[InstCombine] Aggregate reconstruction simplification (PR47060)

[lebedev.ri]

Summary

This pattern happens in clang C++ exception lowering code, on unwind branch.
We end up having a landingpad block after each invoke, where RAII
cleanup is performed, and the elements of an aggregate {i8*, i32}
holding exception info are extractvalue'd, and we then branch to common block
that takes extracted i8* and i32 elements (via phi nodes),
form a new aggregate, and finally resume's the exception.

The problem is that, if the cleanup block is effectively empty,
it shouldn't be there, there shouldn't be that landingpad and resume,
said invoke should be a call.

Indeed, we do that simplification in e.g. SimplifyCFG SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume().
But the thing is, all this extra extractvalue + phi + insertvalue cruft,
while it is pointless, does not look like "empty cleanup block".
So the SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume() fails, and the exception is has
higher cost than it could have on unwind branch :S

This doesn't happen *that* often, but it will basically happen once per C++
function with complex CFG that called more than one other function
that isn't known to be nounwind.

I think, this is a missing fold in InstCombine, so i've implemented it.

I think, the algorithm/implementation is rather self-explanatory:

1. Find a chain of insertvalue's that fully tell us the initializer of the aggregate.
2. For each element, try to find from which aggregate it was extracted. If it was extracted from the aggregate with identical type, from identical element index, great.
3. If all elements were found to have been extracted from the same aggregate, then we can just use said original source aggregate directly, instead of re-creating it.
4. If we fail to find said aggregate when looking only in the current block, we need be PHI-aware - we might have different source aggregate when coming from each predecessor.

I'm not sure if this already handles everything, and there are some FIXME's,
i'll deal with all that later in followups.

I'd be fine with going with post-commit review here code-wise,
but just in case there are thoughts, i'm posting this.

On RawSpeed, for example, this has the following effect:

| statistic name                                    | baseline | proposed |     Δ |       % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified |        0 |     1253 |  1253 |   0.00% |  0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes                            |      948 |     1355 |   407 |  42.93% | 42.93% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst                      |     4382 |     3210 | -1172 | -26.75% | 26.75% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode                     |      574 |      458 |  -116 | -20.21% | 20.21% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs                   |     1154 |      921 |  -233 | -20.19% | 20.19% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst                     |    29017 |    26397 | -2620 |  -9.03% |  9.03% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst                           |   166618 |   174705 |  8087 |   4.85% |  4.85% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                              |    51526 |    50678 |  -848 |  -1.65% |  1.65% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst                       |    20865 |    20609 |  -256 |  -1.23% |  1.23% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst                           |    34023 |    33675 |  -348 |  -1.02% |  1.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl                              |   113634 |   114708 |  1074 |   0.95% |  0.95% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst                           |    15030 |    14930 |  -100 |  -0.67% |  0.67% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                             |   219544 |   219024 |  -520 |  -0.24% |  0.24% |
| instcombine.NumCombined                           |   644562 |   645805 |  1243 |   0.19% |  0.19% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                              |  2139506 |  2135377 | -4129 |  -0.19% |  0.19% |
| instcount.NumBrInst                               |   156988 |   156821 |  -167 |  -0.11% |  0.11% |
| instcount.NumCallInst                             |  1206144 |  1207076 |   932 |   0.08% |  0.08% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst                           |     5193 |     5190 |    -3 |  -0.06% |  0.06% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts                          |   948580 |   948299 |  -281 |  -0.03% |  0.03% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs                              |    11509 |    11507 |    -2 |  -0.02% |  0.02% |
| inline.NumDeleted                                 |    97595 |    97597 |     2 |   0.00% |  0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined                                 |   210514 |   210522 |     8 |   0.00% |  0.00% |

So we manage to increase the amount of invoke -> call conversions in SimplifyCFG by almost a half,
and there is a very apparent decrease in instruction and basic block count.

