a lazy-asserting PoisoningVH.
AssertVH is fundamentally incompatible with cache-invalidation of
analysis results. The invaliadtion happens after the AssertingVH has
already fired. Instead, use a PoisoningVH that will assert if the
dangling handle is ever used rather than merely be assigned or
destroyed.
This patch also removes all of the (numerous) doomed attempts to work
around this fundamental incompatibility. It is a pretty significant
simplification IMO.
The most interesting change is in the Inliner where we still do some
clearing because we don't want to rely on the coarse grained
invalidation strategy of the containing pass manager. However, I prefer
the approach that contains this logic to the cleanup phase of the
Inliner, and I think we could enhance the CGSCC analysis management
layer to make this even better in the future if desired.
The rest is straight cleanup.
I've also added a test for one of the harder cases to work around: when
a *module analysis* contains many AssertingVHes pointing at functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29006
llvm-svn: 292928
the library routine shared with the new PM and other code.
This assert checks that when LCSSA preservation is requested we start in
LCSSA form. Without this early assert, given *very* complex test cases
we can hit an assert or crash much later on when trying to preserve
LCSSA.
The new PM's loop simplify doesn't need to (and indeed can't) preserve
LCSSA as the new PM doesn't deal in transforms in the dependency graph.
But we asked the library to and shockingly, this didn't work very well!
Stop doing that. Now the assert will tell us immediately with existing
test cases. Before this, it took a pretty convoluted input to trigger
this.
However, sinking the assert also found a bug in LoopUnroll where we
asked simplifyLoop to preserve LCSSA *right before we reform it*. That's
kinda silly and unsurprising that it wasn't available. =D Stop doing
that too.
We also would assert that the unrolled loop was in LCSSA even if
preserving LCSSA was never requested! I don't have a test case or
anything here. I spotted it by inspection and it seems quite obvious. No
logic change anyways, that's just avoiding a spurrious assert.
llvm-svn: 292710
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
insertUniqueBackedgeBlock in lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopSimplify.cpp now
propagates existing llvm.loop metadata to newly the added backedge.
llvm::TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock in lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp
now propagates existing llvm.loop metadata to the branch instructions in the
predecessor blocks of the empty block that is removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26495
llvm-svn: 287341
For each block check that it doesn't have any uses outside of it's innermost loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25364
llvm-svn: 283877
Summary:
This hopefully fixes PR28825. The problem now was that a value from the
original loop was used in a subloop, which became a sibling after separation.
While a subloop doesn't need an lcssa phi node, a sibling does, and that's
where we broke LCSSA. The most natural way to fix this now is to simply call
formLCSSA on the original loop: it'll do what we've been doing before plus
it'll cover situations described above.
I think we don't need to run formLCSSARecursively here, and we have an assert
to verify this (I've tried testing it on LLVM testsuite + SPECs). I'd be happy
to be corrected here though.
I also changed a run line in the test from '-lcssa -loop-unroll' to
'-lcssa -loop-simplify -indvars', because it exercises LCSSA
preservation to the same extent, but also makes less unrelated
transformation on the CFG, which makes it easier to verify.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23288
llvm-svn: 278173
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
This fixes PR28825. The problem was that we only checked if a value from
a created inner loop is used in the outer loop, and fixed LCSSA for
them. But we missed to fixup LCSSA for values used in exits of the outer
loop.
llvm-svn: 277877
Revert "[LoopSimplify] Update LCSSA after separating nested loops."
This reverts commit r275891.
Revert "[LCSSA] Post-process PHI-nodes created by SSAUpdate when constructing LCSSA form."
This reverts commit r275883.
llvm-svn: 276064
Summary:
Usually LCSSA survives this transformation, but in some cases (see
attached test) it doesn't: values from the original loop after
separating might be used from the outer loop. Before the transformation
it was the same loop, so LCSSA phis were not required.
This fixes PR28272.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21665
llvm-svn: 275891
While here move simplifyLoop() function to the new header, as
suggested by Chandler in the review.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21404
llvm-svn: 274959
SimplifyCFG had logic to insert calls to llvm.trap for two very
particular IR patterns: stores and invokes of undef/null.
While InstCombine canonicalizes certain undefined behavior IR patterns
to stores of undef, phase ordering means that this cannot be relied upon
in general.
There are much better tools than llvm.trap: UBSan and ASan.
N.B. I could be argued into reverting this change if a clear argument as
to why it is important that we synthesize llvm.trap for stores, I'd be
hard pressed to see why it'd be useful for invokes...
llvm-svn: 273778
Xin Tong
Chandler Carruth
Daniel Jasper
Hal Finkel
Michael Zolotukhin
Florian Hahn
Igor Laevsky
Sean Silva
Davide Italiano
Benjamin Kramer
David Majnemer