maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Other/new-pm-defaults.ll

204 lines
10 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[PM] Make default pipeline test for the new PM strict Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes, analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs to be kept that way. The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences in type pretty-printing. (Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional and temporary.) Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887 llvm-svn: 292536
2017-01-20 07:39:28 +08:00
; The IR below was crafted so as:
; 1) To have a loop, so we create a loop pass manager
; 2) To be "immutable" in the sense that no pass in the standard
; pipeline will modify it.
; Since no transformations take place, we don't expect any analyses
; to be invalidated.
; Any invalidation that shows up here is a bug, unless we started modifying
; the IR, in which case we need to make it immutable harder.
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='default<O1>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-O1
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='default<O2>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-O2
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='default<O3>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-O3
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='default<Os>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-Os
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='default<Oz>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-Oz
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -debug-pass-manager \
; RUN: -passes='lto-pre-link<O2>' -S %s 2>&1 \
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-O --check-prefix=CHECK-O2
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O: Starting llvm::Module pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PassManager<{{.*}}Module{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Module pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ForceFunctionAttrsPass
[PM/ThinLTO] Port the ThinLTO pipeline (both components) to the new PM. Based on the original patch by Davide, but I've adjusted the API exposed to just be different entry points rather than exposing more state parameters. I've factored all the common logic out so that we don't have any duplicate pipelines, we just stitch them together in different ways. I think this makes the build easier to reason about and understand. This adds a direct method for getting the module simplification pipeline as well as a method to get the optimization pipeline. While not my express goal, this seems nice and gives a good place comment about the restrictions that are imposed on them. I did make some minor changes to the way the pipelines are structured here, but hopefully not ones that are significant or controversial: 1) I sunk the PGO indirect call promotion to only be run when we have PGO enabled (or as part of the special ThinLTO pipeline). 2) I made the extra GlobalOpt run in ThinLTO just happen all the time and at a slightly more powerful place (before we remove available externaly functions). This seems like general goodness and not a big compile time sink, so it didn't make sense to *only* use it in ThinLTO. Fewer differences in the pipeline makes everything simpler IMO. 3) I hoisted the ThinLTO stop point pre-link above the the RPO function attr inference. The RPO inference won't infer anything terribly meaningful pre-link (recursiveness?) so it didn't make a lot of sense. But if the placement of RPO inference starts to matter, we should move it to the canonicalization phase anyways which seems like a better place for it (and there is a FIXME to this effect!). But that seemed a bridge too far for this patch. If we ever need to parameterize these pipelines more heavily, we can always sink the logic to helper functions with parameters to keep those parameters out of the public API. But the changes above seemed minor that we could possible get away without the parameters entirely. I added support for parsing 'thinlto' and 'thinlto-pre-link' names in pass pipelines to make it easy to test these routines and play with them in larger pipelines. I also added a really basic manifest of passes test that will show exactly how the pipelines behave and work as well as making updates to them clear. Lastly, this factoring does introduce a nesting layer of module pass managers in the default pipeline. I don't think this is a big deal and the flexibility of decoupling the pipelines seems easily worth it. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33540 llvm-svn: 304407
2017-06-01 19:39:39 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PassManager<{{.*}}Module{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Module pass manager run.
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InferFunctionAttrsPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor<{{.*}}PassManager{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetIRAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AssumptionAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SROA
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: DominatorTreeAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: EarlyCSEPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LowerExpectIntrinsicPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: IPSCCPPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalOptPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor<{{.*}}PromotePass>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: DeadArgumentEliminationPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor<{{.*}}PassManager{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Function pass manager run.
[PM] Enable GlobalsAA in the new PM's pipeline by default. All the invalidation issues and bugs in this seem to be fixed, it has survived a full build of the test suite plus SPEC with asserts and ASan enabled on the Clang binary used. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29815 llvm-svn: 294887
2017-02-12 13:34:04 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}GlobalsAA
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: GlobalsAA
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: CallGraphAnalysis
[PM] Add ProfileSummaryAnalysis as a required pass in the new pipeline. Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32768 llvm-svn: 302170
2017-05-05 00:58:45 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}ProfileSummaryAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: ProfileSummaryAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleToPostOrderCGSCCPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LazyCallGraph{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyCallGraphAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting CGSCC pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InlinerPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy<{{.*}}LazyCallGraph{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PostOrderFunctionAttrsPass
[PM/Inliner] Make the new PM's inliner process call edges across an entire SCC before iterating on newly-introduced call edges resulting from any inlined function bodies. This more closely matches the behavior of the old PM's inliner. While it wasn't really clear to me initially, this behavior is actually essential to the inliner behaving reasonably in its current design. Because the inliner is fundamentally a bottom-up inliner and all of its cost modeling is designed around that it often runs into trouble within an SCC where we don't have any meaningful bottom-up ordering to use. In addition to potentially cyclic, infinite inlining that we block with the inline history mechanism, it can also take seemingly simple call graph patterns within an SCC and turn them into *insanely* large functions by accidentally working top-down across the SCC without any of the threshold limitations that traditional top-down inliners use. Consider this diabolical monster.cpp file that Richard Smith came up with to help demonstrate this issue: ``` template <int N> extern const char *str; void g(const char *); template <bool K, int N> void f(bool *B, bool *E) { if (K) g(str<N>); if (B == E) return; if (*B) f<true, N + 1>(B + 1, E); else f<false, N + 1>(B + 1, E); } template <> void f<false, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<false, 0>(B, E); } template <> void f<true, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<true, 0>(B, E); } extern bool *arr, *end; void test() { f<false, 0>(arr, end); } ``` When compiled with '-DMAX=N' for various values of N, this will create an SCC with a reasonably large number of functions. Previously, the inliner would try to exhaust the inlining candidates in a single function before moving on. This, unfortunately, turns it into a top-down inliner within the SCC. Because our thresholds were never built for that, we will incrementally decide that it is always worth inlining and proceed to flatten the entire SCC into that one function. What's worse, we'll then proceed to the next function, and do the exact same thing except we'll skip the first function, and so on. And at each step, we'll also make some of the constant factors larger, which is awesome. The fix in this patch is the obvious one which makes the new PM's inliner use the same technique used by the old PM: consider all the call edges across the entire SCC before beginning to process call edges introduced by inlining. The result of this is essentially to distribute the inlining across the SCC so that every function incrementally grows toward the inline thresholds rather than allowing the inliner to grow one of the functions vastly beyond the threshold. The code for this is a bit awkward, but it works out OK. We could consider in the future doing something more powerful here such as prioritized order (via lowest cost and/or profile info) and/or a code-growth budget per SCC. However, both of those would require really substantial work both to design the system in a way that wouldn't break really useful abstraction decomposition properties of the current inliner and to be tuned across a reasonably diverse set of code and workloads. It also seems really risky in many ways. I have only found a single real-world file that triggers the bad behavior here and it is generated code that has a pretty pathological pattern. I'm not worried about the inliner not doing an *awesome* job here as long as it does *ok*. On the other hand, the cases that will be tricky to get right in a prioritized scheme with a budget will be more common and idiomatic for at least some frontends (C++ and Rust at least). So while these approaches are still really interesting, I'm not in a huge rush to go after them. Staying even closer to the existing PM's behavior, especially when this easy to do, seems like the right short to medium term approach. I don't really have a test case that makes sense yet... I'll try to find a variant of the IR produced by the monster template metaprogram that is both small enough to be sane and large enough to clearly show when we get this wrong in the future. But I'm not confident this exists. And the behavior change here *should* be unobservable without snooping on debug logging. So there isn't really much to test. The test case updates come from two incidental changes: 1) We now visit functions in an SCC in the opposite order. I don't think there really is a "right" order here, so I just update the test cases. 2) We no longer compute some analyses when an SCC has no call instructions that we consider for inlining. llvm-svn: 297374
