| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
sed -Ei 's/[[:space:]]+$//' include/**/*.{def,h,td} lib/**/*.{cpp,h}
llvm-svn: 338293
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
At the same time, fixes InstructionsTest::CastInst unittest: yes
you can leave the IR in an invalid state and exit when you don't
destroy the context (like the global one), no longer now.
This is the first part of http://reviews.llvm.org/D19094
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266379
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 261172
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This consist in variosu addition to the C API:
LLVMTargetDataRef LLVMGetModuleDataLayout(LLVMModuleRef M);
void LLVMSetModuleDataLayout(LLVMModuleRef M, LLVMTargetDataRef DL);
LLVMTargetDataRef LLVMCreateTargetMachineData(LLVMTargetMachineRef T);
Reviewers: joker.eph, Wallbraker, echristo
Subscribers: axw
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17255
llvm-svn: 260936
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: It's red, it's dead.
Reviewers: joker.eph, Wallbraker, echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits, axw
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17282
llvm-svn: 260919
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
LLVM's include tree and the use of using declarations to hide the
'legacy' namespace for the old pass manager.
This undoes the primary modules-hostile change I made to keep
out-of-tree targets building. I sent an email inquiring about whether
this would be reasonable to do at this phase and people seemed fine with
it, so making it a reality. This should allow us to start bootstrapping
with modules to a certain extent along with making it easier to mix and
match headers in general.
The updates to any code for users of LLVM are very mechanical. Switch
from including "llvm/PassManager.h" to "llvm/IR/LegacyPassManager.h".
Qualify the types which now produce compile errors with "legacy::". The
most common ones are "PassManager", "PassManagerBase", and
"FunctionPassManager".
llvm-svn: 229094
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
manager to support the actual uses of it. =]
When I ported instcombine to the new pass manager I discover that it
didn't work because TLI wasn't available in the right places. This is
a somewhat surprising and/or subtle aspect of the new pass manager
design that came up before but I think is useful to be reminded of:
While the new pass manager *allows* a function pass to query a module
analysis, it requires that the module analysis is already run and cached
prior to the function pass manager starting up, possibly with
a 'require<foo>' style utility in the pass pipeline. This is an
intentional hurdle because using a module analysis from a function pass
*requires* that the module analysis is run prior to entering the
function pass manager. Otherwise the other functions in the module could
be in who-knows-what state, etc.
A somewhat surprising consequence of this design decision (at least to
me) is that you have to design a function pass that leverages
a module analysis to do so as an optional feature. Even if that means
your function pass does no work in the absence of the module analysis,
you have to handle that possibility and remain conservatively correct.
This is a natural consequence of things being able to invalidate the
module analysis and us being unable to re-run it. And it's a generally
good thing because it lets us reorder passes arbitrarily without
breaking correctness, etc.
This ends up causing problems in one case. What if we have a module
analysis that is *definitionally* impossible to invalidate. In the
places this might come up, the analysis is usually also definitionally
trivial to run even while other transformation passes run on the module,
regardless of the state of anything. And so, it follows that it is
natural to have a hard requirement on such analyses from a function
pass.
It turns out, that TargetLibraryInfo is just such an analysis, and
InstCombine has a hard requirement on it.
The approach I've taken here is to produce an analysis that models this
flexibility by making it both a module and a function analysis. This
exposes the fact that it is in fact safe to compute at any point. We can
even make it a valid CGSCC analysis at some point if that is useful.
However, we don't want to have a copy of the actual target library info
state for each function! This state is specific to the triple. The
somewhat direct and blunt approach here is to turn TLI into a pimpl,
with the state and mutators in the implementation class and the query
routines primarily in the wrapper. Then the analysis can lazily
construct and cache the implementations, keyed on the triple, and
on-demand produce wrappers of them for each function.
One minor annoyance is that we will end up with a wrapper for each
function in the module. While this is a bit wasteful (one pointer per
function) it seems tolerable. And it has the advantage of ensuring that
we pay the absolute minimum synchronization cost to access this
information should we end up with a nice parallel function pass manager
in the future. We could look into trying to mark when analysis results
are especially cheap to recompute and more eagerly GC-ing the cached
results, or we could look at supporting a variant of analyses whose
results are specifically *not* cached and expected to just be used and
discarded by the consumer. Either way, these seem like incremental
enhancements that should happen when we start profiling the memory and
CPU usage of the new pass manager and not before.
