| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The test exercises the branch in scev expansion when the value in ValueOffsetPair
is a ptr and the offset is not divisible by the elem type size of value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24088
llvm-svn: 281575
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
SCC pass.
This was mistakenly committed. The world isn't ready for this test, the
test code has horrible debugging code in it that should never have
landed in tree, it currently passes because of bugs elsewhere, and it
needs to be rewritten to not be susceptible to passing for the wrong
reasons.
I'll re-land this in a better form when the prerequisite patches land.
So sorry that I got this mixed into a series of commits that *were*
ready to land. I shouldn't have. =[ What's worse is that it stuck around
for so long and I discovered it while fixing the underlying bug that
caused it to pass.
llvm-svn: 280620
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
constructor when trying to do copy construction by adding an explicit
move constructor.
Will watch the bots to discover if this is sufficient.
llvm-svn: 280479
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This wasn't really well explicitly tested with a nice unittest before.
It seems good to have reasonably broken out unittests for this kind of
functionality as I'm workin go other invalidation features to make sure
none of the existing ones regress.
This still has too much duplicated code, I plan to factor that out in
a subsequent commit to use common helpers for repeated parts of this.
llvm-svn: 280447
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
more testing into other test routines while using the same core module.
llvm-svn: 280446
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
passes.
This simplifies the test some and makes it more focused and clear what
is being tested. It will also make it much easier to extend with further
testing of different pass behaviors.
I've also replaced a pointless module pass with running the requires
pass directly as that is all that it was really doing.
llvm-svn: 280444
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
manager, including both plumbing and logic to handle function pass
updates.
There are three fundamentally tied changes here:
1) Plumbing *some* mechanism for updating the CGSCC pass manager as the
CG changes while passes are running.
2) Changing the CGSCC pass manager infrastructure to have support for
the underlying graph to mutate mid-pass run.
3) Actually updating the CG after function passes run.
I can separate them if necessary, but I think its really useful to have
them together as the needs of #3 drove #2, and that in turn drove #1.
The plumbing technique is to extend the "run" method signature with
extra arguments. We provide the call graph that intrinsically is
available as it is the basis of the pass manager's IR units, and an
output parameter that records the results of updating the call graph
during an SCC passes's run. Note that "...UpdateResult" isn't a *great*
name here... suggestions very welcome.
I tried a pretty frustrating number of different data structures and such
for the innards of the update result. Every other one failed for one
reason or another. Sometimes I just couldn't keep the layers of
complexity right in my head. The thing that really worked was to just
directly provide access to the underlying structures used to walk the
call graph so that their updates could be informed by the *particular*
nature of the change to the graph.
The technique for how to make the pass management infrastructure cope
with mutating graphs was also something that took a really, really large
number of iterations to get to a place where I was happy. Here are some
of the considerations that drove the design:
- We operate at three levels within the infrastructure: RefSCC, SCC, and
Node. In each case, we are working bottom up and so we want to
continue to iterate on the "lowest" node as the graph changes. Look at
how we iterate over nodes in an SCC running function passes as those
function passes mutate the CG. We continue to iterate on the "lowest"
SCC, which is the one that continues to contain the function just
processed.
- The call graph structure re-uses SCCs (and RefSCCs) during mutation
events for the *highest* entry in the resulting new subgraph, not the
lowest. This means that it is necessary to continually update the
current SCC or RefSCC as it shifts. This is really surprising and
subtle, and took a long time for me to work out. I actually tried
changing the call graph to provide the opposite behavior, and it
breaks *EVERYTHING*. The graph update algorithms are really deeply
tied to this particualr pattern.
- When SCCs or RefSCCs are split apart and refined and we continually
re-pin our processing to the bottom one in the subgraph, we need to
enqueue the newly formed SCCs and RefSCCs for subsequent processing.
Queuing them presents a few challenges:
1) SCCs and RefSCCs use wildly different iteration strategies at
a high level. We end up needing to converge them on worklist
approaches that can be extended in order to be able to handle the
mutations.
2) The order of the enqueuing need to remain bottom-up post-order so
that we don't get surprising order of visitation for things like
the inliner.
3) We need the worklists to have set semantics so we don't duplicate
things endlessly. We don't need a *persistent* set though because
we always keep processing the bottom node!!!! This is super, super
surprising to me and took a long time to convince myself this is
correct, but I'm pretty sure it is... Once we sink down to the
bottom node, we can't re-split out the same node in any way, and
the postorder of the current queue is fixed and unchanging.
