| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 250787
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Apparently, the style needs to be agreed upon first.
llvm-svn: 240390
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When I fixed these a couple of days ago to iterate over all loops, not just
depth == 1 loops, I inadvertently made it such that we'd only look at the first
top-level loop. Make sure that we really look at all of them.
llvm-svn: 234705
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This pass had the same problem as the data-prefetching pass: it was only
checking for depth == 1 loops in practice. Fix that, add some debugging
statements, and make sure that, when we grab an AddRec, it is for the loop we
expect.
llvm-svn: 234670
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 232279
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231740
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
DataLayout keeps the string used for its creation.
As a side effect it is no longer needed in the Module.
This is "almost" NFC, the string is no longer
canonicalized, you can't rely on two "equals" DataLayout
having the same string returned by getStringRepresentation().
Get rid of DataLayoutPass: the DataLayout is in the Module
The DataLayout is "per-module", let's enforce this by not
duplicating it more than necessary.
One more step toward non-optionality of the DataLayout in the
module.
Make DataLayout Non-Optional in the Module
Module->getDataLayout() will never returns nullptr anymore.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: resistor, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7992
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231270
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
script. This is in preparation for changes to lots of include lines.
llvm-svn: 229088
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a loop predecessor has an invoke as its terminator, and the return value
from that invoke is used to determine the loop iteration space, then we can't
insert a computation based on that value in the loop predecessor prior to the
terminator (oops). If there's such an invoke, or just no predecessor for that
matter, insert a new loop preheader.
llvm-svn: 228488
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 228410
|
|
|
PowerPC supports pre-increment load/store instructions (except for Altivec/VSX
vector load/stores). Using these on embedded cores can be very important, but
most loops are not naturally set up to use them. We can often change that,
however, by placing loops into a non-canonical form. Generically, this means
transforming loops like this:
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
array[i] = c;
to look like this:
T *p = array[-1];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
*++p = c;
the key point is that addresses accessed are pulled into dedicated PHIs and
"pre-decremented" in the loop preheader. This allows the use of pre-increment
load/store instructions without loop peeling.
A target-specific late IR-level pass (running post-LSR), PPCLoopPreIncPrep, is
introduced to perform this transformation. I've used this code out-of-tree for
generating code for the PPC A2 for over a year. Somewhat to my surprise,
running the test suite + externals on a P7 with this transformation enabled
showed no performance regressions, and one speedup:
External/SPEC/CINT2006/483.xalancbmk/483.xalancbmk
-2.32514% +/- 1.03736%
So I'm going to enable it on everything for now. I was surprised by this
because, on the POWER cores, these pre-increment load/store instructions are
cracked (and, thus, harder to schedule effectively). But seeing no regressions,
and feeling that it is generally easier to split instructions apart late than
it is to combine them late, this might be the better approach regardless.
In the future, we might want to integrate this functionality into LSR (but
currently LSR does not create new PHI nodes, so (for that and other reasons)
significant work would need to be done).
llvm-svn: 228328
|
