llvm-svn: 164940

alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.

llvm-svn: 164937

Fixes PR13985.

llvm-svn: 164934

a pair of instructions, one for the used pointer and the second for the
user. This simplifies the representation and also makes it more dense.

This was noticed because of the miscompile in PR13926. In that case, we
were running up against a fundamental "bad idea" in the speculation of
PHI and select instructions: the speculation and rewriting are
interleaved, which requires phi speculation to also perform load
rewriting! This is bad, and causes us to miss opportunities to do (for
example) vector rewriting only exposed after PHI speculation, etc etc.
It also, in the old system, required us to insert *new* load uses into
the current partition's use list, which would then be ignored during
rewriting because we had already extracted an end iterator for the use
list. The appending behavior (and much of the other oddities) stem from
the strange de-duplication strategy in the PartitionUse builder.
Amusingly, all this went without notice for so long because it could
only be triggered by having *different* GEPs into the same partition of
the same alloca, where both different GEPs were operands of a single
PHI, and where the GEP which was not encountered first also had multiple
uses within that same PHI node... Hence the insane steps required to
reproduce.

So, step one in fixing this fundamental bad idea is to make the
PartitionUse actually contain a Use*, and to make the builder do proper
deduplication instead of funky de-duplication. This is enough to remove
the appending behavior, and fix the miscompile in PR13926, but there is
more work to be done here. Subsequent commits will lift the speculation
into its own visitor. It'll be a useful step toward potentially
extracting all of the speculation logic into a generic utility
transform.

The existing PHI test case for repeated operands has been made more
extreme to catch even these issues. This test case, run through the old
pass, will exactly reproduce the miscompile from PR13926. ;] We were so
close here!

llvm-svn: 164925

alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.

Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.

Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]

llvm-svn: 164891

llvm-svn: 164867

CorrelatedPropagation: BasicBlock::removePredecessor can simplify PHI nodes. If the it's the condition of a SwitchInst, reload it.

Fixes PR13972.

llvm-svn: 164818

Fixes PR13968.

llvm-svn: 164815

llvm-svn: 164814

llvm-svn: 164800

llvm-svn: 164799

llvm-svn: 164798

llvm-svn: 164797

llvm-svn: 164796

If the width is very large it gets truncated from uint64_t to uint32_t when
passed to TD->fitsInLegalInteger. The truncated value can fit in a register.
This manifested in massive memory usage or crashes (PR13946).

llvm-svn: 164784

Revert 'Fix a typo 'iff' => 'if''. iff is an abreviation of if and only if. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if Commit 164767

llvm-svn: 164768

llvm-svn: 164767

llvm-svn: 164763

- Put statistics in alphabetical order
- Don't use getZextValue when building TableInt, just use APInts
- Introduce Create{Z,S}ExtOrTrunc in IRBuilder.

llvm-svn: 164696

alignment guarantees attached, re-compute the alignment so that we
consider offsets which impact alignment.

llvm-svn: 164690

rewriter in SROA to carry a proper alignment. This involves
interrogating various sources of alignment, etc. This is a more complete
and principled fix to PR13920 as well as related bugs pointed out by Eli
in review and by inspection in the area.

Also by inspection fix the integer and vector promotion paths to create
aligned loads and stores. I still need to work up test cases for
these... Sorry for the delay, they were found purely by inspection.

llvm-svn: 164689

llvm-svn: 164686

tables in bitmaps when they fit in a target-legal register.

This saves some space, and it also allows for building tables that would
otherwise be deemed too sparse.

One interesting case that this hits is example 7 from
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320. We currently generate good code
for this when lowering the switch to the selection DAG: we build a
bitmask to decide whether to jump to one block or the other. My patch
will result in the same bitmask, but it removes the need for the jump,
as the return value can just be retrieved from the mask.

llvm-svn: 164684

This should really, really fix PR13916. For real this time. The
underlying bug is... a bit more subtle than I had imagined.

The setup is a code pattern that leads to an @llvm.memcpy call with two
equal pointers to an alloca in the source and dest. Now, not any pattern
will do. The alloca needs to be formed just so, and both pointers should
be wrapped in different bitcasts etc. When this precise pattern hits,
a funny sequence of events transpires. First, we correctly detect the
potential for overlap, and correctly optimize the memcpy. The first
time. However, we do simplify the set of users of the alloca, and that
causes us to run the alloca back through the SROA pass in case there are
knock-on simplifications. At this point, a curious thing has happened.
If we happen to have an i8 alloca, we have direct i8 pointer values. So
we don't bother creating a cast, we rewrite the arguments to the memcpy
to dircetly refer to the alloca.