4) We need to make sure that the "current" SCC or RefSCC actually gets
enqueued here such that we re-visit it because we continue
processing a *new*, *bottom* SCC/RefSCC.
- We also need the ability to *skip* SCCs and RefSCCs that get merged
into a larger component. We even need the ability to skip *nodes* from
an SCC that are no longer part of that SCC.
This led to the design you see in the patch which uses SetVector-based
worklists. The RefSCC worklist is always empty until an update occurs
and is just used to handle those RefSCCs created by updates as the
others don't even exist yet and are formed on-demand during the
bottom-up walk. The SCC worklist is pre-populated from the RefSCC, and
we push new SCCs onto it and blacklist existing SCCs on it to get the
desired processing.
We then *directly* update these when updating the call graph as I was
never able to find a satisfactory abstraction around the update
strategy.
Finally, we need to compute the updates for function passes. This is
mostly used as an initial customer of all the update mechanisms to drive
their design to at least cover some real set of use cases. There are
a bunch of interesting things that came out of doing this:
- It is really nice to do this a function at a time because that
function is likely hot in the cache. This means we want even the
function pass adaptor to support online updates to the call graph!
- To update the call graph after arbitrary function pass mutations is
quite hard. We have to build a fairly comprehensive set of
data structures and then process them. Fortunately, some of this code
is related to the code for building the cal graph in the first place.
Unfortunately, very little of it makes any sense to share because the
nature of what we're doing is so very different. I've factored out the
one part that made sense at least.
- We need to transfer these updates into the various structures for the
CGSCC pass manager. Once those were more sanely worked out, this
became relatively easier. But some of those needs necessitated changes
to the LazyCallGraph interface to make it significantly easier to
extract the changed SCCs from an update operation.
- We also need to update the CGSCC analysis manager as the shape of the
graph changes. When an SCC is merged away we need to clear analyses
associated with it from the analysis manager which we didn't have
support for in the analysis manager infrsatructure. New SCCs are easy!
But then we have the case that the original SCC has its shape changed
but remains in the call graph. There we need to *invalidate* the
analyses associated with it.
- We also need to invalidate analyses after we *finish* processing an
SCC. But the analyses we need to invalidate here are *only those for
the newly updated SCC*!!! Because we only continue processing the
bottom SCC, if we split SCCs apart the original one gets invalidated
once when its shape changes and is not processed farther so its
analyses will be correct. It is the bottom SCC which continues being
processed and needs to have the "normal" invalidation done based on
the preserved analyses set.
All of this is mostly background and context for the changes here.
Many thanks to all the reviewers who helped here. Especially Sanjoy who
caught several interesting bugs in the graph algorithms, David, Sean,
and others who all helped with feedback.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21464
llvm-svn: 279618
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This should finish the GraphTraits migration.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23730
llvm-svn: 279475
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently nodes_iterator may dereference to a NodeType* or a NodeType&. Make them all dereference to NodeType*, which is NodeRef later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23704
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23705
llvm-svn: 279326
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
One exception here is LoopInfo which must forward-declare it (because
the typedef is in LoopPassManager.h which depends on LoopInfo).
Also, some includes for LoopPassManager.h were needed since that file
provides the typedef.
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278079
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
tests will want different IR.
Wanted this when writing tests for the proposed CG update stuff, and
this is an easily separable piece.
llvm-svn: 273973
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
prior to some very substantial patches to isolate any formatting-only
changes.
llvm-svn: 272991
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
pass manager passes' `run` methods.
This removes a bunch of SFINAE goop from the pass manager and just
requires pass authors to accept `AnalysisManager<IRUnitT> &` as a dead
argument. This is a small price to pay for the simplicity of the system
as a whole, despite the noise that changing it causes at this stage.
This will also helpfull allow us to make the signature of the run
methods much more flexible for different kinds af passes to support
things like intelligently updating the pass's progression over IR units.
While this touches many, many, files, the changes are really boring.
Mostly made with the help of my trusty perl one liners.
