| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Given an instruction I, the MustBeExecutedContextExplorer allows to
easily traverse instructions that are guaranteed to be executed whenever
I is. For now, these instruction have to be statically "after" I, in
the same or different basic blocks.
This patch also adds a pass which prints the must-be-executed-context
for each instruction in a module. It is used to test the
MustBeExecutedContextExplorer, for now on the examples given in the
class comment of the MustBeExecutedIterator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65186
llvm-svn: 369765
|
|
Summary:
for.outer:
br for.inner
for.inner:
LI <loop invariant load instruction>
for.inner.latch:
br for.inner, for.outer.latch
for.outer.latch:
br for.outer, for.outer.exit
LI is a loop invariant load instruction that post dominate for.outer, so LI should be able to move out of the loop nest. However, there is a bug in allLoopPathsLeadToBlock().
Current algorithm of allLoopPathsLeadToBlock()
1. get all the transitive predecessors of the basic block LI belongs to (for.inner) ==> for.outer, for.inner.latch
2. if any successors of any of the predecessors are not for.inner or for.inner's predecessors, then return false
3. return true
Although for.inner.latch is for.inner's predecessor, but for.inner dominates for.inner.latch, which means if for.inner.latch is ever executed, for.inner should be as well. It should not return false for cases like this.
Author: Whitney (committed by xingxue)
Reviewers: kbarton, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, hfinkel, fhahn
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, jsji, llvm-commits, etiotto, bmahjour
Tags: #LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62418
llvm-svn: 361762
|
|
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
|
Current strategy of dropping `InstructionPrecedenceTracking` cache is to
invalidate the entire basic block whenever we change its contents. In fact,
`InstructionPrecedenceTracking` has 2 internal strictures: `OrderedInstructions`
that is needed to be invalidated whenever the contents changes, and the map
with first special instructions in block. This second map does not need an
update if we add/remove a non-special instuction because it cannot
affect the contents of this map.
This patch changes API of `InstructionPrecedenceTracking` so that it now
accounts for reasons under which we invalidate blocks. This should lead
to much less recalculations of the map and should save us some compile time
because in practice we don't typically add/remove special instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54462
Reviewed By: efriedma
llvm-svn: 350694
|
|
This patch relaxes overconservative checks on whether or not we could write
memory before we execute an instruction. This allows us to hoist guards out of
loops even if they are not in the header block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50891
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
llvm-svn: 346643
|
|
llvm-svn: 346217
|
|
llvm-svn: 345822
|
|
This is an alternative implementation of LoopSafetyInfo that uses the implicit
control flow tracking to give precise answers on queries "whether or not this
block contains throwing instructions". This rules out false-positive answers on
LoopSafetyInfo's queries.
This patch only introduces the new implementation. It is not currently used in
any pass. The enabling patches will go separately, through review.
The plan is to completely replace all uses of LoopSafetyInfo with
ICFLoopSafetyInfo in the future, but to avoid introducing functional problems,
we will do it pass by pass.
llvm-svn: 344601
|
|
llvm-svn: 344596
|
|
llvm-svn: 344592
|
|
llvm-svn: 344590
|
|
llvm-svn: 344588
|
|
llvm-svn: 344587
|
|
It may be reused in a different piece of logic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50890
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 340250
|
|
The description of `isGuaranteedToExecute` does not correspond to its implementation.
According to description, it should return `true` if an instruction is executed under the
assumption that its loop is *entered*. However there is a sophisticated alrogithm inside
that tries to prove that the instruction is executed if the loop is *exited*, which is not the
same thing for infinite loops. There is an attempt to protect from dealing with infinite loops
by prohibiting loops without exit blocks, however an infinite loop can have exit blocks.
As result of that, MustExecute can falsely consider some blocks that are never entered as
mustexec, and LICM can hoist dangerous instructions out of them basing on this fact.
This may introduce UB to programs which did not contain it initially.