On vanilla llvm-test-suite:

| statistic name                                    | baseline | proposed |     Δ |       % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified |        0 |      744 |   744 |   0.00% |  0.00% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst                      |     2705 |     2053 |  -652 | -24.10% | 24.10% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes                            |     1212 |     1424 |   212 |  17.49% | 17.49% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst                     |    21681 |    20139 | -1542 |  -7.11% |  7.11% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs                   |    14575 |    14361 |  -214 |  -1.47% |  1.47% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode                     |     6815 |     6743 |   -72 |  -1.06% |  1.06% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst                       |    14851 |    14712 |  -139 |  -0.94% |  0.94% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst                           |    27510 |    27332 |  -178 |  -0.65% |  0.65% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst                           |  1438173 |  1443371 |  5198 |   0.36% |  0.36% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst                           |     2880 |     2872 |    -8 |  -0.28% |  0.28% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst                           |    55187 |    55076 |  -111 |  -0.20% |  0.20% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                              |   321366 |   320916 |  -450 |  -0.14% |  0.14% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks                             |   886816 |   886493 |  -323 |  -0.04% |  0.04% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                              |  7663845 |  7661108 | -2737 |  -0.04% |  0.04% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl                              |   886791 |   887171 |   380 |   0.04% |  0.04% |
| instcount.NumCallInst                             |   553552 |   553733 |   181 |   0.03% |  0.03% |
| instcombine.NumCombined                           |  3200512 |  3201202 |   690 |   0.02% |  0.02% |
| instcount.NumBrInst                               |   741794 |   741656 |  -138 |  -0.02% |  0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs                  |    14443 |    14445 |     2 |   0.01% |  0.01% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts                          |  7978085 |  7977916 |  -169 |   0.00% |  0.00% |
| inline.NumDeleted                                 |    73188 |    73189 |     1 |   0.00% |  0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined                                 |   291959 |   291968 |     9 |   0.00% |  0.00% |

Roughly similar effect, less instructions and blocks total.

See also: rGe492f0e03b01a5e4ec4b6333abb02d303c3e479e.

Compile-time wise, this appears to be roughly geomean-neutral:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=instructions

And this is a win size-wize in general:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=size-text

See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47060

[lebedev.ri]

One last tiny cleanup.

[lebedev.ri]

@ reviewers - i'm not so much interested in deep code/algo review,
but more like in the general direction disscussion, like, is this okay for instcombine? :)

I guess pre-merge check failures are relevant, and they show exactly the problem; will resolve in a bit.

[lebedev.ri]

Fix (overstepping) clang test being affected by this change.

[lebedev.ri]

Drop unneeded header include.

[spatel]

In D85787#2214038, @lebedev.ri wrote:

@ reviewers - i'm not so much interested in deep code/algo review,
but more like in the general direction disscussion, like, is this okay for instcombine? :)

The test diffs look great, and it seems to at least pay for itself in compile-time impact, so I think it's a good direction. There's always a question of "is this substantial enough (or would it grow enough with the 'TODO' items) to be a stand-alone pass?".

Haven't had a chance to look at the code itself yet. Do we have tests where there are extra uses of the extracted values?

[lebedev.ri]

@spatel thank you for taking a look!

In D85787#2216518, @spatel wrote:

In D85787#2214038, @lebedev.ri wrote:

@ reviewers - i'm not so much interested in deep code/algo review,
but more like in the general direction disscussion, like, is this okay for instcombine? :)

The test diffs look great, and it seems to at least pay for itself in compile-time impact, so I think it's a good direction.

There's always a question of "is this substantial enough (or would it grow enough with the 'TODO' items) to be a stand-alone pass?".

Yeah, i'm not sure. I don't really expect it to grow *that* much further after addressing TODO's.
This is a weird mix of GVN and CSE, with PHI awareness ontop. It doesn't really fit anywhere.
Also, i don't have any info on how making this fold a separate pass (and it's placement) would affect the results.

Haven't had a chance to look at the code itself yet.

Do we have tests where there are extra uses of the extracted values?

Sure we do :)

; This fold does not care whether or not intermediate instructions have extra uses.
define { i32, i32 } @test12({ i32, i32 } %srcagg) {

in llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/aggregate-reconstruction.ll.

[spatel]

This seems similar in spirit to the recursive element tracking that we do in collectShuffleElements() in this file or foldIdentityShuffles() in InstSimplify, but a bit more complicated (because of the phi translation?).
I've pointed out a few minor potential improvements, otherwise LGTM.

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineVectorOps.cpp

730

IIUC, you're intentionally giving the placeholder objects the same names as the enum values, but that confused me. Would it make sense to call this "InvalidValue" or similar?

778

Similar comment about the name as above for NotFound (and might be better to declare it on the next line after above?).