Thanks to Sean and Hal for bouncing ideas for this with me in IRC.
llvm-svn: 272978
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
BranchProbabilityInfo"
It was causing failures in Profile-i386 and Profile-x86_64 tests.
llvm-svn: 272912
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We should update results of the BranchProbabilityInfo after removing block in JumpThreading. Otherwise
we will get dangling pointer inside BranchProbabilityInfo cache.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20957
llvm-svn: 272891
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
increasing cost tracking system during the full unroll heuristic analysis that avoids counting any instruction cost until that instruction becomes "live" through a side-effect or use outside the...""
This reverts commit r269395.
Try to reapply with a fix from chapuni.
llvm-svn: 269486
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
tracking system during the full unroll heuristic analysis that avoids counting any instruction cost until that instruction becomes "live" through a side-effect or use outside the..."
This reverts commit r269388.
It caused some bots to fail, I'm reverting it until I investigate the
issue.
llvm-svn: 269395
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
system during the full unroll heuristic analysis that avoids counting any instruction cost until that instruction becomes "live" through a side-effect or use outside the...
Summary:
...loop after the last iteration.
This is really hard to do correctly. The core problem is that we need to
model liveness through the induction PHIs from iteration to iteration in
order to get the correct results, and we need to correctly de-duplicate
the common subgraphs of instructions feeding some subset of the
induction PHIs. All of this can be driven either from a side effect at
some iteration or from the loop values used after the loop finishes.
This patch implements this by storing the forward-propagating analysis
of each instruction in a cache to recall whether it was free and whether
it has become live and thus counted toward the total unroll cost. Then,
at each sink for a value in the loop, we recursively walk back through
every value that feeds the sink, including looping back through the
iterations as needed, until we have marked the entire input graph as
live. Because we cache this, we never visit instructions more than twice
-- once when we analyze them and put them into the cache, and once when
we count their cost towards the unrolled loop. Also, because the cache
is only two bits and because we are dealing with relatively small
iteration counts, we can store all of this very densely in memory to
avoid this from becoming an excessively slow analysis.
The code here is still pretty gross. I would appreciate suggestions
about better ways to factor or split this up, I've stared too long at
the algorithmic side to really have a good sense of what the design
should probably look at.
Also, it might seem like we should do all of this bottom-up, but I think
that is a red herring. Specifically, the simplification power is *much*
greater working top-down. We can forward propagate very effectively,
even across strange and interesting recurrances around the backedge.
Because we use data to propagate, this doesn't cause a state space
explosion. Doing this level of constant folding, etc, would be very
expensive to do bottom-up because it wouldn't be until the last moment
that you could collapse everything. The current solution is essentially
a top-down simplification with a bottom-up cost accounting which seems
to get the best of both worlds. It makes the simplification incremental
and powerful while leaving everything dead until we *know* it is needed.
Finally, a core property of this approach is its *monotonicity*. At all
times, the current UnrolledCost is a conservatively low estimate. This
ensures that we will never early-exit from the analysis due to exceeding
a threshold when if we had continued, the cost would have gone back
below the threshold. These kinds of bugs can cause incredibly hard to
track down random changes to behavior.
We could use a techinque similar (but much simpler) within the inliner
as well to avoid considering speculated code in the inline cost.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11758
llvm-svn: 269388
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A loop pass that didn't preserve this entire set of passes wouldn't
play well with other loop passes, since these are generally a basic
requirement to do any interesting transformations to a loop.
Adds a helper to get the set of analyses a loop pass should preserve,
and checks that any loop pass we run satisfies the requirement.
llvm-svn: 268444
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Removed some unused headers, replaced some headers with forward class declarations.
Found using simple scripts like this one:
clear && ack --cpp -l '#include "llvm/ADT/IndexedMap.h"' | xargs grep -L 'IndexedMap[<]' | xargs grep -n --color=auto 'IndexedMap'
Patch by Eugene Kosov <claprix@yandex.ru>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19219
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266595
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
In the context of http://wg21.link/lwg2445 C++ uses the concept of
'stronger' ordering but doesn't define it properly. This should be fixed
in C++17 barring a small question that's still open.
The code currently plays fast and loose with the AtomicOrdering
enum. Using an enum class is one step towards tightening things. I later
also want to tighten related enums, such as clang's
AtomicOrderingKind (which should be shared with LLVM as a 'C++ ABI'
enum).
This change touches a few lines of code which can be improved later, I'd
like to keep it as NFC for now as it's already quite complex. I have
related changes for clang.
