| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a standalone pass.
There is no call graph or even interesting analysis for this part of
function attributes -- it is literally inferring attributes based on the
target library identification. As such, we can do it using a much
simpler module pass that just walks the declarations. This can also
happen much earlier in the pass pipeline which has benefits for any
number of other passes.
In the process, I've cleaned up one particular aspect of the logic which
was necessary in order to separate the two passes cleanly. It now counts
inferred attributes independently rather than just counting all the
inferred attributes as one, and the counts are more clearly explained.
The two test cases we had for this code path are both ... woefully
inadequate and copies of each other. I've kept the superset test and
updated it. We need more testing here, but I had to pick somewhere to
stop fixing everything broken I saw here.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15676
llvm-svn: 256466
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
is (by default) run much earlier than FuncitonAttrs proper.
This allows forcing optnone or other widely impactful attributes. It is
also a bit simpler as the force attribute behavior needs no specific
iteration order.
I've added the pass into the default module pass pipeline and LTO pass
pipeline which mirrors where function attrs itself was being run.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15668
llvm-svn: 256465
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a really straightforward port. Also adds a test for the pass,
since it only seemed to be tested tangentially before.
llvm-svn: 251726
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 251725
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some ways this is a very boring port to the new pass manager as there
are no interesting analyses or dependencies or other oddities.
However, this does introduce the first good example of a transformation
pass with non-trivial state porting to the new pass manager. I've tried
to carve out patterns here to replicate elsewhere, and would appreciate
comments on whether folks like these patterns:
- A common need in the new pass manager is to effectively lift the pass
class and some of its state into a public header file. Prior to this,
LLVM used anonymous namespaces to provide "module private" types and
utilities, but that doesn't scale to cases where a public header file
is needed and the new pass manager will exacerbate that. The pattern
I've adopted here is to use the namespace-cased-name of the core pass
(what would be a module if we had them) as a module-private namespace.
Then utility and other code can be declared and defined in this
namespace. At some point in the future, we could even have
(conditionally compiled) code that used modules features when
available to do the same basic thing.
- I've split the actual pass run method in two in order to expose
a private method usable by the old pass manager to wrap the new class
with a minimum of duplicated code. I actually looked at a bunch of
ways to automate or generate these, but they are all quite terrible
IMO. The fundamental need is to extract the set of analyses which need
to cross this interface boundary, and that will end up being too
unpredictable to effectively encapsulate IMO. This is also
a relatively small amount of boiler plate that will live a relatively
short time, so I'm not too worried about the fact that it is boiler
plate.
The rest of the patch is totally boring but results in a massive diff
(sorry). It just moves code around and removes or adds qualifiers to
reflect the new name and nesting structure.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12773
llvm-svn: 247501
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
folding the code into the main Analysis library.
There already wasn't much of a distinction between Analysis and IPA.
A number of the passes in Analysis are actually IPA passes, and there
doesn't seem to be any advantage to separating them.
Moreover, it makes it hard to have interactions between analyses that
are both local and interprocedural. In trying to make the Alias Analysis
infrastructure work with the new pass manager, it becomes particularly
awkward to navigate this split.
I've tried to find all the places where we referenced this, but I may
have missed some. I have also adjusted the C API to continue to be
equivalently functional after this change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12075
llvm-svn: 245318
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
generation.
llvm-svn: 231558
|
|
|
This will provide the analogous replacements for the PassManagerBuilder
and other code long term. This code is extracted from the opt tool
currently, and I plan to extend it as I build up support for using the
new pass manager in Clang and other places.
Mailing this out for review in part to let folks comment on the terrible names
here. A brief word about why I chose the names I did.
The library is called "Passes" to try and make it clear that it is a high-level
utility and where *all* of the passes come together and are registered in
a common library. I didn't want it to be *limited* to a registry though, the
registry is just one component.
The class is a "PassBuilder" but this name I'm less happy with. It doesn't
build passes in any traditional sense and isn't a Builder-style API at all. The
class is a PassRegisterer or PassAdder, but neither of those really make a lot
of sense. This class is responsible for constructing passes for registry in an
analysis manager or for population of a pass pipeline. If anyone has a better
name, I would love to hear it. The other candidate I looked at was
PassRegistrar, but that doesn't really fit either. There is no register of all
the passes in use, and so I think continuing the "registry" analog outside of
the registry of pass *names* and *types* is a mistake. The objects themselves
are just objects with the new pass manager.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8054
llvm-svn: 231556
|
