Cleanup includes: Transform/Scalar

Estimated impact on preprocessor output line:
before: 1062981579
after: 1062494547

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cl

Cleanup includes: Transform/Scalar

Estimated impact on preprocessor output line:
before: 1062981579
after: 1062494547

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cleanup
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120817

show more ...

[AlignFromAssume] Bailout w/non-constant alignments (pr51680)

This is a bailout for pr51680. This pass appears to assume that the alignment operand to an align tag on an assume bundle is constant.

[AlignFromAssume] Bailout w/non-constant alignments (pr51680)

This is a bailout for pr51680. This pass appears to assume that the alignment operand to an align tag on an assume bundle is constant. This doesn't appear to be required anywhere, and clang happily generates non-constant alignments for cases such as this case taken from the bug report:

// clang -cc1 -triple powerpc64-- -S -O1 opal_pci-min.c
extern int a[];
long *b;
long c;
void *d(long, int *, int, long, long, long) __attribute__((__alloc_align__(6)));
void e() {
b = d(c, a, 0, 0, 5, c);
b[0] = 0;
}

This was exposed by a SCEV change which allowed a non-constant alignment to reach further into the pass' code. We could generalize the pass, but for now, let's fix the crash.

show more ...

Recommit [ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.

As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any

Recommit [ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.

As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.

There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.

The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.

As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.

This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.

I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.

Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806

show more ...

Revert "[ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers."

This reverts commit 74d6ce5d5f169e9cf3fac0eb1042602e286dd2b9.

Seeing crashes on buildbots in MemoryDepChecker::isDependen

Revert "[ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers."

This reverts commit 74d6ce5d5f169e9cf3fac0eb1042602e286dd2b9.

Seeing crashes on buildbots in MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.

show more ...

[ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.

As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other va

[ScalarEvolution] Make getMinusSCEV() fail for unrelated pointers.

As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.

There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.

The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.

As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.

This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.

I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806

show more ...

[NFCI] Move DEBUG_TYPE definition below #includes

When you try to define a new DEBUG_TYPE in a header file, DEBUG_TYPE
definition defined around the #includes in files include it could
result in red

[NFCI] Move DEBUG_TYPE definition below #includes

When you try to define a new DEBUG_TYPE in a header file, DEBUG_TYPE
definition defined around the #includes in files include it could
result in redefinition warnings even compile errors.

Reviewed By: tejohnson

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102594

show more ...

[NewPM] Don't mark AA analyses as preserved

Currently all AA analyses marked as preserved are stateless, not taking
into account their dependent analyses. So there's no need to mark them
as preserve

[NewPM] Don't mark AA analyses as preserved

Currently all AA analyses marked as preserved are stateless, not taking
into account their dependent analyses. So there's no need to mark them
as preserved, they won't be invalidated unless their analyses are.

SCEVAAResults was the one exception to this, it was treated like a
typical analysis result. Make it like the others and don't invalidate
unless SCEV is invalidated.

Reviewed By: asbirlea

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102032

show more ...

[AssumeBundles] offset should be added to correctly calculate align

This is a patch to fix the bug in alignment calculation (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D90529#2619492).

Consider this code:

```
c

[AssumeBundles] offset should be added to correctly calculate align

This is a patch to fix the bug in alignment calculation (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D90529#2619492).

Consider this code:

```
call void @llvm.assume(i1 true) ["align"(i32* %a, i32 32, i32 28)]
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %a, i64 -1
; aligment of %arrayidx?
```

The llvm.assume guarantees that `%a - 28` is 32-bytes aligned, meaning that `%a` is 32k + 28 for some k.
Therefore `a - 4` cannot be 32-bytes aligned but the existing code was calculating the pointer as 32-bytes aligned.

The reason why this happened is as follows.
`DiffSCEV` stores `%arrayidx - %a` which is -4.
`OffSCEV` stores the offset value of “align”, which is 28.
`DiffSCEV` + `OffSCEV` = 24 should be used for `a - 4`'s offset from 32k, but `DiffSCEV` - `OffSCEV` = 32 was being used instead.

Reviewed By: Tyker

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98759

show more ...

Revert "[AssumptionCache] Avoid dangling llvm.assume calls in the cache"

This reverts commit b7d870eae7fdadcf10d0f177faa7409c2e37d776 and the
subsequent fix "[Polly] Fix build after AssumptionCache

Revert "[AssumptionCache] Avoid dangling llvm.assume calls in the cache"

This reverts commit b7d870eae7fdadcf10d0f177faa7409c2e37d776 and the
subsequent fix "[Polly] Fix build after AssumptionCache change (D96168)"
(commit e6810cab09fcbc87b6e5e4d226de0810e2f2ea38).

It caused indeterminism in the output, such that e.g. the
polly-x86_64-linux buildbot failed accasionally.

show more ...

[AssumptionCache] Avoid dangling llvm.assume calls in the cache

PR49043 exposed a problem when it comes to RAUW llvm.assumes. While
D96106 would fix it for GVNSink, it seems a more general concern.

[AssumptionCache] Avoid dangling llvm.assume calls in the cache

PR49043 exposed a problem when it comes to RAUW llvm.assumes. While
D96106 would fix it for GVNSink, it seems a more general concern. To
avoid future problems this patch moves away from the vector of weak
reference model used in the assumption cache. Instead, we track the
llvm.assume calls with a callback handle which will remove itself from
the cache if the call is deleted.

Fixes PR49043.

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96168

show more ...

Reland [AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Compl

Reland [AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".

As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.

show more ...

Temporarily Revert "[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions"
due to the performance bugs filed in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46753.

An SROA change soon may obv

Temporarily Revert "[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions"
due to the performance bugs filed in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46753.

An SROA change soon may obviate some of these problems.

This reverts commit 8d09f20798ac180b1749276bff364682ce0196ab.

show more ...

[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Com

[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".

As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.

Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1

Reviewed By: jdoerfert

Subscribers: thopre, yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits

Tags: #clang, #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739

show more ...

Revert "[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions"

Assume bundle can have more than one entry with the same name,
but at least AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass::extractAlignmen

Revert "[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions"

Assume bundle can have more than one entry with the same name,
but at least AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass::extractAlignmentInfo() uses
getOperandBundle("align"), which internally assumes that it isn't the
case, and happily crashes otherwise.

Minimal reduced reproducer: run `opt -alignment-from-assumptions` on

target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"

%0 = type { i64, %1*, i8*, i64, %2, i32, %3*, i8* }
%1 = type opaque
%2 = type { i8, i8, i16 }
%3 = type { i32, i32, i32, i32 }

; Function Attrs: nounwind
define i32 @f(%0* noalias nocapture readonly %arg, %0* noalias %arg1) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
bb:
call void @llvm.assume(i1 true) [ "align"(%0* %arg, i64 8), "align"(%0* %arg1, i64 8) ]
ret i32 0
}

; Function Attrs: nounwind willreturn
declare void @llvm.assume(i1) #1

attributes #0 = { nounwind "reciprocal-estimates"="none" }
attributes #1 = { nounwind willreturn }


This is what we'd have with -mllvm -enable-knowledge-retention

This reverts commit c95ffadb2474a4d8c4f598d94d35a9f31d9606cb.

show more ...

[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Com

[AssumeBundles] Use operand bundles to encode alignment assumptions

Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html

Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".

As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.

Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1

Reviewed By: jdoerfert

Subscribers: yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits

Tags: #clang, #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739

show more ...

AlignmentFromAssumptions.h - reduce includes to forward declarations. NFC.

[Alignment] Remove unnecessary getValueOrABITypeAlignment calls (NFC)