As a follow-up I'll add:
bool operator<(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator>(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator<=(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
bool operator>=(AtomicOrdering, AtomicOrdering) = delete;
This is separate so that clang and LLVM changes don't need to be in sync.
Reviewers: jyknight, reames
Subscribers: jyknight, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18775
llvm-svn: 265602
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18233
llvm-svn: 264179
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: As we now have unit-tests for UnrollAnalyzer, we can convert some existing tests to this format. It should make the tests more robust.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17904
llvm-svn: 263318
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
parts of the AA interface out of the base class of every single AA
result object.
Because this logic reformulates the query in terms of some other aspect
of the API, it would easily cause O(n^2) query patterns in alias
analysis. These could in turn be magnified further based on the number
of call arguments, and then further based on the number of AA queries
made for a particular call. This ended up causing problems for Rust that
were actually noticable enough to get a bug (PR26564) and probably other
places as well.
When originally re-working the AA infrastructure, the desire was to
regularize the pattern of refinement without losing any generality.
While I think it was successful, that is clearly proving to be too
costly. And the cost is needless: we gain no actual improvement for this
generality of making a direct query to tbaa actually be able to
re-use some other alias analysis's refinement logic for one of the other
APIs, or some such. In short, this is entirely wasted work.
To the extent possible, delegation to other API surfaces should be done
at the aggregation layer so that we can avoid re-walking the
aggregation. In fact, this significantly simplifies the logic as we no
longer need to smuggle the aggregation layer into each alias analysis
(or the TargetLibraryInfo into each alias analysis just so we can form
argument memory locations!).
However, we also have some delegation logic inside of BasicAA and some
of it even makes sense. When the delegation logic is baking in specific
knowledge of aliasing properties of the LLVM IR, as opposed to simply
reformulating the query to utilize a different alias analysis interface
entry point, it makes a lot of sense to restrict that logic to
a different layer such as BasicAA. So one aspect of the delegation that
was in every AA base class is that when we don't have operand bundles,
we re-use function AA results as a fallback for callsite alias results.
This relies on the IR properties of calls and functions w.r.t. aliasing,
and so seems a better fit to BasicAA. I've lifted the logic up to that
point where it seems to be a natural fit. This still does a bit of
redundant work (we query function attributes twice, once via the
callsite and once via the function AA query) but it is *exactly* twice
here, no more.
The end result is that all of the delegation logic is hoisted out of the
base class and into either the aggregation layer when it is a pure
retargeting to a different API surface, or into BasicAA when it relies
on the IR's aliasing properties. This should fix the quadratic query
pattern reported in PR26564, although I don't have a stand-alone test
case to reproduce it.
It also seems general goodness. Now the numerous AAs that don't need
target library info don't carry it around and depend on it. I think
I can even rip out the general access to the aggregation layer and only
expose that in BasicAA as it is the only place where we re-query in that
manner.
However, this is a non-trivial change to the AA infrastructure so I want
to get some additional eyes on this before it lands. Sadly, it can't
wait long because we should really cherry pick this into 3.8 if we're
going to go this route.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17329
llvm-svn: 262490
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
simulating.
Summary: Check that we're using SCEV for the same loop we're simulating. Otherwise, we might try to use the iteration number of the current loop in SCEV expressions for inner/outer loops IVs, which is clearly incorrect.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17632
llvm-svn: 261958
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
more cases in future.
llvm-svn: 261954
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This creates the new-style LoopPassManager and wires it up with dummy
and print passes.
This version doesn't support modifying the loop nest at all. It will
be far easier to discuss and evaluate the approaches to that with this
in place so that the boilerplate is out of the way.
llvm-svn: 261831
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
pattern that triggers it. This essentially requires an immutable
function analysis, as that will survive anything we do to invalidate it.
When we have such patterns, the function analysis manager will not get
cleared between runs of the proxy.
If we actually need an assert about how things are queried, we can add
more elaborate machinery for computing it, but so far I'm not aware of
significant value provided.
Thanks to Justin Lebar for noticing this when he made a (seemingly
innocuous) change to FunctionAttrs that is enough to trigger it in one
test there. Now it is covered by a direct test of the pass manager code.
llvm-svn: 261627
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
system.
Previously, this was only being tested with larger integration tests.
