors, then the current algorithm will try to
sink common code to this block N times (whenever we visit a
predecessor). Every attempt to sink the common code includes going
through all predecessors, so the complexity of the algorithm becomes
O(N^2).
With this patch we try to sink common code only when we visit the block
itself. With this, the complexity goes down to O(N).
As a side effect, the moment the code is sunk is slightly different than
before (the order of simplifications has been changed), that's why I had
to adjust two tests (note that neither of the tests is supposed to test
SimplifyCFG):
* test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-jumptable.ll - changes in this test mimic
the changes that previous implementation of SimplifyCFG would do.
* test/CodeGen/ARM/avoid-cpsr-rmw.ll - in this test I disabled common
code sinking by a command line flag.
llvm-svn: 321236
This should solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
...by preventing SimplifyCFG from altering redundant instructions before early-cse has a chance to run.
It changes the default (canonical-forming) behavior of SimplifyCFG, so we're only doing the
sinking transform later in the optimization pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38566
llvm-svn: 320749
Summary:
A true or false result is expected from a comparison, but it seems the possibility of undef was overlooked, which could lead to a failed assert. This is fixed by this patch by bailing out if we encounter undef.
The bug is old and the assert has been there since the end of 2014, so it seems this is unusual enough to forego optimization.
Patch by JesperAntonsson.
Reviewers: spatel, eeckstein, hans
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: uabelho, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40639
llvm-svn: 319768
Summary:
A true or false result is expected from a comparison, but it seems the possibility of undef was overlooked, which could lead to a failed assert. This is fixed by this patch by bailing out if we encounter undef.
The bug is old and the assert has been there since the end of 2014, so it seems this is unusual enough to forego optimization.
Patch by: JesperAntonsson
Reviewers: spatel, eeckstein, hans
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40639
llvm-svn: 319537
Summary:
This wrapper checks if there is at least one non-zero weight before
setting the metadata.
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39872
llvm-svn: 317845
Merging conditional stores tries to check to see if the code is if convertible after the store is moved. But the store hasn't been moved yet so its being counted against the threshold.
The patch adds 1 to the threshold comparison to make sure we don't count the store. I've adjusted a test to use a lower threshold to ensure we still do that conversion with the lower threshold.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39570
llvm-svn: 317368
Summary:
SpeculativelyExecuteBB can flatten the CFG by doing
speculative execution followed by a select instruction.
When the speculatively executed BB contained dbg intrinsics
the result could be a little bit weird, since those dbg
intrinsics were inserted before the select in the flattened
CFG. So when single stepping in the debugger, printing the
value of the variable referenced in the dbg intrinsic, it
could happen that it looked like the variable had values
that never actually were assigned to the variable.
This patch simply discards all dbg intrinsics that were found
in the speculatively executed BB.
Reviewers: aprantl, chandlerc, craig.topper
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39494
llvm-svn: 317198
Currently the selects are created with the names of their inputs concatenated together. It's possible to get cases that chain these selects together resulting in long names due to multiple levels of concatenation. Our internal branch of llvm managed to generate names over 100000 characters in length on a particular test due to an extreme compounding of the names.
This patch changes the name to a generic name that is not dependent on its inputs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39440
llvm-svn: 317024
As discussed in D39011:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39011
...replacing constants with a variable is inverting the transform done
by other IR passes, so we definitely don't want to do this early.
In fact, it's questionable whether this transform belongs in SimplifyCFG
at all. I'll look at moving this to codegen as a follow-up step.
llvm-svn: 316298
The missed canonicalization/optimization in the motivating test from PR34471 leads to very different codegen:
int switcher(int x) {
switch(x) {
case 17: return 17;
case 19: return 19;
case 42: return 42;
default: break;
}
return 0;
}
int comparator(int x) {
if (x == 17) return 17;
if (x == 19) return 19;
if (x == 42) return 42;
return 0;
}
For the first example, we use a bit-test optimization to avoid a series of compare-and-branch:
https://godbolt.org/g/BivDsw
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39011
llvm-svn: 316293
This is a follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D38138.
