summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/unittests/IR/DomTreeUpdaterTest.cpp
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* [DomTreeUpdater] Ignore updates when both DT and PDT are nullptrsChijun Sima2018-07-131-5/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: Previously, when both DT and PDT are nullptrs and the UpdateStrategy is Lazy, DomTreeUpdater still pends updates inside. After this patch, DomTreeUpdater will ignore all updates from(`applyUpdates()/insertEdge*()/deleteEdge*()`) in this case. (call `delBB()` still pends BasicBlock deletion until a flush event according to the doc). The behavior of DomTreeUpdater previously documented won't change after the patch. Reviewers: dmgreen, davide, kuhar, brzycki, grosser Reviewed By: kuhar Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48974 llvm-svn: 336968
* [Dominators] Add isUpdateLazy() method to the DomTreeUpdaterChijun Sima2018-07-121-7/+14
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: Previously, when people need to deal with DTU with different UpdateStrategy using different actions, they need to ``` if (DTU.getUpdateStrategy() == DomTreeUpdater::UpdateStrategy::Lazy) { ... } if (DTU.getUpdateStrategy() == DomTreeUpdater::UpdateStrategy::Eager) { ... } ``` After the patch, they can avoid code patterns above ``` if (DTU.isUpdateLazy()){ ... } if (!DTU.isUpdateLazy()){ ... } ``` Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen Reviewed By: kuhar Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49056 llvm-svn: 336886
* Test commitChijun Sima2018-07-071-1/+0
| | | | llvm-svn: 336485
* [Dominators] Add DomTreeUpdater constructor from DT* and PDT*Jakub Kuderski2018-07-041-3/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: Previously, if a function accepts an optional DT pointer, ``` void Foo (.., DominatorTree * DT = nullptr) { ... if(DT) DomTreeUpdater(*DT, ...).insertEdge(A, B); if(DT){ DomTreeUpdater DTU(*DT, ...); ... // Construct the update vector and applyUpdates } ... if(DT){ DomTreeUpdater DTU(*DT, ...); ... // Construct the update vector and applyUpdates } } ``` After this patch, it can be simplified as ``` void Foo (.., DominatorTree * DT = nullptr) { DomTreeUpdater DTU(DT, ...); ... DTU.insertEdge(A, B); if(DT){ ... // Construct the update vector and applyUpdates } ... if(DT){ ... // Construct the update vector and applyUpdates } } ``` Patch by Chijun Sima <simachijun@gmail.com>. Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen Reviewed By: kuhar Author: NutshellySima Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48923 llvm-svn: 336294
* Reappl "[Dominators] Add the DomTreeUpdater class"Jakub Kuderski2018-07-031-0/+693
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: This patch is the first in a series of patches related to the [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123883.html | RFC - A new dominator tree updater for LLVM ]]. This patch introduces the DomTreeUpdater class, which provides a cleaner API to perform updates on available dominator trees (none, only DomTree, only PostDomTree, both) using different update strategies (eagerly or lazily) to simplify the updating process. —Prior to the patch— - Directly calling update functions of DominatorTree updates the data structure eagerly while DeferredDominance does updates lazily. - DeferredDominance class cannot be used when a PostDominatorTree also needs to be updated. - Functions receiving DT/DDT need to branch a lot which is currently necessary. - Functions using both DomTree and PostDomTree need to call the update function separately on both trees. - People need to construct an additional DeferredDominance class to use functions only receiving DDT. —After the patch— Patch by Chijun Sima <simachijun@gmail.com>. Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser, davide Reviewed By: kuhar, brzycki Author: NutshellySima Subscribers: vsk, mgorny, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48383 llvm-svn: 336163
* Revert "[Dominators] Add the DomTreeUpdater class"Jakub Kuderski2018-07-021-693/+0
| | | | | | | | Temporary revert because of a failing test on some buildbots. This reverts commit r336114. llvm-svn: 336117
* [Dominators] Add the DomTreeUpdater classJakub Kuderski2018-07-021-0/+693
Summary: This patch is the first in a series of patches related to the [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123883.html | RFC - A new dominator tree updater for LLVM ]]. This patch introduces the DomTreeUpdater class, which provides a cleaner API to perform updates on available dominator trees (none, only DomTree, only PostDomTree, both) using different update strategies (eagerly or lazily) to simplify the updating process. —Prior to the patch— - Directly calling update functions of DominatorTree updates the data structure eagerly while DeferredDominance does updates lazily. - DeferredDominance class cannot be used when a PostDominatorTree also needs to be updated. - Functions receiving DT/DDT need to branch a lot which is currently necessary. - Functions using both DomTree and PostDomTree need to call the update function separately on both trees. - People need to construct an additional DeferredDominance class to use functions only receiving DDT. —After the patch— Patch by Chijun Sima <simachijun@gmail.com>. Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser, davide Reviewed By: kuhar, brzycki Subscribers: vsk, mgorny, llvm-commits Author: NutshellySima Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48383 llvm-svn: 336114
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud