| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This pass is unnecessary and overly conservative. It was motivated by
situations like
def %vreg0:SGPR_32
...
if-block:
..
def %vreg1:SGPR_32
...
else-block:
...
use %vreg0:SGPR_32
...
and similar situations with uses after the non-uniform control flow, where
we are not allowed to assign %vreg0 and %vreg1 to the same physical register,
even though in the original, thread/workitem-based CFG, it looks like the
live ranges of these registers do not overlap.
However, by the time register allocation runs, we have moved to a wave-based
CFG that accurately represents the fact that the wave may run through both
the if- and the else-block. So the live ranges of %vreg0 and %vreg1 already
overlap even without the SIFixSGPRLiveRanges pass.
In addition to proving this change correct, I have tested it with Piglit
and a small number of other tests.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: MatzeB, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19041
llvm-svn: 266345
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: mareko, MatzeB, qcolombet, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16603
llvm-svn: 260765
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
One of the changes in lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUMCInstLower.cpp was a new
one. Previously, bundle iterators and single-instruction iterators
could be compared to each other (comparing on underlying pointers).
I changed a comparison from using `MBB->end()` to using
`MBB->instr_end()`, since both end iterators should point at the some
place anyway.
I don't think the implicit conversion between the two iterator types is
a good idea since it's fairly easy to accidentally compare to the wrong
thing (they aren't always end iterators). Otherwise I would have just
added the conversion.
Even with that, no there should be functionality change here.
llvm-svn: 250218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Replace LiveInterval usage with LiveVariables. LiveIntervals
computes far more information than is needed for this pass
which just needs to find if an SGPR is live out of the
defining block.
LiveIntervals are not usually available that early, requiring
computing them twice which is very expensive. The extra run of
LiveIntervals/LiveVariables/SlotIndexes was costing in total
about 5% of compile time.
Continuing to use LiveIntervals is problematic. It seems
there is an option (early-live-intervals) to run the analysis
about where it should go to avoid recomputing LiveVariables,
but it seems to be completely broken with subreg liveness
enabled. There are also problems from trying to recompute
LiveIntervals since this seems to undo LiveVariables
and clearing kill flags, causing TwoAddressInstructions
to make bad decisions.
Insert the pass right after live variables and preserve it.
The tricky case to worry about might be phis since
LiveVariables doesn't count a register as live out if
in the successor block it is only used in a phi,
but I don't think this is a concern right now
because SIFixSGPRCopies replaces SGPR phis.
llvm-svn: 249087
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 246056
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 245772
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 245768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When trying to fix SGPR live ranges, skip defs that are
killed in the same block as the def. I don't think
we need to worry about these cases as long as the
live ranges of the SGPRs in dominating blocks are
correct.
This reduces the number of elements the second
loop over the function needs to look at, and makes
it generally easier to understand. The second loop
also only considers if the live range is live
in to a block, which logically means it
must have been live out from another.
llvm-svn: 245150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is simple but won't work if/when this pass
is moved to be post-SSA.
llvm-svn: 245134
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Does not mark SlotIndexes as reserved, although I think
that might be OK.
LiveVariables still need to be handled.
llvm-svn: 245133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These shouldn't ever be null. The number of successors
was already asserted to be 2.
llvm-svn: 245132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
True branch instructions do behave as expected with liveness.
Avoid the phrasing "branch decision is based on a value in an SGPR"
because this could be misleading. A VALU compare instruction's
result is still based on an SGPR, even though that condition
may be divergent.
llvm-svn: 245131
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 244402
|
|
llvm-svn: 239657
|