| 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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
in the same round of SCC update.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/rL309784, inline history is added to prevent
infinite inlining across multiple run of inliner and SCC update, but the
history will only be kept when new SCC is actually generated during SCC update.
We found a case that SCC can be split and then merge into itself in the same
round of SCC update, so the same SCC will be pop out from UR.CWorklist and
then added back immediately, without any new SCC generated, that is why the
existing patch cannot catch the infinite inline case.
What the patch does is even if no new SCC is generated, if only the current
SCC appears in UR.CWorklist again, then keep the inline history.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52915
llvm-svn: 345103
|
|
|
infinite-inlining across multiple runs of the inliner by keeping a tiny
history of internal-to-SCC inlining decisions.
This is still a bit gross, but I don't yet have any fundamentally better
ideas and numerous people are blocked on this to use new PM and ThinLTO
together.
The core of the idea is to detect when we are about to do an inline that
has a chance of re-splitting an SCC which we have split before with
a similar inlining step. That is a critical component in the inlining
forming a cycle and so far detects all of the various cyclic patterns
I can come up with as well as the original real-world test case (which
comes from a ThinLTO build of libunwind).
I've added some tests that I think really demonstrate what is going on
here. They are essentially state machines that march the inliner through
various steps of a cycle and check that we stop when the cycle is closed
and that we actually did do inlining to form that cycle.
A lot of thanks go to Eric Christopher and Sanjoy Das for the help
understanding this issue and improving the test cases.
The biggest "yuck" here is the layering issue -- the CGSCC pass manager
is providing somewhat magical state to the inliner for it to use to make
itself converge. This isn't great, but I don't honestly have a lot of
better ideas yet and at least seems nicely isolated.
I have tested this patch, and it doesn't block *any* inlining on the
entire LLVM test suite and SPEC, so it seems sufficiently narrowly
targeted to the issue at hand.
We have come up with hypothetical issues that this patch doesn't cover,
but so far none of them are practical and we don't have a viable
solution yet that covers the hypothetical stuff, so proceeding here in
the interim. Definitely an area that we will be back and revisiting in
the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36188
llvm-svn: 309784
|