780

Spelling - "SourceAggregate"

855

Instead of switch, could we reduce to:

if (Describe(SourceAggForElt) != SourceAggregate::Found)
  return SourceAggForElt;

907

Best to give that "64" a name in case we want to experiment with other settings.

[lebedev.ri]

@spatel thank you for taking a look!

In D85787#2220343, @spatel wrote:

This seems similar in spirit to the recursive element tracking that we do in collectShuffleElements() in this file or foldIdentityShuffles() in InstSimplify, but a bit more complicated (because of the phi translation?).

I actually haven't seen those, but i would imagine that yes, having to deal with PHI's makes things slightly more complicated.

I've pointed out a few minor potential improvements, otherwise LGTM.

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineVectorOps.cpp

730

IIUC, you're intentionally giving the placeholder objects the same names as the enum values, but that confused me.

Yes. I first added enum, and then thought that it would be better to not
spell None; // SourceAggegate::NotFound / nullptr; // SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch
but literally just give them a name and spell them as close to the enum
values as possible, for obvious reasons of avoiding duplication/errors.

Would it make sense to call this "InvalidValue" or similar?

Do we want to change both the enum values and the variable names,
or just variables to be different from the enum values?

NotFound seems like a good fit to me, because with it we literally mean
that we can't tell what scalar value that element of an aggregate has.

InvalidValue doesn't really have any connotation to me,
but it does look kinda sorta similar to UndefValue, which i want to avoid.

So i'm not sure here.

855

Hm, i guess, thanks!
But we still need the inner switch.

907

Do you mean a cl::opt, or just a local static const variable?
I'll do the latter for now.

[lebedev.ri]

Patch updated - addressed all nits other than the question about decoupling enum values from variable names.

clang/test/CodeGenCXX/nrvo.cpp

X test2(bool B) {
 
   // %if.then: returning 'x'
   // CHECK-EH:      invoke {{.*}} @_ZN1XC1ERKS_
   // -> %cleanup, %lpad1
 
   // %lpad: landing pad for ctor of 'y', dtor of 'y'
   // CHECK-EH:      [[CAUGHTVAL:%.*]] = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
   // CHECK-EH-NEXT:   cleanup
-  // CHECK-EH-NEXT: extractvalue { i8*, i32 } [[CAUGHTVAL]], 0
-  // CHECK-EH-NEXT: extractvalue { i8*, i32 } [[CAUGHTVAL]], 1
+  // CHECK-EH-03-NEXT: extractvalue { i8*, i32 } [[CAUGHTVAL]], 0
+  // CHECK-EH-03-NEXT: extractvalue { i8*, i32 } [[CAUGHTVAL]], 1
   // CHECK-EH-NEXT: br label
   // -> %eh.cleanup
 
   // %lpad1: landing pad for return copy ctors, EH cleanup for 'y'
   // CHECK-EH-03: invoke {{.*}} @_ZN1XD1Ev
   // -> %eh.cleanup, %terminate.lpad
   // CHECK-EH-11: call   {{.*}} @_ZN1XD1Ev
 

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineInternal.h

public:
   Instruction *visitLoadInst(LoadInst &LI);
   Instruction *visitStoreInst(StoreInst &SI);
   Instruction *visitAtomicRMWInst(AtomicRMWInst &SI);
   Instruction *visitUnconditionalBranchInst(BranchInst &BI);
   Instruction *visitBranchInst(BranchInst &BI);
   Instruction *visitFenceInst(FenceInst &FI);
   Instruction *visitSwitchInst(SwitchInst &SI);
   Instruction *visitReturnInst(ReturnInst &RI);
+  Instruction *
+  foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse(InsertValueInst &OrigIVI);
   Instruction *visitInsertValueInst(InsertValueInst &IV);
   Instruction *visitInsertElementInst(InsertElementInst &IE);
   Instruction *visitExtractElementInst(ExtractElementInst &EI);
   Instruction *visitShuffleVectorInst(ShuffleVectorInst &SVI);
   Instruction *visitExtractValueInst(ExtractValueInst &EV);
   Instruction *visitLandingPadInst(LandingPadInst &LI);
   Instruction *visitVAEndInst(VAEndInst &I);
   Instruction *visitFreeze(FreezeInst &I);

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineVectorOps.cpp

 
 #include "InstCombineInternal.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/APInt.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/DenseMap.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/SmallBitVector.h"
 #include "llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.h"
 #include "llvm/Analysis/VectorUtils.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/Constant.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/DerivedTypes.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/InstrTypes.h"
 #include "llvm/IR/Instruction.h"