Now, in an unrelated area of the pass, we have clever logic which
ensures that when visiting each User of a particular pointer derived
from an alloca, we only visit that User once, and directly inspect all
of its operands which refer to that particular pointer value. However,
the mechanism used to detect memcpy's with the potential to overlap
relied upon getting visited once per *Use*, not once per *User*. This is
always true *unless* the same exact value is both source and dest. It
turns out that almost nothing actually produces that pattern though.

We can hand craft test cases that more directly test this behavior of
course, and those are included. Also, note that there is a significant
missed optimization here -- we prove in many cases that there is
a non-volatile memcpy call with identical source and dest addresses. We
shouldn't prevent splitting the alloca in that case, and in fact we
should just remove such memcpy calls eagerly. I'll address that in
a subsequent commit.

llvm-svn: 164669

only a missed optimization opportunity if the store is over-aligned, but a
miscompile if the store's new type has a higher natural alignment than the
memcpy did. Fixes PR13920!

llvm-svn: 164641

Chandler, it's not obvious that it's okay that this alloca gets into the list
twice to begin with. Please review and see whether this is the fix you really
want, but I wanted to get a fix checked in quickly.

llvm-svn: 164634

doesn't transform the trivially unsafe case.

llvm-svn: 164617

to chains or cycles between PHIs and/or selects. Also add a couple of
really nice test cases reduced from Kostya's reports in PR13905 and
PR13906. Both are fixed by this patch.

llvm-svn: 164596

it's not a dead store if that pointer is used. Whoops!

llvm-svn: 164583

dead.

llvm-svn: 164561

llvm-svn: 164540

This avoids a crash in visitAllocaInst when target data isn't available.

llvm-svn: 164539

integer promotion analogous to vector promotion. When there is an
integer alloca being accessed both as its integer type and as a narrower
integer type, promote the narrower access to "insert" and "extract" the
smaller integer from the larger one, and make the integer alloca
a candidate for promotion.

In the new formulation, we don't care about target legal integer or use
thresholds to control things. Instead, we only perform this promotion to
an integer type which the frontend has already emitted a load or store
for. This bounds the scope and prevents optimization passes from
coalescing larger and larger entities into a single integer.

llvm-svn: 164479

across the uses of the alloca. It's entirely possible for negative
numbers to come up here, and in some rare cases simply doing the 2's
complement arithmetic isn't the correct decision. Notably, we can't zext
the index of the GEP. The definition of GEP is that these offsets are
sign extended or truncated to the size of the pointer, and then wrapping
2's complement arithmetic used.

This patch fixes an issue that comes up with *no* input from the
buildbots or bootstrap afaict. The only place where it manifested,
disturbingly, is Clang's own regression test suite. A reduced and
targeted collection of tests are added to cope with this. Note that I've
tried to pin down the potential cases of overflow, but may have missed
some cases. I've tried to add a few cases to test this, but its hard
because LLVM has quite limited support for >64bit constructs.

llvm-svn: 164475

selects with a constant condition. This resulted in the operands
remaining live through the SROA rewriter. Most of the time, this just
caused some dead allocas to persist and get zapped by later passes, but
in one case found by Joerg, it caused a crash when we tried to *promote*
the alloca despite it having this dead use. We already have the
mechanisms in place to handle this, just wire select up to them.

llvm-svn: 164427

We rely on it when doing the transforms. This can happen when there is an
indirectbr in  the loop.

Fixes PR13892.

llvm-svn: 164383

Fixes PR13250.

llvm-svn: 164377

We already have HoistThenElseCodeToIf, this patch implements
SinkThenElseCodeToEnd. When END block has only two predecessors and each
predecessor terminates with unconditional branches, we compare instructions in
IF and ELSE blocks backwards and check whether we can sink the common
instructions down.

rdar://12191395

llvm-svn: 164325

two variables where the first variable is returned and the second
ignored.

I don't think this occurs in practice (other passes should have cleaned
up the unused phi node), but it should still be handled correctly.

Also make the logic for determining if we should return early less
sketchy.

llvm-svn: 164225

Because the test invokes llc -march=sparc, it needs to be in a directory
which is only run when the sparc target is built.

llvm-svn: 164211