That makes it hard to isolated specific issues with it, and makes the
APIs themselves less well tested. Add a unittest based around the same
patterns used for testing the general pass manager.
llvm-svn: 261624
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This addresses post-review comments from Duncan P. N. Exon Smith to r261485.
llvm-svn: 261514
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before this patch simplified SCEV expressions for PHI nodes were only returned
the very first time getSCEV() was called, but later calls to getSCEV always
returned the non-simplified value, which had "temporarily" been stored in the
ValueExprMap, but was never removed and consequently blocked the caching of the
simplified PHI expression.
llvm-svn: 261485
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
it to actually test the new pass manager AA wiring.
This patch was extracted from the (somewhat too large) D12357 and
rebosed on top of the slightly different design of the new pass manager
AA wiring that I just landed. With this we can start testing the AA in
a thorough way with the new pass manager.
Some minor cleanups to the code in the pass was necessitated here, but
otherwise it is a very minimal change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17372
llvm-svn: 261403
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
reference-edge SCCs.
This essentially builds a more normal call graph as a subgraph of the
"reference graph" that was the old model. This allows both to exist and
the different use cases to use the aspect which addresses their needs.
Specifically, the pass manager and other *ordering* constrained logic
can use the reference graph to achieve conservative order of visit,
while analyses reasoning about attributes and other properties derived
from reachability can reason about the direct call graph.
Note that this isn't necessarily complete: it doesn't model edges to
declarations or indirect calls. Those can be found by scanning the
instructions of the function if desirable, and in fact every user
currently does this in order to handle things like calls to instrinsics.
If useful, we could consider caching this information in the call graph
to save the instruction scans, but currently that doesn't seem to be
important.
An important realization for why the representation chosen here works is
that the call graph is a formal subset of the reference graph and thus
both can live within the same data structure. All SCCs of the call graph
are necessarily contained within an SCC of the reference graph, etc.
The design is to build 'RefSCC's to model SCCs of the reference graph,
and then within them more literal SCCs for the call graph.
The formation of actual call edge SCCs is not done lazily, unlike
reference edge 'RefSCC's. Instead, once a reference SCC is formed, it
directly builds the call SCCs within it and stores them in a post-order
sequence. This is used to provide a consistent platform for mutation and
update of the graph. The post-order also allows for very efficient
updates in common cases by bounding the number of nodes (and thus edges)
considered.
There is considerable common code that I'm still looking for the best
way to factor out between the various DFS implementations here. So far,
my attempts have made the code harder to read and understand despite
reducing the duplication, which seems a poor tradeoff. I've not given up
on figuring out the right way to do this, but I wanted to wait until
I at least had the system working and tested to continue attempting to
factor it differently.
This also requires introducing several new algorithms in order to handle
all of the incremental update scenarios for the more complex structure
involving two edge colorings. I've tried to comment the algorithms
sufficiently to make it clear how this is expected to work, but they may
still need more extensive documentation.
I know that there are some changes which are not strictly necessarily
coupled here. The process of developing this started out with a very
focused set of changes for the new structure of the graph and
algorithms, but subsequent changes to bring the APIs and code into
consistent and understandable patterns also ended up touching on other
aspects. There was no good way to separate these out without causing
*massive* merge conflicts. Ultimately, to a large degree this is
a rewrite of most of the core algorithms in the LCG class and so I don't
think it really matters much.
Many thanks to the careful review by Sanjoy Das!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16802
llvm-svn: 261040
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Unrolling Analyzer is already pretty complicated, and it becomes harder and harder to exercise it with usual IR tests, as with them we can only check the final decision: whether the loop is unrolled or not. This change factors this framework out from LoopUnrollPass to analyses, which allows to use unit tests.
The change itself is supposed to be NFC, except adding a couple of tests.
I plan to add more tests as I add new functionality and find/fix bugs.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: zzheng, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16623
llvm-svn: 260169
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
differentiate between indirect references to functions an direct calls.
This doesn't do a whole lot yet other than change the print out produced
by the analysis, but it lays the groundwork for a very major change I'm
working on next: teaching the call graph to actually be a call graph,
modeling *both* the indirect reference graph and the call graph
simultaneously. More details on that in the next patch though.