 #include <iterator>
 #include <utility>
 
 using namespace llvm;
 using namespace PatternMatch;
 
 #define DEBUG_TYPE "instcombine"
 
+STATISTIC(NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified,
+          "Number of aggregate reconstructions turned into reuse of the "
+          "original aggregate");
+
 /// Return true if the value is cheaper to scalarize than it is to leave as a
 /// vector operation. IsConstantExtractIndex indicates whether we are extracting
 /// one known element from a vector constant.
 ///
 /// FIXME: It's possible to create more instructions than previously existed.
 static bool cheapToScalarize(Value *V, bool IsConstantExtractIndex) {
   // If we can pick a scalar constant value out of a vector, that is free.
   if (auto *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V))
static ShuffleOps collectShuffleElements(Value *V, SmallVectorImpl<int> &Mask,
   }
 
   // Otherwise, we can't do anything fancy. Return an identity vector.
   for (unsigned i = 0; i != NumElts; ++i)
     Mask.push_back(i);
   return std::make_pair(V, nullptr);
 }
 
+/// Look for chain of insertvalue's that fully define an aggregate, and trace
+/// back the values inserted, see if they are all were extractvalue'd from
+/// the same source aggregate from the exact same element indexes.
+/// If they were, just reuse the source aggregate.
+/// This potentially deals with PHI indirections.
+Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse(
+    InsertValueInst &OrigIVI) {
+  BasicBlock *UseBB = OrigIVI.getParent();
+  Type *AggTy = OrigIVI.getType();
+  unsigned NumAggElts;
+  switch (AggTy->getTypeID()) {
+  case Type::StructTyID:
+    NumAggElts = AggTy->getStructNumElements();
+    break;
+  case Type::ArrayTyID:
+    NumAggElts = AggTy->getArrayNumElements();
+    break;
+  default:
+    llvm_unreachable("Unhandled aggregate type?");
+  }
+
+  // Arbitrary aggregate size cut-off. Motivation for limit of 2 is to be able
+  // to handle clang C++ exception struct (which is hardcoded as {i8*, i32}),
+  // FIXME: any interesting patterns to be caught with larger limit?
+  assert(NumAggElts > 0 && "Aggregate should have elements.");
+  if (NumAggElts > 2)
+    return nullptr;
+
+  static constexpr auto NotFound = None;
+
+  // Try to find a value of each element of an aggregate.
+  // FIXME: deal with more complex, not one-dimensional, aggregate types
+  SmallVector<Optional<Value *>, 2> AggElts(NumAggElts, NotFound);
+
+  // Do we know values for each element of the aggregate?
+  auto KnowAllElts = [&AggElts]() {
+    return all_of(AggElts,
+                  [](Optional<Value *> Elt) { return Elt != NotFound; });
+  };
+
+  int Depth = 0;
+
+  // Arbitrary `insertvalue` visitation depth limit. Let's be okay with
+  // every element being overwritten twice, which should never happen.
+  static const int DepthLimit = 2 * NumAggElts;
+
+  // Recurse up the chain of `insertvalue` aggregate operands until either we've
+  // reconstructed full initializer or can't visit any more `insertvalue`'s.
+  for (InsertValueInst *CurrIVI = &OrigIVI;
+       Depth < DepthLimit && CurrIVI && !KnowAllElts();
+       CurrIVI = dyn_cast<InsertValueInst>(CurrIVI->getAggregateOperand()),
+                       ++Depth) {
+    Value *InsertedValue = CurrIVI->getInsertedValueOperand();
+    ArrayRef<unsigned int> Indices = CurrIVI->getIndices();
+
+    // Don't bother with more than single-level aggregates.
+    if (Indices.size() != 1)
+      return nullptr; // FIXME: deal with more complex aggregates?
+
+    // Now, we may have already previously recorded the value for this element
+    // of an aggregate. If we did, that means the CurrIVI will later be
+    // overwritten with the already-recorded value. But if not, let's record it!
+    Optional<Value *> &Elt = AggElts[Indices.front()];
+    Elt = Elt.getValueOr(InsertedValue);
+
+    // FIXME: should we handle chain-terminating undef base operand?
+  }
+
+  // Was that sufficient to deduce the full initializer for the aggregate?
+  if (!KnowAllElts())
+    return nullptr; // Give up then.
+
+  // We now want to find the source[s] of the aggregate elements we've found.