2017-03-09 19:35:40 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: FunctionAnalysisManagerCGSCCProxy
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AAManager
[PM] Add Argument Promotion to the pass pipeline. This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595 llvm-svn: 294670
2017-02-10 07:54:57 +08:00
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: ArgumentPromotionPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CGSCCToFunctionPassAdaptor<{{.*}}PassManager{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SROA
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: EarlyCSEPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SpeculativeExecutionPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: JumpThreadingPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyValueAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CorrelatedValuePropagationPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O1-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: TailCallElimPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ReassociatePass
[PM] Add Argument Promotion to the pass pipeline. This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595 llvm-svn: 294670
2017-02-10 07:54:57 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis
[PM/Inliner] Make the new PM's inliner process call edges across an entire SCC before iterating on newly-introduced call edges resulting from any inlined function bodies. This more closely matches the behavior of the old PM's inliner. While it wasn't really clear to me initially, this behavior is actually essential to the inliner behaving reasonably in its current design. Because the inliner is fundamentally a bottom-up inliner and all of its cost modeling is designed around that it often runs into trouble within an SCC where we don't have any meaningful bottom-up ordering to use. In addition to potentially cyclic, infinite inlining that we block with the inline history mechanism, it can also take seemingly simple call graph patterns within an SCC and turn them into *insanely* large functions by accidentally working top-down across the SCC without any of the threshold limitations that traditional top-down inliners use. Consider this diabolical monster.cpp file that Richard Smith came up with to help demonstrate this issue: ``` template <int N> extern const char *str; void g(const char *); template <bool K, int N> void f(bool *B, bool *E) { if (K) g(str<N>); if (B == E) return; if (*B) f<true, N + 1>(B + 1, E); else f<false, N + 1>(B + 1, E); } template <> void f<false, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<false, 0>(B, E); } template <> void f<true, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<true, 0>(B, E); } extern bool *arr, *end; void test() { f<false, 0>(arr, end); } ``` When compiled with '-DMAX=N' for various values of N, this will create an SCC with a reasonably large number of functions. Previously, the inliner would try to exhaust the inlining candidates in a single function before moving on. This, unfortunately, turns it into a top-down inliner within the SCC. Because our thresholds were never built for that, we will incrementally decide that it is always worth inlining and proceed to flatten the entire SCC into that one function. What's worse, we'll then proceed to the next function, and do the exact same thing except we'll skip the first function, and so on. And at each step, we'll also make some of the constant factors larger, which is awesome. The fix in this patch is the obvious one which makes the new PM's inliner use the same technique used by the old PM: consider all the call edges across the entire SCC before beginning to process call edges introduced by inlining. The result of this is essentially to distribute the inlining across the SCC so that every function incrementally grows toward the inline thresholds rather than allowing the inliner to grow one of the functions vastly beyond the threshold. The code for this is a bit awkward, but it works out OK. We could consider in the future doing something more powerful here such as prioritized order (via lowest cost and/or profile info) and/or a code-growth budget per SCC. However, both of those would require really substantial work both to design the system in a way that wouldn't break really useful abstraction decomposition properties of the current inliner and to be tuned across a reasonably diverse set of code and workloads. It also seems really risky in many ways. I have only found a single real-world file that triggers the bad behavior here and it is generated code that has a pretty pathological pattern. I'm not worried about the inliner not doing an *awesome* job here as long as it does *ok*. On the other hand, the cases that will be tricky to get right in a prioritized scheme with a budget will be more common and idiomatic for at least some frontends (C++ and Rust at least). So while these approaches are still really interesting, I'm not in a huge rush to go after them. Staying even closer to the existing PM's behavior, especially when this easy to do, seems like the right short to medium term approach. I don't really have a test case that makes sense yet... I'll try to find a variant of the IR produced by the monster template metaprogram that is both small enough to be sane and large enough to clearly show when we get this wrong in the future. But I'm not confident this exists. And the behavior change here *should* be unobservable without snooping on debug logging. So there isn't really much to test. The test case updates come from two incidental changes: 1) We now visit functions in an SCC in the opposite order. I don't think there really is a "right" order here, so I just update the test cases. 2) We no longer compute some analyses when an SCC has no call instructions that we consider for inlining. llvm-svn: 297374
2017-03-09 19:35:40 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LoopStandardAnalysisResults{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: ScalarEvolutionAnalysis
[PM] Fix a bug in the new loop PM when handling functions with no loops. Without any loops, we don't even bother to build the standard analyses used by loop passes. Without these, we can't run loop analyses or invalidate them properly. Unfortunately, we did these things in the wrong order which would allow a loop analysis manager's proxy to be built but then not have the standard analyses built. When we went to do the invalidation in the proxy thing would fall apart. In the test case provided, it would actually crash. The fix is to carefully check for loops first, and to in fact build the standard analyses before building the proxy. This allows it to correctly trigger invalidation for those standard analyses. An alternative might seem to be to look at whether there are any loops when doing invalidation, but this doesn't work when during the loop pipeline run we delete the last loop. I've even included that as a test case. It is both simpler and more robust to defer building the proxy until there are definitely the standard set of analyses and indeed loops. This bug was uncovered by enabling GlobalsAA in the pipeline. llvm-svn: 294728
2017-02-10 16:26:58 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting Loop pass manager run.
[PM] Enable the main loop pass pipelines with everything but loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM. All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures. There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and they aren't completely broken. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113 llvm-svn: 293225
2017-01-27 07:21:17 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopRotatePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LICM
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy
[PM] Enable the new simple loop unswitch pass in the new pass manager (where it is the only realistic option). This passes the LLVM test suite for me, but I'm clearly still hammering on this. llvm-svn: 303952
2017-05-26 09:24:11 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimpleLoopUnswitchPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished Loop pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LoopStandardAnalysisResults{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting Loop pass manager run.
[PM] Enable the main loop pass pipelines with everything but loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM. All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures. There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and they aren't completely broken. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113 llvm-svn: 293225
2017-01-27 07:21:17 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: IndVarSimplifyPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopIdiomRecognizePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopDeletionPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopUnrollPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished Loop pass manager run.
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running pass: GVN
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running pass: GVN
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: GVN
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: GVN
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: MemCpyOptPass
Disable GVN Hoist due to still more bugs being found in it. There is also a discussion about exactly what we should do prior to re-enabling it. The current bug is http://llvm.org/PR32821 and the discussion about this is in the review thread for r300200. llvm-svn: 301505
2017-04-27 08:28:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O1-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SCCPPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: BDCEPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: DemandedBitsAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: JumpThreadingPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CorrelatedValuePropagationPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: DSEPass
[PM] Enable the main loop pass pipelines with everything but loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM. All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures. There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and they aren't completely broken. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113 llvm-svn: 293225
2017-01-27 07:21:17 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LICMPass{{.*}}>
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ADCEPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: PostDominatorTreeAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished CGSCC pass manager run.
[PM/ThinLTO] Port the ThinLTO pipeline (both components) to the new PM. Based on the original patch by Davide, but I've adjusted the API exposed to just be different entry points rather than exposing more state parameters. I've factored all the common logic out so that we don't have any duplicate pipelines, we just stitch them together in different ways. I think this makes the build easier to reason about and understand. This adds a direct method for getting the module simplification pipeline as well as a method to get the optimization pipeline. While not my express goal, this seems nice and gives a good place comment about the restrictions that are imposed on them. I did make some minor changes to the way the pipelines are structured here, but hopefully not ones that are significant or controversial: 1) I sunk the PGO indirect call promotion to only be run when we have PGO enabled (or as part of the special ThinLTO pipeline). 2) I made the extra GlobalOpt run in ThinLTO just happen all the time and at a slightly more powerful place (before we remove available externaly functions). This seems like general goodness and not a big compile time sink, so it didn't make sense to *only* use it in ThinLTO. Fewer differences in the pipeline makes everything simpler IMO. 3) I hoisted the ThinLTO stop point pre-link above the the RPO function attr inference. The RPO inference won't infer anything terribly meaningful pre-link (recursiveness?) so it didn't make a lot of sense. But if the placement of RPO inference starts to matter, we should move it to the canonicalization phase anyways which seems like a better place for it (and there is a FIXME to this effect!). But that seemed a bridge too far for this patch. If we ever need to parameterize these pipelines more heavily, we can always sink the logic to helper functions with parameters to keep those parameters out of the public API. But the changes above seemed minor that we could possible get away without the parameters entirely. I added support for parsing 'thinlto' and 'thinlto-pre-link' names in pass pipelines to make it easy to test these routines and play with them in larger pipelines. I also added a really basic manifest of passes test that will show exactly how the pipelines behave and work as well as making updates to them clear. Lastly, this factoring does introduce a nesting layer of module pass managers in the default pipeline. I don't think this is a big deal and the flexibility of decoupling the pipelines seems easily worth it. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33540 llvm-svn: 304407
2017-06-01 19:39:39 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Module pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PassManager<{{.*}}Module{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Module pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalOptPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: EliminateAvailableExternallyPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ReversePostOrderFunctionAttrsPass
[PM] Enable GlobalsAA in the new PM's pipeline by default. All the invalidation issues and bugs in this seem to be fixed, it has survived a full build of the test suite plus SPEC with asserts and ASan enabled on the Clang binary used. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29815 llvm-svn: 294887
2017-02-12 13:34:04 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}GlobalsAA
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor<{{.*}}PassManager{{.*}}>
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Starting llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: Float2IntPass
[PM] Flesh out almost all of the late loop passes. With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the legacy PM. The missing pieces are: - PruneEH (or some equivalent) - ArgumentPromotion - LoopLoadElimination - LoopUnswitch I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state. One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have any effect other than minor improvement to locality. Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the compiler doesn't crash or assert. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114 llvm-svn: 293241
2017-01-27 08:50:21 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LoopRotatePass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopDistributePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopVectorizePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BlockFrequencyAnalysis
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BranchProbabilityAnalysis
[PM] Port LoopLoadElimination to the new pass manager and wire it into the main pipeline. This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising. This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down to three. llvm-svn: 293249
2017-01-27 09:32:26 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopLoadEliminationPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SLPVectorizerPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
[PM] Flesh out almost all of the late loop passes. With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the legacy PM. The missing pieces are: - PruneEH (or some equivalent) - ArgumentPromotion - LoopLoadElimination - LoopUnswitch I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state. One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have any effect other than minor improvement to locality. Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the compiler doesn't crash or assert. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114 llvm-svn: 293241
2017-01-27 08:50:21 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LoopUnrollPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
[PM] Add Argument Promotion to the pass pipeline. This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595 llvm-svn: 294670
2017-02-10 07:54:57 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis
[PM] Flesh out almost all of the late loop passes. With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the legacy PM. The missing pieces are: - PruneEH (or some equivalent) - ArgumentPromotion - LoopLoadElimination - LoopUnswitch I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state. One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have any effect other than minor improvement to locality. Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the compiler doesn't crash or assert. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114 llvm-svn: 293241
2017-01-27 08:50:21 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor<{{.*}}LICMPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass
[PM] Flesh out almost all of the late loop passes. With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the legacy PM. The missing pieces are: - PruneEH (or some equivalent) - ArgumentPromotion - LoopLoadElimination - LoopUnswitch I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state. One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have any effect other than minor improvement to locality. Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the compiler doesn't crash or assert. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114 llvm-svn: 293241
2017-01-27 08:50:21 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopSinkPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstSimplifierPass
Simplify the CFG after loop pass cleanup. Summary: Otherwise we might end up with some empty basic blocks or single-entry-single-exit basic blocks. This fixes PR32085 Reviewers: chandlerc, danielcdh Subscribers: mehdi_amini, RKSimon, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30468 llvm-svn: 301395
2017-04-26 20:02:41 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Function pass manager run.