The rest of this is essentially a bunch of over-engineering that won't
be interesting until the next patch. But this also isolates essentially
all of the churn necessary to introduce the edge abstraction from the
very important behavior change necessary in order to separately model
the two graphs. So it should make review of the subsequent patch a bit
easier at the cost of making this patch seem poorly motivated. ;]
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16038
llvm-svn: 259463
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This patch is provided in preparation for removing autoconf on 1/26. The proposal to remove autoconf on 1/26 was discussed on the llvm-dev thread here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/093875.html
"I felt a great disturbance in the [build system], as if millions of [makefiles] suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something [amazing] has happened."
- Obi Wan Kenobi
Reviewers: chandlerc, grosbach, bob.wilson, tstellarAMD, echristo, whitequark
Subscribers: chfast, simoncook, emaste, jholewinski, tberghammer, jfb, danalbert, srhines, arsenm, dschuff, jyknight, dsanders, joker.eph, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16471
llvm-svn: 258861
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
"external" AA wrapper pass.
This is a generic hook that can be used to thread custom code into the
primary AAResultsWrapperPass for the legacy pass manager in order to
allow it to merge external AA results into the AA results it is
building. It does this by threading in a raw callback and so it is
*very* powerful and should serve almost any use case I have come up with
for extending the set of alias analyses used. The only thing not well
supported here is using a *different order* of alias analyses. That form
of extension *is* supportable with the new pass manager, and I can make
the callback structure here more elaborate to support it in the legacy
pass manager if this is a critical use case that people are already
depending on, but the only use cases I have heard of thus far should be
reasonably satisfied by this simpler extension mechanism.
It is hard to test this using normal facilities (the built-in AAs don't
use this for obvious reasons) so I've written a fairly extensive set of
custom passes in the alias analysis unit test that should be an
excellent test case because it models the out-of-tree users: it adds
a totally custom AA to the system. This should also serve as
a reasonably good example and guide for out-of-tree users to follow in
order to rig up their existing alias analyses.
No support in opt for commandline control is provided here however. I'm
really unhappy with the kind of contortions that would be required to
support that. It would fully re-introduce the analysis group
self-recursion kind of patterns. =/
I've heard from out-of-tree users that this will unblock their use cases
with extending AAs on top of the new infrastructure and let us retain
the new analysis-group-free-world.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13418
llvm-svn: 250894
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 250843
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
with the new pass manager, and no longer relying on analysis groups.
This builds essentially a ground-up new AA infrastructure stack for
LLVM. The core ideas are the same that are used throughout the new pass
manager: type erased polymorphism and direct composition. The design is
as follows:
- FunctionAAResults is a type-erasing alias analysis results aggregation
interface to walk a single query across a range of results from
different alias analyses. Currently this is function-specific as we
always assume that aliasing queries are *within* a function.
- AAResultBase is a CRTP utility providing stub implementations of
various parts of the alias analysis result concept, notably in several
cases in terms of other more general parts of the interface. This can
be used to implement only a narrow part of the interface rather than
the entire interface. This isn't really ideal, this logic should be
hoisted into FunctionAAResults as currently it will cause
a significant amount of redundant work, but it faithfully models the
behavior of the prior infrastructure.
- All the alias analysis passes are ported to be wrapper passes for the
legacy PM and new-style analysis passes for the new PM with a shared
result object. In some cases (most notably CFL), this is an extremely
naive approach that we should revisit when we can specialize for the
new pass manager.
- BasicAA has been restructured to reflect that it is much more
fundamentally a function analysis because it uses dominator trees and
loop info that need to be constructed for each function.
All of the references to getting alias analysis results have been
updated to use the new aggregation interface. All the preservation and
other pass management code has been updated accordingly.
The way the FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass works is to detect the
available alias analyses when run, and add them to the results object.
This means that we should be able to continue to respect when various
passes are added to the pipeline, for example adding CFL or adding TBAA
passes should just cause their results to be available and to get folded
into this. The exception to this rule is BasicAA which really needs to
be a function pass due to using dominator trees and loop info. As
a consequence, the FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass directly depends on
BasicAA and always includes it in the aggregation.
This has significant implications for preserving analyses. Generally,
most passes shouldn't bother preserving FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass
because rebuilding the results just updates the set of known AA passes.
The exception to this rule are LoopPass instances which need to preserve
all the function analyses that the loop pass manager will end up
needing. This means preserving both BasicAAWrapperPass and the
aggregating FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass.
Now, when preserving an alias analysis, you do so by directly preserving
that analysis. This is only necessary for non-immutable-pass-provided
alias analyses though, and there are only three of interest: BasicAA,
GlobalsAA (formerly GlobalsModRef), and SCEVAA. Usually BasicAA is
preserved when needed because it (like DominatorTree and LoopInfo) is
marked as a CFG-only pass. I've expanded GlobalsAA into the preserved
set everywhere we previously were preserving all of AliasAnalysis, and
I've added SCEVAA in the intersection of that with where we preserve
SCEV itself.
One significant challenge to all of this is that the CGSCC passes were
actually using the alias analysis implementations by taking advantage of
a pretty amazing set of loop holes in the old pass manager's analysis
management code which allowed analysis groups to slide through in many
cases. Moving away from analysis groups makes this problem much more
obvious. To fix it, I've leveraged the flexibility the design of the new
PM components provides to just directly construct the relevant alias
analyses for the relevant functions in the IPO passes that need them.
This is a bit hacky, but should go away with the new pass manager, and
is already in many ways cleaner than the prior state.
Another significant challenge is that various facilities of the old
alias analysis infrastructure just don't fit any more. The most
significant of these is the alias analysis 'counter' pass. That pass
relied on the ability to snoop on AA queries at different points in the
analysis group chain. Instead, I'm planning to build printing
functionality directly into the aggregation layer. I've not included
that in this patch merely to keep it smaller.
Note that all of this needs a nearly complete rewrite of the AA
documentation. I'm planning to do that, but I'd like to make sure the
new design settles, and to flesh out a bit more of what it looks like in
the new pass manager first.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12080
llvm-svn: 247167
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This test was updated in r246678 - fix a copypasta in a comment noticed post-commit.
llvm-svn: 246679
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We only looked through casts when one operand was a constant. We can also look through casts when both operands are non-constant, but both are in fact the same cast type. For example:
%1 = icmp ult i8 %a, %b
%2 = zext i8 %a to i32
%3 = zext i8 %b to i32
%4 = select i1 %1, i32 %2, i32 %3
llvm-svn: 246678
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
folding the code into the main Analysis library.
There already wasn't much of a distinction between Analysis and IPA.
A number of the passes in Analysis are actually IPA passes, and there
doesn't seem to be any advantage to separating them.
Moreover, it makes it hard to have interactions between analyses that
are both local and interprocedural. In trying to make the Alias Analysis
infrastructure work with the new pass manager, it becomes particularly
awkward to navigate this split.
I've tried to find all the places where we referenced this, but I may
have missed some. I have also adjusted the C API to continue to be
equivalently functional after this change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12075
llvm-svn: 245318
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
its creation function. Update the relevant includes accordingly.
llvm-svn: 245019
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The select pattern recognition in ValueTracking (as used by InstCombine
and SelectionDAGBuilder) only knew about integer patterns. This teaches
it about minimum and maximum operations.
matchSelectPattern() has been extended to return a struct containing the
existing Flavor and a new enum defining the pattern's behavior when
given one NaN operand.
C minnum() is defined to return the non-NaN operand in this case, but
the idiomatic C "a < b ? a : b" would return the NaN operand.
ARM and AArch64 at least have different instructions for these different cases.
llvm-svn: 244580
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the first mechanical step in preparation for making this and all
the other alias analysis passes available to the new pass manager. I'm
factoring out all the totally boring changes I can so I'm moving code
around here with no other changes. I've even minimized the formatting
churn.
I'll reformat and freshen comments on the interface now that its located
in the right place so that the substantive changes don't triger this.
llvm-svn: 244197
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
preparation for de-coupling the AA implementations.
In order to do this, they had to become fake-scoped using the
traditional LLVM pattern of a leading initialism. These can't be actual
scoped enumerations because they're bitfields and thus inherently we use
them as integers.
I've also renamed the behavior enums that are specific to reasoning
about the mod/ref behavior of functions when called. This makes it more
clear that they have a very narrow domain of applicability.
I think there is a significantly cleaner API for all of this, but
I don't want to try to do really substantive changes for now, I just
want to refactor the things away from analysis groups so I'm preserving
the exact original design and just cleaning up the names, style, and
lifting out of the class.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10564
llvm-svn: 242963
|
