| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Current tail duplication integrated in bb layout is designed to increase the fallthrough from a BB's predecessor to its successor, but we have observed cases that duplication doesn't increase fallthrough, or it brings too much size overhead.
To overcome these two issues in function canTailDuplicateUnplacedPreds I add two checks:
make sure there is at least one duplication in current work set.
the number of duplication should not exceed the number of successors.
The modification in hasBetterLayoutPredecessor fixes a bug that potential predecessor must be at the bottom of a chain.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64376
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch issues an error message if Darwin ABI is attempted with the PPC
backend. It also cleans up existing test cases, either converting the test to
use an alternative triple or removing the test if the coverage is no longer
needed.
Updated Tests
-------------
The majority of test cases were updated to use a different triple that does not
include the Darwin ABI. Many tests were also updated to use FileCheck, in place
of grep.
Deleted Tests
-------------
llvm/test/tools/dsymutil/PowerPC/sibling.test was originally added to test
specific functionality of dsymutil using an object file created with an old
version of llvm-gcc for a Powerbook G4. After a discussion with @JDevlieghere he
suggested removing the test.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/combine_loads_from_build_pair.ll was converted from a
PPC test to a SystemZ test, as the behavior is also reproducible there.
All other tests that were deleted were specific to the darwin/ppc ABI and no
longer necessary.
Phabricator Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50988
llvm-svn: 340795
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`llc -march` is problematic because it only switches the target
architecture, but leaves the operating system unchanged. This
occasionally leads to indeterministic tests because the OS from
LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE is used.
However we can simply always use `llc -mtriple` instead. This changes
all the tests to do this to avoid people using -march when they copy and
paste parts of tests.
This patch:
- Removes -march if the .ll file already has a matching `target triple`
directive or -mtriple argument.
- In all other cases changes -march=ppc32/-march=ppc64 to
-mtriple=ppc32--/-mtriple=ppc64--
See also the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D35287
llvm-svn: 309754
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 71c312652c10f1855b28d06697c08d47e7a243e4.
llvm-svn: 283647
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit ff234efbe23528e4f4c80c78057b920a51f434b2.
Causing crashes on aarch64 build.
llvm-svn: 283172
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently we have a number of tests that fail with -verify-machineinstrs.
To detect this cases earlier we add the option to the testcases with the
exception of tests that will currently fail with this option. PR 27456 keeps
track of this failures.
No code review, as discussed with Hal Finkel.
llvm-svn: 277624
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
the call instruction
See r230786 and r230794 for similar changes to gep and load
respectively.
Call is a bit different because it often doesn't have a single explicit
type - usually the type is deduced from the arguments, and just the
return type is explicit. In those cases there's no need to change the
IR.
When that's not the case, the IR usually contains the pointer type of
the first operand - but since typed pointers are going away, that
representation is insufficient so I'm just stripping the "pointerness"
of the explicit type away.
This does make the IR a bit weird - it /sort of/ reads like the type of
the first operand: "call void () %x(" but %x is actually of type "void
()*" and will eventually be just of type "ptr". But this seems not too
bad and I don't think it would benefit from repeating the type
("void (), void () * %x(" and then eventually "void (), ptr %x(") as has
been done with gep and load.
This also has a side benefit: since the explicit type is no longer a
pointer, there's no ambiguity between an explicit type and a function
that returns a function pointer. Previously this case needed an explicit
type (eg: a function returning a void() function was written as
"call void () () * @x(" rather than "call void () * @x(" because of the
ambiguity between a function returning a pointer to a void() function
and a function returning void).
No ambiguity means even function pointer return types can just be
written alone, without writing the whole function's type.
This leaves /only/ the varargs case where the explicit type is required.
Given the special type syntax in call instructions, the regex-fu used
for migration was a bit more involved in its own unique way (as every
one of these is) so here it is. Use it in conjunction with the apply.sh
script and associated find/xargs commands I've provided in rr230786 to
migrate your out of tree tests. Do let me know if any of this doesn't
cover your cases & we can iterate on a more general script/regexes to
help others with out of tree tests.
About 9 test cases couldn't be automatically migrated - half of those
were functions returning function pointers, where I just had to manually
delete the function argument types now that we didn't need an explicit
function type there. The other half were typedefs of function types used
in calls - just had to manually drop the * from those.
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r'((?:=|:|^|\s)call\s(?:[^@]*?))(\s*$|\s*(?:(?:\[\[[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\]\]|[@%](?:(")?[\\\?@a-zA-Z0-9_.]*?(?(3)"|)|{{.*}}))(?:\(|$)|undef|inttoptr|bitcast|null|asm).*$)')
addrspace_end = re.compile(r"addrspace\(\d+\)\s*\*$")
func_end = re.compile("(?:void.*|\)\s*)\*$")
def conv(match, line):
if not match or re.search(addrspace_end, match.group(1)) or not re.search(func_end, match.group(1)):
return line
return line[:match.start()] + match.group(1)[:match.group(1).rfind('*')].rstrip() + match.group(2) + line[match.end():]
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(conv(re.search(pat, line), line))
llvm-svn: 235145
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This was done through the aid of a terrible Perl creation. I will not
paste any of the horrors here. Suffice to say, it require multiple
staged rounds of replacements, state carried between, and a few
nested-construct-parsing hacks that I'm not proud of. It happens, by
luck, to be able to deal with all the TCL-quoting patterns in evidence
in the LLVM test suite.
If anyone is maintaining large out-of-tree test trees, feel free to poke
me and I'll send you the steps I used to convert things, as well as
answer any painful questions etc. IRC works best for this type of thing
I find.
Once converted, switch the LLVM lit config to use ShTests the same as
Clang. In addition to being able to delete large amounts of Python code
from 'lit', this will also simplify the entire test suite and some of
lit's architecture.
Finally, the test suite runs 33% faster on Linux now. ;]
For my 16-hardware-thread (2x 4-core xeon e5520): 36s -> 24s
llvm-svn: 159525
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 81293
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 48762
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 41097
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 36087
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 35582
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 34359
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 33296
|