+  // And with "source" we mean the original aggregate[s] from which
+  // the inserted elements were extracted. This may require PHI translation.
+
+  static constexpr auto FoundMismatch = nullptr;
+
+  enum class SourceAggegate {
+    /// When analyzing the value that was inserted into an aggregate, we did
+    /// not manage to find defining `extractvalue` instruction to analyze.
+    NotFound,
+    /// When analyzing the value that was inserted into an aggregate, we did
+    /// manage to find defining `extractvalue` instruction[s], and everything
+    /// matched perfectly - aggregate type, element insertion/extraction index.
+    Found,
+    /// When analyzing the value that was inserted into an aggregate, we did
+    /// manage to find defining `extractvalue` instruction, but there was
+    /// a mismatch: either the source type from which the extraction was didn't
+    /// match the aggregate type into which the insertion was,
+    /// or the extraction/insertion channels mismatched,
+    /// or different elements had different source aggregates.
+    FoundMismatch
+  };
+  auto Describe = [](Optional<Value *> SourceAggregate) {
+    if (SourceAggregate == NotFound)
+      return SourceAggegate::NotFound;
+    if (*SourceAggregate == FoundMismatch)
+      return SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch;
+    return SourceAggegate::Found;
+  };
+
+  // Given the value \p Elt that was being inserted into element \p EltIdx of an
+  // aggregate AggTy, see if \p Elt was originally defined by an
+  // appropriate extractvalue (same element index, same aggregate type).
+  // If found, return the source aggregate from which the extraction was.
+  // If \p PredBB is provided, does PHI translation of an \p Elt first.
+  auto FindSourceAggregate =
+      [&](Value *Elt, unsigned EltIdx,
+          Optional<BasicBlock *> PredBB) -> Optional<Value *> {
+    // For now(?), only deal with, at most, a single level of PHI indirection.
+    if (PredBB)
+      Elt = Elt->DoPHITranslation(UseBB, *PredBB);
+    // FIXME: deal with multiple levels of PHI indirection?
+
+    // Did we find an extraction?
+    auto *EVI = dyn_cast<ExtractValueInst>(Elt);
+    if (!EVI)
+      return NotFound;
+
+    Value *SourceAggregate = EVI->getAggregateOperand();
+
+    // Is the extraction from the same type into which the insertion was?
+    if (SourceAggregate->getType() != AggTy)
+      return FoundMismatch;
+    // And the element index doesn't change between extraction and insertion?
+    if (EVI->getNumIndices() != 1 || EltIdx != EVI->getIndices().front())
+      return FoundMismatch;
+
+    return SourceAggregate; // SourceAggegate::Found
+  };
+
+  // Given elements AggElts that were constructing an aggregate OrigIVI,
+  // see if we can find appropriate source aggregate for each of the elements,
+  // and see it's the same aggregate for each element. If so, return it.
+  auto FindCommonSourceAggregate =
+      [&](Optional<BasicBlock *> PredBB) -> Optional<Value *> {
+    Optional<Value *> SourceAggregate;
+
+    for (auto I : enumerate(AggElts)) {
+      assert(Describe(SourceAggregate) != SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch &&
+             "We don't store nullptr in SourceAggregate!");
+      assert((Describe(SourceAggregate) == SourceAggegate::Found) ==
+                 (I.index() != 0) &&
+             "SourceAggregate should be valid after the the first element,");
+
+      // For this element, is there a plausible source aggregate?
+      // FIXME: we could special-case undef element, IFF we know that in the
+      //        source aggregate said element isn't poison.
+      Optional<Value *> SourceAggregateForElement =
+          FindSourceAggregate(*I.value(), I.index(), PredBB);
+
+      // Okay, what have we found? Does that correlate with previous findings?
+      switch (Describe(SourceAggregateForElement)) {
+      case SourceAggegate::NotFound:
+      case SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch:
+        // Regardless of whether or not we have previously found source
+        // aggregate for previous elements (if any), if we didn't find one for
+        // this element, passthrough whatever we have just found.
+        return SourceAggregateForElement;
+      case SourceAggegate::Found:
+        // Okay, we have found source aggregate for this element.
+        // Let's see what we already know from previous elements, if any.
+        switch (Describe(SourceAggregate)) {
+        case SourceAggegate::NotFound:
+          // This is apparently the first element that we have examined.
+          SourceAggregate = SourceAggregateForElement; // Record the aggregate!
+          continue; // Great, now look at next element.
+        case SourceAggegate::Found:
+          // We have previously already successfully examined other elements.
+          // Is this the same source aggregate we've found for other elements?
+          if (*SourceAggregateForElement != *SourceAggregate)
+            return FoundMismatch;
+          continue; // Still the same aggregate, look at next element.
+        case SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch:
+          llvm_unreachable("Can't happen. We would have early-exited then.");
+        };
+      };
+    }
+
+    assert(Describe(SourceAggregate) == SourceAggegate::Found &&
+           "Must be a valid Value");
+    return *SourceAggregate;
+  };
+
+  Optional<Value *> SourceAggregate;
+
+  // Can we find the source aggregate without looking at predecessors?
+  SourceAggregate = FindCommonSourceAggregate(/*PredBB=*/None);
+  if (Describe(SourceAggregate) != SourceAggegate::NotFound) {
+    if (Describe(SourceAggregate) == SourceAggegate::FoundMismatch)
+      return nullptr; // Conflicting source aggregates!
+    ++NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified;
+    return replaceInstUsesWith(OrigIVI, *SourceAggregate);
+  }
+
+  // If we didn't manage to find source aggregate without looking at
+  // predecessors, and there are no predecessors to look at, then we're done.
+  if (pred_empty(UseBB))
+    return nullptr;
+
+  // Okay, apparently we need to look at predecessors.
+
+  // Arbitrary predecessor count limit.
+  // Don't bother if there are more than 64 predecessors.
+  if (UseBB->hasNPredecessorsOrMore(64 + 1))
+    return nullptr;
+
+  // For each predecessor, what is the source aggregate,
+  // from which all the elements were originally extracted from?
+  // Note that we want for the map to have stable iteration order!
+  SmallMapVector<BasicBlock *, Value *, 4> SourceAggregates;
+  for (BasicBlock *Pred : predecessors(UseBB)) {
+    std::pair<decltype(SourceAggregates)::iterator, bool> IV =
+        SourceAggregates.insert({Pred, nullptr});
+    // Did we already evaluate this predecessor?
+    if (!IV.second)
+      continue;
+
+    // Let's hope that when coming from predecessor Pred, all elements of the
+    // aggregate produced by OrigIVI must have been originally extracted from
+    // the same aggregate. Is that so? Can we find said original aggregate?
+    SourceAggregate = FindCommonSourceAggregate(Pred);
+    if (Describe(SourceAggregate) != SourceAggegate::Found)
+      return nullptr; // Give up.
+    IV.first->second = *SourceAggregate;
+  }
+
+  // All good! Now we just need to thread the source aggregates here.
+  auto *PHI = PHINode::Create(AggTy, SourceAggregates.size(),
+                              OrigIVI.getName() + ".merged");
+  for (const std::pair<BasicBlock *, Value *> &SourceAggregate :
+       SourceAggregates)
+    PHI->addIncoming(SourceAggregate.second, SourceAggregate.first);
+
+  ++NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified;
+  return PHI;
+};
+
 /// Try to find redundant insertvalue instructions, like the following ones:
 ///  %0 = insertvalue { i8, i32 } undef, i8 %x, 0
 ///  %1 = insertvalue { i8, i32 } %0,    i8 %y, 0
 /// Here the second instruction inserts values at the same indices, as the
 /// first one, making the first one redundant.
 /// It should be transformed to:
 ///  %0 = insertvalue { i8, i32 } undef, i8 %y, 0
 Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitInsertValueInst(InsertValueInst &I) {
if (UserInsInst->getIndices() == FirstIndices) {
       break;
     }
     V = UserInsInst;
     Depth++;
   }
 