The other minor annoyance is that if we end up using the TLI in both
a module pass and a function pass, those will be produced by two
separate analyses, and thus will point to separate copies of the
implementation state. While a minor issue, I dislike this and would like
to find a way to cleanly allow a single analysis instance to be used
across multiple IR unit managers. But I don't have a good solution to
this today, and I don't want to hold up all of the work waiting to come
up with one. This too seems like a reasonable thing to incrementally
improve later.
llvm-svn: 226981
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The pass is really just a means of accessing a cached instance of the
TargetLibraryInfo object, and this way we can re-use that object for the
new pass manager as its result.
Lots of delta, but nothing interesting happening here. This is the
common pattern that is developing to allow analyses to live in both the
old and new pass manager -- a wrapper pass in the old pass manager
emulates the separation intrinsic to the new pass manager between the
result and pass for analyses.
llvm-svn: 226157
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
While the term "Target" is in the name, it doesn't really have to do
with the LLVM Target library -- this isn't an abstraction which LLVM
targets generally need to implement or extend. It has much more to do
with modeling the various runtime libraries on different OSes and with
different runtime environments. The "target" in this sense is the more
general sense of a target of cross compilation.
This is in preparation for porting this analysis to the new pass
manager.
No functionality changed, and updates inbound for Clang and Polly.
llvm-svn: 226078
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With this a DataLayoutPass can be reused for multiple modules.
Once we have doInitialization/doFinalization, it doesn't seem necessary to pass
a Module to the constructor.
Overall this change seems in line with the idea of making DataLayout a required
part of Module. With it the only way of having a DataLayout used is to add it
to the Module.
llvm-svn: 217548
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
lib/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngineBindings.cpp into include/llvm/IR/DataLayout.h
llvm-svn: 208680
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Eventually DataLayoutPass should go away, but for now that is the only easy
way to get a DataLayout in some APIs. This patch only changes the ones that
have easy access to a Module.
One interesting issue with sometimes using DataLayoutPass and sometimes
fetching it from the Module is that we have to make sure they are equivalent.
We can get most of the way there by always constructing the pass with a Module.
In fact, the pass could be changed to point to an external DataLayout instead
of owning one to make this stricter.
Unfortunately, the C api passes a DataLayout, so it has to be up to the caller
to make sure the pass and the module are in sync.
llvm-svn: 202204
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead, have a DataLayoutPass that holds one. This will allow parts of LLVM
don't don't handle passes to also use DataLayout.
llvm-svn: 202168
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
During the years there have been some attempts at figuring out how to
align byval arguments. A look at the commit log suggests that they
were
* Use the ABI alignment.
* When that was not sufficient for x86-64, I added the 's' specification to
DataLayout.
* When that was not sufficient Evan added the virtual getByValTypeAlignment.
* When even that was not sufficient, we just got the FE to add the alignment
to the byval.
This patch is just a simple cleanup that removes my first attempt at fixing the
problem. I also added an AArch64 implementation of getByValTypeAlignment to
make sure this patch is a nop. I also left the 's' parsing for backward
compatibility.
I will send a short email to llvmdev about the change for anyone maintaining
an out of tree target.
llvm-svn: 198287
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All of the Core API functions have versions which accept explicit context, in
addition to ones which work on global context. This commit adds functions
which accept explicit context to the Target API for consistency.
Patch by Peter Zotov
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1912
llvm-svn: 192913
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
the things, and renames it to CBindingWrapping.h. I also moved
CBindingWrapping.h into Support/.
This new file just contains the macros for defining different wrap/unwrap
methods.
The calls to those macros, as well as any custom wrap/unwrap definitions
(like for array of Values for example), are put into corresponding C++
headers.
Doing this required some #include surgery, since some .cpp files relied
on the fact that including Wrap.h implicitly caused the inclusion of a
bunch of other things.
