| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a module-specific interface. This is the first of many steps necessary
to generalize the infrastructure such that we can support both
a Module-to-Function and Module-to-SCC-to-Function pass manager
nestings.
After a *lot* of attempts that never worked and didn't even make it to
a committable state, it became clear that I had gotten the layering
design of analyses flat out wrong. Four days later, I think I have most
of the plan for how to correct this, and I'm starting to reshape the
code into it. This is just a baby step I'm afraid, but starts separating
the fundamentally distinct concepts of function analysis passes and
module analysis passes so that in subsequent steps we can effectively
layer them, and have a consistent design for the eventual SCC layer.
As part of this, I've started some interface changes to make passes more
regular. The module pass accepts the module in the run method, and some
of the constructor parameters are gone. I'm still working out exactly
where constructor parameters vs. method parameters will be used, so
I expect this to fluctuate a bit.
This actually makes the invalidation less "correct" at this phase,
because now function passes don't invalidate module analysis passes, but
that was actually somewhat of a misfeature. It will return in a better
factored form which can scale to other units of IR. The documentation
has gotten less verbose and helpful.
llvm-svn: 195189
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
AaronBallman. Thanks for the excellent review.
llvm-svn: 194857
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
pulling them under 80-columns. No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 194856
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
more smarts in it. This is where most of the interesting logic that used
to live in the implicit-scheduling-hackery of the old pass manager will
live.
Like the previous commits, note that this is a very early prototype!
I expect substantial changes before this is ready to use.
The core of the design is the following:
- We have an AnalysisManager which can be used across a series of
passes over a module.
- The code setting up a pass pipeline registers the analyses available
with the manager.
- Individual transform passes can check than an analysis manager
provides the analyses they require in order to fail-fast.
- There is *no* implicit registration or scheduling.
- Analysis passes are different from other passes: they produce an
analysis result that is cached and made available via the analysis
manager.
- Cached results are invalidated automatically by the pass managers.
- When a transform pass requests an analysis result, either the analysis
is run to produce the result or a cached result is provided.
There are a few aspects of this design that I *know* will change in
subsequent commits:
- Currently there is no "preservation" system, that needs to be added.
- All of the analysis management should move up to the analysis library.
- The analysis management needs to support at least SCC passes. Maybe
loop passes. Living in the analysis library will facilitate this.
- Need support for analyses which are *both* module and function passes.
- Need support for pro-actively running module analyses to have cached
results within a function pass manager.
- Need a clear design for "immutable" passes.
- Need support for requesting cached results when available and not
re-running the pass even if that would be necessary.
- Need more thorough testing of all of this infrastructure.
There are other aspects that I view as open questions I'm hoping to
resolve as I iterate a bit on the infrastructure, and especially as
I start writing actual passes against this.
- Should we have separate management layers for function, module, and
SCC analyses? I think "yes", but I'm not yet ready to switch the code.
Adding SCC support will likely resolve this definitively.
- How should the 'require' functionality work? Should *that* be the only
way to request results to ensure that passes always require things?
- How should preservation work?
- Probably some other things I'm forgetting. =]
Look forward to more patches in shorter order now that this is in place.
llvm-svn: 194538
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
give the files a legacy prefix in the right directory. Use forwarding
headers in the old locations to paper over the name change for most
clients during the transitional period.
No functionality changed here! This is just clearing some space to
reduce renaming churn later on with a new system.
Even when the new stuff starts to go in, it is going to be hidden behind
a flag and off-by-default as it is still WIP and under development.
This patch is specifically designed so that very little out-of-tree code
has to change. I'm going to work as hard as I can to keep that the case.
Only direct forward declarations of the PassManager class are impacted
by this change.
llvm-svn: 194324
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Working on a better solution to this.
This reverts commit 7d4e9934e7ca83094c5cf41346966c8350179ff2.
llvm-svn: 190990
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This puts all the global PassManager debugging flags, like
-print-after-all and -time-passes, behind a managed static. This
eliminates their static initializers and, more importantly, exit-time
destructors.
The only behavioral change I anticipate is that tools need to
initialize the PassManager before parsing the command line in order to
export these options, which makes sense. Tools that already initialize
the standard passes (opt/llc) don't need to do anything new.
llvm-svn: 190974
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 190973
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
specifying the vector size.
llvm-svn: 185540
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
constructor enables
Patch by Robert Wilhelm.
llvm-svn: 181138
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 178662
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
reduces the pass-manager overhead from FPPassManager::runOnFunction() by about 10%.
llvm-svn: 176072
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 174492
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
|
|
|
Aside from moving the actual files, this patch only updates the build
system and the source file comments under lib/... that are relevant.
I'll be updating other docs and other files in smaller subsequnet
commits.
While I've tried to test this, but it is entirely possible that there
will still be some build system fallout.
Also, note that I've not changed the library name itself: libLLVMCore.a
is still the library name. I'd be interested in others' opinions about
whether we should rename this as well (I think we should, just not sure
what it might break)
llvm-svn: 171359
|