   if (IsRedundant)
     return replaceInstUsesWith(I, I.getOperand(0));
+
+  if (Instruction *NewI = foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse(I))
+    return NewI;
+
   return nullptr;
 }
 
 static bool isShuffleEquivalentToSelect(ShuffleVectorInst &Shuf) {
   // Can not analyze scalable type, the number of elements is not a compile-time
   // constant.
   if (isa<ScalableVectorType>(Shuf.getOperand(0)->getType()))
     return false;

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstructionCombining.cpp

if (Instruction *Result = visit(*I)) {
 
         // Move the name to the new instruction first.
         Result->takeName(I);
 
         // Insert the new instruction into the basic block...
         BasicBlock *InstParent = I->getParent();
         BasicBlock::iterator InsertPos = I->getIterator();
 
-        // If we replace a PHI with something that isn't a PHI, fix up the
-        // insertion point.
-        if (!isa<PHINode>(Result) && isa<PHINode>(InsertPos))
+        // Are we replace a PHI with something that isn't a PHI, or vice versa?
+        if (isa<PHINode>(Result) != isa<PHINode>(I)) {
+          // We need to fix up the insertion point.
+          if (isa<PHINode>(I)) // PHI -> Non-PHI
             InsertPos = InstParent->getFirstInsertionPt();
+          else // Non-PHI -> PHI
+            InsertPos = InstParent->getFirstNonPHI()->getIterator();
+        }
 
         InstParent->getInstList().insert(InsertPos, Result);
 
         // Push the new instruction and any users onto the worklist.
         Worklist.pushUsersToWorkList(*Result);
         Worklist.push(Result);
 
         eraseInstFromFunction(*I);

llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/aggregate-reconstruction.ll

 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
 ; RUN: opt -S -instcombine < %s | FileCheck %s
 
 declare void @foo()
 declare void @bar()
 declare void @baz()
 
 declare void @usei32(i32)
 declare void @usei32i32agg({ i32, i32 })
 
 ; Most basic test - we explode the original aggregate into it's elements,
 ; and then merge them back together exactly the way they were.
 ; We should just return the source aggregate.
 define { i32, i32 } @test0({ i32, i32 } %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test0(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I2]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]]
 ;
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %i0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i2, i32 %i1, 1
   ret { i32, i32 } %i3
 }
 
 ; Arrays are still aggregates
 define [2 x i32] @test1([2 x i32] %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test1(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue [2 x i32] [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue [2 x i32] [[SRCAGG]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue [2 x i32] undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue [2 x i32] [[I2]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret [2 x i32] [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret [2 x i32] [[SRCAGG:%.*]]
 ;
   %i0 = extractvalue [2 x i32] %srcagg, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue [2 x i32] %srcagg, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue [2 x i32] undef, i32 %i0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue [2 x i32] %i2, i32 %i1, 1
   ret [2 x i32] %i3
 }
 
;
   %i2 = insertvalue {{ i32, i32 }} undef, i32 %i0, 0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue {{ i32, i32 }} %i2, i32 %i1, 0, 1
   ret {{ i32, i32 }} %i3
 }
 
 ; This is fine, however, all elements are on the same level
 define { i32, { i32 } } @test4({ i32, { i32 } } %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test4(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, { i32 } } [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, { i32 } } [[SRCAGG]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, { i32 } } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, { i32 } } [[I2]], { i32 } [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, { i32 } } [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, { i32 } } [[SRCAGG:%.*]]
 ;
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, { i32 } } %srcagg, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, { i32 } } %srcagg, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, { i32 } } undef, i32 %i0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, { i32 } } %i2, { i32 } %i1, 1
   ret { i32, { i32 } } %i3
 }
 

 define { i32, i32 } @test12({ i32, i32 } %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test12(
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @usei32(i32 [[I0]])
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @usei32(i32 [[I1]])
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @usei32i32agg({ i32, i32 } [[I2]])
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I2]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG]]
 ;
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 0
   call void @usei32(i32 %i0)
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 1
   call void @usei32(i32 %i1)
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %i0, 0
   call void @usei32i32agg({ i32, i32 } %i2)
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i2, i32 %i1, 1
   ret { i32, i32 } %i3
 }
 
 ; Even though we originally store %i1 into first element, it is later
 ; overwritten with %i0, so all is fine.
 define { i32, i32 } @test13({ i32, i32 } %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test13(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I4:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I3]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I4]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]]
 ;
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %i1, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i2, i32 %i0, 0
   %i4 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i3, i32 %i1, 1
   ret { i32, i32 } %i4
 }

 }
 
 ; Just because there are predecessors doesn't mean we should look into them.
 define { i32, i32 } @test16({ i32, i32 } %srcagg) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test16(
 ; CHECK-NEXT:  entry:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[END:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       end:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I2]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG:%.*]]
 ;
 entry:
   br label %end
 end:
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %i0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i2, i32 %i1, 1
   ret { i32, i32 } %i3
 }
 