This also now means that the C++ headers will include their corresponding
C API headers; for example Value.h must include llvm-c/Core.h. I think
this is harmless, since the C API headers contain just external function
declarations and some C types, so I don't believe there should be any
nasty dependency issues here.
llvm-svn: 180881
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
or the C++ files themselves. This enables people to use
just a C compiler to interoperate with LLVM.
llvm-svn: 180063
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
interfaces which could be extracted from it, and must be provided on
construction, to a chained analysis group.
The end goal here is that TTI works much like AA -- there is a baseline
"no-op" and target independent pass which is in the group, and each
target can expose a target-specific pass in the group. These passes will
naturally chain allowing each target-specific pass to delegate to the
generic pass as needed.
In particular, this will allow a much simpler interface for passes that
would like to use TTI -- they can have a hard dependency on TTI and it
will just be satisfied by the stub implementation when that is all that
is available.
This patch is a WIP however. In particular, the "stub" pass is actually
the one and only pass, and everything there is implemented by delegating
to the target-provided interfaces. As a consequence the tools still have
to explicitly construct the pass. Switching targets to provide custom
passes and sinking the stub behavior into the NoTTI pass is the next
step.
llvm-svn: 171621
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
getIntPtrType support for multiple address spaces via a pointer type,
and also introduced a crasher bug in the constant folder reported in
PR14233.
These commits also contained several problems that should really be
addressed before they are re-committed. I have avoided reverting various
cleanups to the DataLayout APIs that are reasonable to have moving
forward in order to reduce the amount of churn, and minimize the number
of commits that were reverted. I've also manually updated merge
conflicts and manually arranged for the getIntPtrType function to stay
in DataLayout and to be defined in a plausible way after this revert.
Thanks to Duncan for working through this exact strategy with me, and
Nick Lewycky for tracking down the really annoying crasher this
triggered. (Test case to follow in its own commit.)
After discussing with Duncan extensively, and based on a note from
Micah, I'm going to continue to back out some more of the more
problematic patches in this series in order to ensure we go into the
LLVM 3.2 branch with a reasonable story here. I'll send a note to
llvmdev explaining what's going on and why.
Summary of reverted revisions:
r166634: Fix a compiler warning with an unused variable.
r166607: Add some cleanup to the DataLayout changes requested by
Chandler.
r166596: Revert "Back out r166591, not sure why this made it through
since I cancelled the command. Bleh, sorry about this!
r166591: Delete a directory that wasn't supposed to be checked in yet.
r166578: Add in support for getIntPtrType to get the pointer type based
on the address space.
llvm-svn: 167221
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
address space.
This checkin also adds in some tests that utilize these paths and updates some of the
clients.
llvm-svn: 166578
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Lowerinvoke.
llvm-svn: 166248
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The TargetTransform changes are breaking LTO bootstraps of clang. I am
working with Nadav to figure out the problem, but I am reverting it for now
to get our buildbots working.
This reverts svn commits: 165665 165669 165670 165786 165787 165997
and I have also reverted clang svn 165741
llvm-svn: 166168
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.
llvm-svn: 165941
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 165747
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
per address space pointer sizes to be optimized correctly.
llvm-svn: 165726
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
information.
llvm-svn: 165665
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 165402
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
projects to transition to DataLayout without loosing functionality.
llvm-svn: 165318
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 135975
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 135375
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
that type refinement is toast.
llvm-svn: 135245
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
query about available library functions. For now this just has
memset_pattern16, which exists on darwin, but it can be extended for a
bunch of other things in the future.
llvm-svn: 125965
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 115966
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 115957
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
boolean values were distinguishable from integers. The attached patch introduces "typedef int LLVMBool;", and uses LLVMBool instead of int throughout the C API, wherever a boolean value is called for."
Patch by James Y Knight!
llvm-svn: 93079
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
to go away from IRBuilder.h
llvm-svn: 92230
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 78948
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
will make it more obvious what it represents, and stop
it being confused with the StoreSize.
llvm-svn: 71349
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
suggested by Chris.
llvm-svn: 62099
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 49218
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 48422
|
