maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC/base-pointers-11.ll

25 lines
890 B
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
; RUN: opt < %s -rewrite-statepoints-for-gc -spp-print-base-pointers -S 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
; CHECK: derived %next base %base_obj
declare void @do_safepoint()
define void @test(i64 addrspace(1)* %base_obj) gc "statepoint-example" {
entry:
%obj = getelementptr i64, i64 addrspace(1)* %base_obj, i32 1
br label %loop
loop: ; preds = %loop, %entry
; CHECK-LABEL: loop:
; CHECK: phi i64 addrspace(1)*
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Fix a bug on creating gc_relocate for pointer to vector of pointers Summary: In RewriteStatepointsForGC pass, we create a gc_relocate intrinsic for each relocated pointer, and the gc_relocate has the same type with the pointer. During the creation of gc_relocate intrinsic, llvm requires to mangle its type. However, llvm does not support mangling of all possible types. RewriteStatepointsForGC will hit an assertion failure when it tries to create a gc_relocate for pointer to vector of pointers because mangling for vector of pointers is not supported. This patch changes the way RewriteStatepointsForGC pass creates gc_relocate. For each relocated pointer, we erase the type of pointers and create an unified gc_relocate of type i8 addrspace(1)*. Then a bitcast is inserted to convert the gc_relocate to the correct type. In this way, gc_relocate does not need to deal with different types of pointers and the unsupported type mangling is no longer a problem. This change would also ease further merge when LLVM erases types of pointers and introduces an unified pointer type. Some minor changes are also introduced to gc_relocate related part in InstCombineCalls, CodeGenPrepare, and Verifier accordingly. Patch by Chen Li! Reviewers: reames, AndyAyers, sanjoy Reviewed By: sanjoy Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9592 llvm-svn: 237009
2015-05-12 02:49:34 +08:00
; CHECK-DAG: [ %base_obj.relocated.casted, %loop ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
; CHECK-DAG: [ %base_obj, %entry ]
; CHECK: %current = phi i64 addrspace(1)*
; CHECK-DAG: [ %obj, %entry ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Fix a bug on creating gc_relocate for pointer to vector of pointers Summary: In RewriteStatepointsForGC pass, we create a gc_relocate intrinsic for each relocated pointer, and the gc_relocate has the same type with the pointer. During the creation of gc_relocate intrinsic, llvm requires to mangle its type. However, llvm does not support mangling of all possible types. RewriteStatepointsForGC will hit an assertion failure when it tries to create a gc_relocate for pointer to vector of pointers because mangling for vector of pointers is not supported. This patch changes the way RewriteStatepointsForGC pass creates gc_relocate. For each relocated pointer, we erase the type of pointers and create an unified gc_relocate of type i8 addrspace(1)*. Then a bitcast is inserted to convert the gc_relocate to the correct type. In this way, gc_relocate does not need to deal with different types of pointers and the unsupported type mangling is no longer a problem. This change would also ease further merge when LLVM erases types of pointers and introduces an unified pointer type. Some minor changes are also introduced to gc_relocate related part in InstCombineCalls, CodeGenPrepare, and Verifier accordingly. Patch by Chen Li! Reviewers: reames, AndyAyers, sanjoy Reviewed By: sanjoy Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9592 llvm-svn: 237009
2015-05-12 02:49:34 +08:00
; CHECK-DAG: [ %next.relocated.casted, %loop ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
%current = phi i64 addrspace(1)* [ %obj, %entry ], [ %next, %loop ]
%next = getelementptr i64, i64 addrspace(1)* %current, i32 1
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
call void @do_safepoint() [ "deopt"(i32 0, i32 -1, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0) ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
br label %loop
}