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalDCEPass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ConstantMergePass
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Module pass manager run.
[PM/ThinLTO] Port the ThinLTO pipeline (both components) to the new PM. Based on the original patch by Davide, but I've adjusted the API exposed to just be different entry points rather than exposing more state parameters. I've factored all the common logic out so that we don't have any duplicate pipelines, we just stitch them together in different ways. I think this makes the build easier to reason about and understand. This adds a direct method for getting the module simplification pipeline as well as a method to get the optimization pipeline. While not my express goal, this seems nice and gives a good place comment about the restrictions that are imposed on them. I did make some minor changes to the way the pipelines are structured here, but hopefully not ones that are significant or controversial: 1) I sunk the PGO indirect call promotion to only be run when we have PGO enabled (or as part of the special ThinLTO pipeline). 2) I made the extra GlobalOpt run in ThinLTO just happen all the time and at a slightly more powerful place (before we remove available externaly functions). This seems like general goodness and not a big compile time sink, so it didn't make sense to *only* use it in ThinLTO. Fewer differences in the pipeline makes everything simpler IMO. 3) I hoisted the ThinLTO stop point pre-link above the the RPO function attr inference. The RPO inference won't infer anything terribly meaningful pre-link (recursiveness?) so it didn't make a lot of sense. But if the placement of RPO inference starts to matter, we should move it to the canonicalization phase anyways which seems like a better place for it (and there is a FIXME to this effect!). But that seemed a bridge too far for this patch. If we ever need to parameterize these pipelines more heavily, we can always sink the logic to helper functions with parameters to keep those parameters out of the public API. But the changes above seemed minor that we could possible get away without the parameters entirely. I added support for parsing 'thinlto' and 'thinlto-pre-link' names in pass pipelines to make it easy to test these routines and play with them in larger pipelines. I also added a really basic manifest of passes test that will show exactly how the pipelines behave and work as well as making updates to them clear. Lastly, this factoring does introduce a nesting layer of module pass managers in the default pipeline. I don't think this is a big deal and the flexibility of decoupling the pipelines seems easily worth it. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33540 llvm-svn: 304407
2017-06-01 19:39:39 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Module pass manager run.
[PM] Tidy up the spacing of this new, much nicer test file. llvm-svn: 292592
2017-01-20 17:30:03 +08:00
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PrintModulePass
;
; Make sure we get the IR back out without changes when we print the module.
; CHECK-O-LABEL: define void @foo(i32 %n) local_unnamed_addr {
; CHECK-O-NEXT: entry:
; CHECK-O-NEXT: br label %loop
; CHECK-O: loop:
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %iv = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %iv.next, %loop ]
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %iv.next = add i32 %iv, 1
; CHECK-O-NEXT: tail call void @bar()
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %cmp = icmp eq i32 %iv, %n
; CHECK-O-NEXT: br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop
; CHECK-O: exit:
; CHECK-O-NEXT: ret void
; CHECK-O-NEXT: }
;
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Finished llvm::Module pass manager run.
[PM] Make default pipeline test for the new PM strict Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes, analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs to be kept that way. The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences in type pretty-printing. (Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional and temporary.) Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887 llvm-svn: 292536
2017-01-20 07:39:28 +08:00
declare void @bar() local_unnamed_addr
define void @foo(i32 %n) local_unnamed_addr {
entry:
br label %loop
loop:
%iv = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %iv.next, %loop ]
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 1
tail call void @bar()
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %iv, %n
br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop
exit:
ret void
}