I fixed the capitalization of some functions because we're changing those
lines anyway and that helped verify that we weren't accidentally dropping
any options by using default param values.
llvm-svn: 314930
Summary: If the merged instruction is call instruction, we need to set the scope to the closes common scope between 2 locations, otherwise it will cause trouble when the call is getting inlined.
Reviewers: dblaikie, aprantl
Reviewed By: dblaikie, aprantl
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37877
llvm-svn: 314694
This was intended to be no-functional-change, but it's not - there's a test diff.
So I thought I should stop here and post it as-is to see if this looks like what was expected
based on the discussion in PR34603:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
Notes:
1. The test improvement occurs because the existing 'LateSimplifyCFG' marker is not carried
through the recursive calls to 'SimplifyCFG()->SimplifyCFGOpt().run()->SimplifyCFG()'.
The parameter isn't passed down, so we pick up the default value from the function signature
after the first level. I assumed that was a bug, so I've passed 'Options' down in all of the
'SimplifyCFG' calls.
2. I split 'LateSimplifyCFG' into 2 bits: ConvertSwitchToLookupTable and KeepCanonicalLoops.
This would theoretically allow us to differentiate the transforms controlled by those params
independently.
3. We could stash the optional AssumptionCache pointer and 'LoopHeaders' pointer in the struct too.
I just stopped here to minimize the diffs.
4. Similarly, I stopped short of messing with the pass manager layer. I have another question that
could wait for the follow-up: why is the new pass manager creating the pass with LateSimplifyCFG
set to true no matter where in the pipeline it's creating SimplifyCFG passes?
// Create an early function pass manager to cleanup the output of the
// frontend.
EarlyFPM.addPass(SimplifyCFGPass());
-->
/// \brief Construct a pass with the default thresholds
/// and switch optimizations.
SimplifyCFGPass::SimplifyCFGPass()
: BonusInstThreshold(UserBonusInstThreshold),
LateSimplifyCFG(true) {} <-- switches get converted to lookup tables and loops may not be in canonical form
If this is unintended, then it's possible that the current behavior of dropping the 'LateSimplifyCFG'
setting via recursion was masking this bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38138
llvm-svn: 314308
I noticed this inefficiency while investigating PR34603:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34603
This fix will likely push another bug (we don't maintain state of 'LateSimplifyCFG')
into hiding, but I'll try to clean that up with a follow-up patch anyway.
llvm-svn: 313829
Summary:
If SimplifyCFG pass is able to merge conditional stores into single one,
it loses the alignment. This may lead to incorrect codegen. Patch
sets the alignment of the new instruction if it is set in the original
one.
Reviewers: jmolloy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36841
llvm-svn: 312030
Summary: When we move then-else code to if, we need to merge its debug info, otherwise the hoisted instruction may have inaccurate debug info attached.
Reviewers: aprantl, probinson, dblaikie, echristo, loladiro
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36778
llvm-svn: 310985
Summary:
When simplifying unconditional branches from empty blocks, we pre-test if the
BB belongs to a set of loop headers and keep the block to prevent passes from
destroying canonical loop structure. However, the current algorithm fails if
the destination of the branch is a loop header. Especially when such a loop's
latch block is folded into loop header it results in additional backedges and
LoopSimplify turns it into a nested loop which prevent later optimizations
from being applied (e.g., loop unrolling and loop interleaving).
This patch augments the existing algorithm by further checking if the
destination of the branch belongs to a set of loop headers and defer
eliminating it if yes to LateSimplifyCFG.
Fixes PR33605: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33605
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: ashutosh.nema, gberry, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35411
llvm-svn: 308422
Summary: In this code we got to Dom by following the predecessor link of BB. So it stands to reason that BB should also show up as a successor of Dom's terminator right? There isn't a way to have the CFG connect in only one direction is there?
Reviewers: jmolloy, davide, mcrosier
Reviewed By: mcrosier
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35025
llvm-svn: 307276
This patch appends the name of the function to the switch generated lookup
table. This will ease the visual debugging in identifying the function the table
is generated from.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34817
llvm-svn: 306867
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