This patch removes the problematic algorithm and replaced it with a one which tries to
prove what is required in description.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50558
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 339984
|
|
llvm-svn: 339844
|
|
Turn structure into class, encapsulate methods, add clarifying comments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50693
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 339752
|
|
sed -Ei 's/[[:space:]]+$//' include/**/*.{def,h,td} lib/**/*.{cpp,h}
llvm-svn: 338293
|
|
Test commit to see if my mailing list woes have been resolved.
llvm-svn: 337485
|
|
Summary:
Look past debug intrinsics when querying whether an instruction is the
first instruction in the header block. The commit includes a reproducer
for a case where LICM would not hoist an instruction, due to the presence
of the intrinsic.
A caveat with this commit is that the check will not work properly if
the instruction at hand is a debug intrinsic. I assume that no one
depends on isGuaranteedToExecute() to return true for debug intrinsics
for these cases (and that this might be an indication of another debug
invariant issue), so I thought that it was not worth adding that extra
bit of complexity.
Reviewers: reames, anna
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47197
llvm-svn: 333274
|
|
CanProveNotTakenFirstIteration utility does not handle the case when
condition of the branch is a constant. Add its handling.
Reviewers: reames, anna, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46996
llvm-svn: 332695
|
|
Summary:
- Add wasm personality function
- Re-categorize the existing `isFuncletEHPersonality()` function into
two different functions: `isFuncletEHPersonality()` and
`isScopedEHPersonality(). This becomes necessary as wasm EH uses scoped
EH instructions (catchswitch, catchpad/ret, and cleanuppad/ret) but not
outlined funclets.
- Changed some callsites of `isFuncletEHPersonality()` to
`isScopedEHPersonality()` if they are related to scoped EH IR-level
stuff.
Reviewers: majnemer, dschuff, rnk
Subscribers: jfb, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, JDevlieghere, sunfish, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45559
llvm-svn: 332667
|
|
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
|
|
We currently have a hard to solve analysis problem around the order of instructions within a potentially throwing block. We can't cheaply determine whether a given instruction is before the first potential throw in the block. While we're working on that in the background, special case the first instruction within the header.
why this particular special case? Well, headers are guaranteed to execute if the loop does, and it turns out we tend to produce this form in practice.
In a follow on patch, I tend to extend LICM with an alternate approach which works for any instruction in the header before the first throw, but this is the best I can come up with other users of the analysis (such as store promotion.)
Note: I can't show the difference in the analysis result since we're ORing in the expensive instruction walk used by SCEV. Using the full walk is not suitable for a general solution.
llvm-svn: 331079
|
|
llvm-svn: 329170
|
|
llvm-svn: 328816
|
|
Most basic possible test for the logic used by LICM.
Also contains a speculative build fix for compiles which complain about a definition of a stuct K; followed by a declaration as class K;
llvm-svn: 328058
|
|
Next step is to actually merge the implementations and get both implementations tested through the new printer.
llvm-svn: 328055
|
|
As suggested in the original review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524), use an annotation style printer instead.
Note: The switch from -analyze to -disable-output in tests was driven by the fact that seems to be the idiomatic style used in annoation passes. I tried to keep both working, but the old style pass API for printers really doesn't make this easy. It invokes (runOnFunction, print(Module)) repeatedly. I decided the extra state wasn't worth it given the old pass manager is going away soonish anyway.
llvm-svn: 328015
|
|
Many of our loop passes make use of so called "must execute" or "guaranteed to execute" facts to prove the legality of code motion. The basic notion is that we know (by assumption) an instruction didn't fault at it's original location, so if the location we move it to is strictly post dominated by the original, then we can't have introduced a new fault.
At the moment, the testing for this logic is somewhat adhoc and done mostly through LICM. Since I'm working on that code, I want to improve the testing. This patch is the first step in that direction. It doesn't actually test the variant used by the loop passes - I need to move that to the Analysis library first - but instead exercises an alternate implementation used by SCEV. (I plan on merging both implementations.)
Note: I'll be replacing the printing logic within this with an annotation based version in the near future. Anna suggested this in review, and it seems like a strictly better format.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44524
llvm-svn: 328004
|