Now that load/store alignment is required, we no longer need most
of them. Also switch the getLoadStoreAlignment() helper to ret

[Alignment] Remove unnecessary getValueOrABITypeAlignment calls (NFC)

Now that load/store alignment is required, we no longer need most
of them. Also switch the getLoadStoreAlignment() helper to return
Align instead of MaybeAlign.

show more ...

LoadInst should store Align, not MaybeAlign.

The fact that loads and stores can have the alignment missing is a
constant source of confusion: code that usually works can break down in
rare cases. S

LoadInst should store Align, not MaybeAlign.

The fact that loads and stores can have the alignment missing is a
constant source of confusion: code that usually works can break down in
rare cases. So fix the LoadInst API so the alignment is never missing.

To reduce the number of changes required to make this work, IRBuilder
and certain LoadInst constructors will grab the module's datalayout and
compute the alignment automatically. This is the same alignment
instcombine would eventually apply anyway; we're just doing it earlier.
There's a minor risk that the way we're retrieving the datalayout
could break out-of-tree code, but I don't think that's likely.

This is the last in a series of patches, so most of the necessary
changes have already been merged.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77454

show more ...

[Alignment][NFC] Assume AlignmentFromAssumptions::getNewAlignment is always set.

Summary:
In D77454 we explain that `LoadInst` and `StoreInst` always have their alignment defined.
This allows to wor

[Alignment][NFC] Assume AlignmentFromAssumptions::getNewAlignment is always set.

Summary:
In D77454 we explain that `LoadInst` and `StoreInst` always have their alignment defined.
This allows to work backward here and to infer that `getNewAlignment` does not need to return `0` in case of failure.
Returning `1` also works since it needs to be greater than the Load/Store alignment which is a least `1`.

This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-July/133851.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64790

Reviewers: courbet

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77538

show more ...

Revert "[Alignment][NFC] Add DebugStr and operator*"

This reverts commit 1e34ab98fc6f5ea7e264c0cd19d96b87cbd9c8a5.

[Alignment][NFC] Add DebugStr and operator*

Summary:
Also updates files to use them.

This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm

[Alignment][NFC] Add DebugStr and operator*

Summary:
Also updates files to use them.

This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-July/133851.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64790

Reviewers: courbet

Subscribers: sdardis, hiraditya, jrtc27, atanasyan, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77394

show more ...

[AlignmentFromAssumptions] Fix a SCEV assertion resulting from address space differences.

Summary:
On targets with different pointer sizes, -alignment-from-assumptions could attempt to create SCEV e

[AlignmentFromAssumptions] Fix a SCEV assertion resulting from address space differences.

Summary:
On targets with different pointer sizes, -alignment-from-assumptions could attempt to create SCEV expressions which use different effective SCEV types. The provided test illustrates the issue.

In `getNewAlignment`, AASCEV would be the (only) alloca, which would have an effective SCEV type of i32. But PtrSCEV, the GEP in this case, due to being in the flat/default address space, will have an effective SCEV of i64.

This patch resolves the issue by truncating PtrSCEV to AASCEV's effective type.

Reviewers: hfinkel, jdoerfert

Reviewed By: jdoerfert

Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, javed.absar, kerbowa, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75471

show more ...

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of reco

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.

I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h

Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.

Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211

show more ...

[Alignment][NFC] Remove StoreInst::setAlignment(unsigned)

Summary:
This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm

[Alignment][NFC] Remove StoreInst::setAlignment(unsigned)

Summary:
This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-July/133851.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64790

Reviewers: courbet, bollu, jdoerfert

Subscribers: hiraditya, asbirlea, cfe-commits, llvm-commits

Tags: #clang, #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68268

llvm-svn: 373595

show more ...

[Alignment][NFC] Remove LoadInst::setAlignment(unsigned)

Summary:
This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-

[Alignment][NFC] Remove LoadInst::setAlignment(unsigned)

Summary:
This is patch is part of a series to introduce an Alignment type.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-July/133851.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64790

Reviewers: courbet, jdoerfert

Subscribers: hiraditya, asbirlea, cfe-commits, llvm-commits

Tags: #clang, #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68142

llvm-svn: 373195

show more ...