-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.3k
[LoopInterchange] Add simplifyLCSSAPhis: remove phi from non-exit bb #160889
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 1 commit
18e6679
a4bb77f
65cd876
2acaa54
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ | |
| #include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar/LoopPassManager.h" | ||
| #include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h" | ||
| #include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h" | ||
| #include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h" | ||
| #include <cassert> | ||
| #include <utility> | ||
| #include <vector> | ||
|
|
@@ -1837,6 +1838,38 @@ static void moveLCSSAPhis(BasicBlock *InnerExit, BasicBlock *InnerHeader, | |
| for (PHINode *P : LcssaInnerLatch) | ||
| P->moveBefore(InnerExit->getFirstNonPHIIt()); | ||
|
|
||
| // This deals with a corner case of LCSSA phi nodes in the outer loop latch | ||
| // block: the loop was in LCSSA form, some transformations can come along | ||
| // (e.g. unswitch) and create an empty block: | ||
| // | ||
| // BB4: | ||
| // br label %BB5 | ||
| // BB5: | ||
| // %old.cond.lcssa = phi i16 [ %cond, %BB4 ] | ||
| // br outer.header | ||
| // | ||
| // Interchange then brings it in LCSSA form again and we get: | ||
| // | ||
| // BB4: | ||
| // %new.cond.lcssa = phi i16 [ %cond, %BB3 ] | ||
| // br label %BB5 | ||
| // BB5: | ||
| // %old.cond.lcssa = phi i16 [ %new.cond.lcssa, %BB4 ] | ||
| // | ||
| // Which means that we have a chain of LCSSA phi nodes from %new.cond.lcssa | ||
| // to %old.cond.lcssa. The problem is that interchange can reoder blocks BB4 | ||
| // and BB5 placing the use before the def if we don't check this. The | ||
| // observation is that %old.cond.lcssa is unused, so instead of moving and | ||
| // renaming these phi nodes, just delete it if it's trivially dead. If it | ||
| // isn't trivially dead, it is handled above. The loop should still be in | ||
| // LCSSA form, and if it isn't, formLCSSARecursively is called after the | ||
| // interchange rewrite. | ||
| SmallVector<PHINode *, 8> LcssaOuterLatch( | ||
| llvm::make_pointer_range(OuterLatch->phis())); | ||
| for (PHINode *P : LcssaOuterLatch) | ||
| if (isInstructionTriviallyDead(P)) | ||
| P->eraseFromParent(); | ||
|
|
||
|
||
| // Deal with LCSSA PHI nodes in the loop nest exit block. For PHIs that have | ||
| // incoming values defined in the outer loop, we have to add a new PHI | ||
| // in the inner loop latch, which became the exit block of the outer loop, | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ | ||
| ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --prefix-filecheck-ir-name TEST --version 6 | ||
| ; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-scev -verify-loop-lcssa -S | FileCheck %s | ||
|
|
||
| ; This test is checking that blocks BB4 and BB5, where BB4 is the exit | ||
| ; block of the inner loop and BB5 the latch of the outer loop, correctly | ||
| ; deal with the phi-node use-def chain %new.cond.lcssa -> %old.cond.lcssa. | ||
|
|
||
| target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" | ||
|
|
||
| define i16 @main() { | ||
| ; CHECK-LABEL: define i16 @main() { | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[ENTRY:.*:]] | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[BB2_PREHEADER:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[BB1_PREHEADER:.*]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[TESTBB1:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[TESTBB1]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[I:%.*]] = phi i64 [ [[I_NEXT:%.*]], %[[BB5:.*]] ], [ 1, %[[BB1_PREHEADER]] ] | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[BB2_SPLIT:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[BB2_PREHEADER]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[TESTBB2:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[TESTBB2]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[J:%.*]] = phi i16 [ [[TMP1:%.*]], %[[BB3_SPLIT:.*]] ], [ 0, %[[BB2_PREHEADER]] ] | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[BB1_PREHEADER]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[BB2_SPLIT]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[ARRAYIDX_US_US:%.*]] = getelementptr i16, ptr null, i16 [[J]] | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP0:%.*]] = load i16, ptr [[ARRAYIDX_US_US]], align 1 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[COND:%.*]] = select i1 false, i16 0, i16 0 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[TESTBB3:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[TESTBB3]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[J_NEXT:%.*]] = add i16 [[J]], 1 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[TESTBB4:.*]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[BB3_SPLIT]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[NEW_COND_LCSSA:%.*]] = phi i16 [ [[COND]], %[[BB5]] ] | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP1]] = add i16 [[J]], 1 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 true, label %[[EXIT:.*]], label %[[TESTBB2]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[TESTBB4]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[BB5]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[BB5]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[I_NEXT]] = add i64 [[I]], 1 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: [[CMP286_US:%.*]] = icmp ugt i64 [[I]], 0 | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[CMP286_US]], label %[[TESTBB1]], label %[[BB3_SPLIT]] | ||
| ; CHECK: [[EXIT]]: | ||
| ; CHECK-NEXT: ret i16 0 | ||
| ; | ||
| entry: | ||
| br label %BB1 | ||
|
|
||
| BB1: | ||
| %i = phi i64 [ 1, %entry ], [ %i.next, %BB5 ] | ||
| br label %BB2 | ||
|
|
||
sjoerdmeijer marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| BB2: | ||
| %j = phi i16 [ 0, %BB1 ], [ %j.next, %BB3 ] | ||
| %arrayidx.us.us = getelementptr i16, ptr null, i16 %j | ||
| %0 = load i16, ptr %arrayidx.us.us, align 1 | ||
|
||
| %cond = select i1 false, i16 0, i16 0 | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If you want to define an arbitrary value, it might be better to use
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, interchange doesn't care, it's the reproducer from the bug report, and it's short.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Future DA might care, when checking AliasAnalysis on whether the base pointers themselves alias. |
||
| br label %BB3 | ||
|
|
||
| BB3: | ||
| %j.next = add i16 %j, 1 | ||
| br i1 true, label %BB4, label %BB2 | ||
|
|
||
| BB4: | ||
| %new.cond.lcssa = phi i16 [ %cond, %BB3 ] | ||
| br label %BB5 | ||
|
|
||
| BB5: | ||
| %old.cond.lcssa = phi i16 [ %new.cond.lcssa, %BB4 ] | ||
| %i.next = add i64 %i, 1 | ||
| %cmp286.us = icmp ugt i64 %i, 0 | ||
| br i1 %cmp286.us, label %BB1, label %exit | ||
|
|
||
| exit: | ||
| ret i16 0 | ||
| } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consider iterating over
OuterLatch->phis(), and only adding those instructions to the list to be erased. That's the more established pattern.