| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instrs before call.
For basic blocks with instructions between the beginning of the block
and a call we have to duplicate the instructions before the call in all
split blocks and add PHI nodes for uses of the duplicated instructions
after the call.
Currently, the threshold for the number of instructions before a call
is quite low, to keep the impact on binary size low.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41860
llvm-svn: 325126
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
before call.
Due to memsan not being happy with the array of ValueToValue maps.
llvm-svn: 325009
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For basic blocks with instructions between the beginning of the block
and a call we have to duplicate the instructions before the call in all
split blocks and add PHI nodes for uses of the duplicated instructions
after the call.
Currently, the threshold for the number of instructions before a call
is quite low, to keep the impact on binary size low.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41860
llvm-svn: 325001
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This removes some duplication from splitCallSite and makes it easier to
add additional code dealing with each predecessor. It also allows us to
split for more than 2 predecessors, although that is not enabled for
now.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl, davide
Reviewed By: junbuml
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41858
llvm-svn: 322599
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
With this patch I tried to reduce the complexity of the code sightly, by
removing some indirection. Please let me know what you think.
Reviewers: junbuml, mcrosier, davidxl
Reviewed By: junbuml
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40037
llvm-svn: 318593
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Revert due to Buildbot failure.
This reverts commit r317351.
llvm-svn: 317353
|
|
|
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
|
