| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Implements PR889
Removing the virtual table pointer from Value saves 1% of RSS when doing
LTO of llc on Linux. The impact on time was positive, but too noisy to
conclusively say that performance improved. Here is a link to the
spreadsheet with the original data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F4FHir0qYnV0MEp2sYYp_BuvnJgWlWPhWOwZ6LbW7W4/edit?usp=sharing
This change makes it invalid to directly delete a Value, User, or
Instruction pointer. Instead, such code can be rewritten to a null check
and a call Value::deleteValue(). Value objects tend to have their
lifetimes managed through iplist, so for the most part, this isn't a big
deal. However, there are some places where LLVM deletes values, and
those places had to be migrated to deleteValue. I have also created
llvm::unique_value, which has a custom deleter, so it can be used in
place of std::unique_ptr<Value>.
I had to add the "DerivedUser" Deleter escape hatch for MemorySSA, which
derives from User outside of lib/IR. Code in IR cannot include MemorySSA
headers or call the MemoryAccess object destructors without introducing
a circular dependency, so we need some level of indirection.
Unfortunately, no class derived from User may have any virtual methods,
because adding a virtual method would break User::getHungOffOperands(),
which assumes that it can find the use list immediately prior to the
User object. I've added a static_assert to the appropriate OperandTraits
templates to help people avoid this trap.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mehdi_amini, pete, dberlin, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: krytarowski, eraman, george.burgess.iv, mzolotukhin, Prazek, nlewycky, hans, inglorion, pcc, tejohnson, dberlin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31261
llvm-svn: 303362
|
