2013-03-13 00:27:52 +08:00
|
|
|
; REQUIRES: asserts
|
2020-09-15 08:49:58 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; RUN: opt < %s -passes='print<regions>' 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
|
; RUN: opt < %s -passes='print<regions>' -stats 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=STAT %s
|
|
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -passes='print<regions>' -print-region-style=bb < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=BBIT %s
|
|
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -passes='print<regions>' -print-region-style=rn < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=RNIT %s
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define void @normal_condition() nounwind {
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"0":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"7"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"7":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br i1 1, label %"1", label %"8"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"1":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br i1 1, label %"2", label %"3"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"2":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"5"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"5":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br i1 1, label %"11", label %"12"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"11":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"6"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"12":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"6"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"6":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br i1 1, label %"2", label %"10"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"8":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"9"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"9":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br i1 1, label %"13", label %"14"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"13":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"10"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"14":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"10"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"10":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"8"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"3":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
br label %"4"
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
"4":
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NOT: =>
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: [0] 0 => <Function Return>
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-16 02:14:57 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: [1] 2 => 10
|
2022-05-26 16:48:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: [2] 5 => 6
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-16 02:14:57 +08:00
|
|
|
; STAT: 3 region - The # of regions
|
2010-07-22 15:46:31 +08:00
|
|
|
; STAT: 1 region - The # of simple regions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; BBIT: 0, 7, 1, 2, 5, 11, 6, 10, 8, 9, 13, 14, 12, 3, 4,
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-16 02:14:57 +08:00
|
|
|
; BBIT: 2, 5, 11, 6, 12,
|
|
|
|
|
; BBIT: 5, 11, 12,
|
|
|
|
|
; RNIT: 0, 7, 1, 2 => 10, 10, 8, 9, 13, 14, 3, 4,
|
|
|
|
|
; RNIT: 2, 5 => 6, 6,
|
IR: Support parsing numeric block ids, and emit them in textual output.
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
2019-03-23 02:27:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RNIT: 5, 11, 12,
|