If the type isn't trivially moveable emplace can skip a potentially
expensive move. It also saves a couple of characters.
Call sites were found with the ASTMatcher + some semi-automated cleanup.
memberCallExpr(
argumentCountIs(1), callee(methodDecl(hasName("push_back"))),
on(hasType(recordDecl(has(namedDecl(hasName("emplace_back")))))),
hasArgument(0, bindTemporaryExpr(
hasType(recordDecl(hasNonTrivialDestructor())),
has(constructExpr()))),
unless(isInTemplateInstantiation()))
No functional change intended.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@238602 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The patch evaluates the expansion cost of exitValue in indVarSimplify pass, and only does the rewriting when the expansion cost is low or loop can be deleted with the rewriting. It provides an option "-replexitval=" to control the default aggressiveness of the exitvalue rewriting. It also fixes some missing cases in SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper to enhance the evaluation of SCEV expansion cost.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9800
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@238507 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Teach `isHighCostExpansion` to consider divisions by power-of-two
constants as cheap and add a test case. This change is needed for a new
user of `isHighCostExpansion` that will be added in a subsequent change.
Depends on D8995.
Reviewers: atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8993
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@234845 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Move isHighCostExpansion from IndVarSimplify to SCEVExpander. This
exposed function will be used in a subsequent change.
Reviewers: bogner, atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8995
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@234844 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The plan here is to push the API changes out from the common components
(like Constant::getGetElementPtr and IRBuilder::CreateGEP related
functions) and just update callers to either pass the type if it's
obvious, or pass null.
Do this with LoadInst as well and anything else that comes up, then to
start porting specific uses to not pass null anymore - this may require
some refactoring in each case.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@234042 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Require the pointee type to be passed explicitly and assert that it is
correct. For now it's possible to pass nullptr here (and I've done so in
a few places in this patch) but eventually that will be disallowed once
all clients have been updated or removed. It'll be a long road to get
all the way there... but if you have the cahnce to update your callers
to pass the type explicitly without depending on a pointer's element
type, that would be a good thing to do soon and a necessary thing to do
eventually.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@233938 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The changes to InstCombine (& SCEV) do seem a bit silly - it doesn't make
anything obviously better to have the caller access the pointers element
type (the thing I'm trying to remove) than the GEP itself, but it's a
helpful migration step. This will allow me to more obviously lock down
GEP (& Load, etc) API usage, then fix all the code that accesses pointer
element types except the places that need to be removed (most of the
InstCombines) anyway - at which point I'll need to just remove all that
code because it won't be meaningful anymore (there will be no pointer
types, so no bitcasts to combine)
SCEV looks like it'll need some restructuring - we'll have to do a bit
more work for GEP canonicalization, since it'll depend on how it's used
if we can even manage to canonicalize it to a non-ugly GEP. I guess we
can do some fun stuff like voting (do 2 out of 3 load from the GEP with
a certain type that gives a pretty GEP? Does every typed use of the GEP
use either a specific type or a generic type (i8*, etc)?)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@233131 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
ScalarEvolutionExpander assumes that the header block of a loop is a
legal place to have a use for a phi node. This is true only for phis
that are either in the header or dominate the header block, but it is
not true for phi nodes that are strictly internal to the loop body.
This change teaches ScalarEvolutionExpander to place uses of PHI nodes
in the basic block the PHI nodes belong to. This is always legal, and
`hoistIVInc` ensures that the said position dominates `IsomorphicInc`.
Reviewers: atrick
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8311
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@232189 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@231740 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It is not sound to mark the increment operation as `nuw` or `nsw`
based on a proof off of the add recurrence if the increment operation
we emit happens to be a `sub` instruction.
I could not come up with a test case for this -- the cases where
SCEVExpander decides to emit a `sub` instruction is quite small, and I
cannot think of a way I'd be able to get SCEV to prove that the
increment does not overflow in those cases.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7899
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230673 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
(The change was landed in r230280 and caused the regression PR22674.
This version contains a fix and a test-case for PR22674).
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic)
manifestation of the bug can be seen in
Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230533 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When emitting the increment operation, SCEVExpander marks the
operation as nuw or nsw based on the flags on the preincrement SCEV.
This is incorrect because, for instance, it is possible that {-6,+,1}
is <nuw> while {-6,+,1}+1 = {-5,+,1} is not.
This change teaches SCEV to mark the increment as nuw/nsw only if it
can explicitly prove that the increment operation won't overflow.
Apart from the attached test case, another (more realistic) manifestation
of the bug can be seen in Transforms/IndVarSimplify/pr20680.ll.
NOTE: this change was landed with an incorrect commit message in
rL230275 and was reverted for that reason in rL230279. This commit
message is the correct one.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7778
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230280 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
230275 got committed with an incorrect commit message due to a mixup
on my side. Will re-land in a few moments with the correct commit
message.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230279 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The bug was a result of getPreStartForExtend interpreting nsw/nuw
flags on an add recurrence more strongly than is legal. {S,+,X}<nsw>
implies S+X is nsw only if the backedge of the loop is taken at least
once.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7808
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@230275 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225131 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is to be consistent with StringSet and ultimately with the standard
library's associative container insert function.
This lead to updating SmallSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update SmallPtrSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update all the existing users of those functions...
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@222334 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@217342 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It seems that when I fixed this, almost exactly a year ago, I did not quite do
it correctly. When we have duplicate block predecessors, we can indeed not have
different incoming values for the same block, but we *must* have duplicate
entries. So, instead of skipping the duplicates, we explicitly add the
duplicate incoming values.
Fixes PR20442.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@214423 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@203364 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Benjamin Kramer
Wei Mi
Sanjoy Das
David Blaikie
Mehdi Amini
Hans Wennborg
Chandler Carruth
Hal Finkel
Craig Topper