 ; Again, we should first try to perform local reasoning, without looking to predecessors.
 define { i32, i32 } @test17({ i32, i32 } %srcagg0, { i32, i32 } %srcagg1, i1 %c) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test17(
 ; CHECK-NEXT:  entry:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br i1 [[C:%.*]], label [[INTERMEDIATE:%.*]], label [[END:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       intermediate:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[END]]
 ; CHECK:       end:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SRCAGG_PHI:%.*]] = phi { i32, i32 } [ [[SRCAGG0:%.*]], [[ENTRY:%.*]] ], [ [[SRCAGG1:%.*]], [[INTERMEDIATE]] ]
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG_PHI]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I1:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG_PHI]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I0]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I2]], i32 [[I1]], 1
-; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I3]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[SRCAGG_PHI]]
 ;
 entry:
   br i1 %c, label %intermediate, label %end
 intermediate:
   br label %end
 end:
   %srcagg.phi = phi { i32, i32 } [ %srcagg0, %entry ], [ %srcagg1, %intermediate ]
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg.phi, 0
   %i1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %srcagg.phi, 1
   %i2 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %i0, 0
   %i3 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %i2, i32 %i1, 1
   ret { i32, i32 } %i3
 }

llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/phi-aware-aggregate-reconstruction.ll

 declare void @usei32i32agg({ i32, i32 })
 
 ; Most basic test - diamond structure
 define { i32, i32 } @test0({ i32, i32 } %agg_left, { i32, i32 } %agg_right, i1 %c) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test0(
 ; CHECK-NEXT:  entry:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br i1 [[C:%.*]], label [[LEFT:%.*]], label [[RIGHT:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       left:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_LEFT:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_LEFT]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @foo()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[END:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       right:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_RIGHT:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I4:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_RIGHT]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @bar()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[END]]
 ; CHECK:       end:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I5:%.*]] = phi i32 [ [[I0]], [[LEFT]] ], [ [[I3]], [[RIGHT]] ]
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I6:%.*]] = phi i32 [ [[I2]], [[LEFT]] ], [ [[I4]], [[RIGHT]] ]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I8:%.*]] = phi { i32, i32 } [ [[AGG_RIGHT:%.*]], [[RIGHT]] ], [ [[AGG_LEFT:%.*]], [[LEFT]] ]
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @baz()
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I7:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I5]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I8:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I7]], i32 [[I6]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I8]]
 ;
 entry:
   br i1 %c, label %left, label %right
 
 left:
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %agg_left, 0
   %i2 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %agg_left, 1

 }
 
 ; But here since we start without an explicit self-cycle, we already manage to fold it.
 define { i32, i32 } @test5({ i32, i32 } %agg_left, { i32, i32 } %agg_right, i1 %c0) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @test5(
 ; CHECK-NEXT:  entry:
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br i1 [[C0:%.*]], label [[LEFT:%.*]], label [[RIGHT:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       left:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I0:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_LEFT:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I2:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_LEFT]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @foo()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[MIDDLE:%.*]]
 ; CHECK:       right:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I3:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_RIGHT:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I4:%.*]] = extractvalue { i32, i32 } [[AGG_RIGHT]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @bar()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[MIDDLE]]
 ; CHECK:       middle:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I5:%.*]] = phi i32 [ [[I0]], [[LEFT]] ], [ [[I3]], [[RIGHT]] ], [ [[I5]], [[MIDDLE]] ]
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I6:%.*]] = phi i32 [ [[I2]], [[LEFT]] ], [ [[I4]], [[RIGHT]] ], [ [[I6]], [[MIDDLE]] ]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I8:%.*]] = phi { i32, i32 } [ [[I8]], [[MIDDLE]] ], [ [[AGG_RIGHT:%.*]], [[RIGHT]] ], [ [[AGG_LEFT:%.*]], [[LEFT]] ]
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    call void @baz()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    [[C1:%.*]] = call i1 @geni1()
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    br i1 [[C1]], label [[END:%.*]], label [[MIDDLE]]
 ; CHECK:       end:
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I7:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 [[I5]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[I8:%.*]] = insertvalue { i32, i32 } [[I7]], i32 [[I6]], 1
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret { i32, i32 } [[I8]]
 ;
 entry:
   br i1 %c0, label %left, label %right
 
 left:
   %i0 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %agg_left, 0
   %i2 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %agg_left, 1