| 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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
especially for nested loops
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).
The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes.
llvm-svn: 264697
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
structure, especially for nested loops"
This reverts commit r264596.
It does not compile.
llvm-svn: 264604
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
especially for nested loops
When eliminating or merging almost empty basic blocks, the existence of non-trivial PHI nodes
is currently used to recognize potential loops of which the block is the header and keep the block.
However, the current algorithm fails if the loops' exit condition is evaluated only with volatile
values hence no PHI nodes in the header. Especially when such a loop is an outer loop of a nested
loop, the loop is collapsed into a single loop which prevent later optimizations from being
applied (e.g., transforming nested loops into simplified forms and loop vectorization).
The patch augments the existing PHI node-based check by adding a pre-test if the BB actually
belongs to a set of loop headers and not eliminating it if yes.
llvm-svn: 264596
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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: 127366
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
input filename so that opt doesn't print the input filename in the
output so that grep lines in the tests don't unintentionally match
strings in the input filename.
llvm-svn: 81537
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 81257
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
of using llvm-as, now that opt supports this.
llvm-svn: 81226
|
|
|
The SimplifyCFG pass looks at basic blocks that contain only phi nodes,
followed by an unconditional branch. In a lot of cases, such a block (BB) can
be merged into their successor (Succ).
This merging is performed by TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock. It does
this by taking all phi nodes in the succesor block Succ and expanding them to
include the predecessors of BB. Furthermore, any phi nodes in BB are moved to
Succ and expanded to include the predecessors of Succ as well.
Before attempting this merge, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs checks to see if
all phi nodes can be properly merged. All functional changes are made to
this function, only comments were updated in
TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock.
In the original code, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs looks quite convoluted
and more like stack of checks added to handle different kinds of situations
than a comprehensive check. In particular the first check in the function did
some value checking for the case that BB and Succ have a common predecessor,
while the last check in the function simply rejected all cases where BB and
Succ have a common predecessor. The first check was still useful in the case
that BB did not contain any phi nodes at all, though, so it was not completely
useless.
Now, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs is restructured to to look a lot more
similar to the code that actually performs the merge. Both functions now look
at the same phi nodes in about the same order. Any conflicts (phi nodes with
different values for the same source) that could arise from merging or moving
phi nodes are detected. If no conflicts are found, the merge can happen.
Apart from only restructuring the checks, two main changes in functionality
happened.
Firstly, the old code rejected blocks with common predecessors in most cases.
The new code performs some extra checks so common predecessors can be handled
in a lot of cases. Wherever common predecessors still pose problems, the
blocks are left untouched.
Secondly, the old code rejected the merge when values (phi nodes) from BB were
used in any other place than Succ. However, it does not seem that there is any
situation that would require this check. Even more, this can be proven.
Consider that BB is a block containing of a single phi node "%a" and a branch
to Succ. Now, since the definition of %a will dominate all of its uses, BB
will dominate all blocks that use %a. Furthermore, since the branch from BB to
Succ is unconditional, Succ will also dominate all uses of %a.
Now, assume that one predecessor of Succ is not dominated by BB (and thus not
dominated by Succ). Since at least one use of %a (but in reality all of them)
is reachable from Succ, you could end up at a use of %a without passing
through it's definition in BB (by coming from X through Succ). This is a
contradiction, meaning that our original assumption is wrong. Thus, all
predecessors of Succ must also be dominated by BB (and thus also by Succ).
This means that moving the phi node %a from BB to Succ does not pose any
problems when the two blocks are merged, and any use checks are not needed.
llvm-svn: 51478
|
