llvm-project/llvm/lib/IR/Dominators.cpp

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

412 lines
15 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- Dominators.cpp - Dominator Calculation -----------------------------===//
//
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This file implements simple dominator construction algorithms for finding
// forward dominators. Postdominators are available in libanalysis, but are not
// included in libvmcore, because it's not needed. Forward dominators are
// needed to support the Verifier pass.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/DepthFirstIterator.h"
2007-03-28 04:50:46 +08:00
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallPtrSet.h"
#include "llvm/Config/llvm-config.h"
#include "llvm/IR/CFG.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
#include "llvm/IR/PassManager.h"
#include "llvm/InitializePasses.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/GenericDomTreeConstruction.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
2004-06-05 08:24:59 +08:00
#include <algorithm>
using namespace llvm;
bool llvm::VerifyDomInfo = false;
static cl::opt<bool, true>
VerifyDomInfoX("verify-dom-info", cl::location(VerifyDomInfo), cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("Verify dominator info (time consuming)"));
[Dominators] Introduce DomTree verification levels Summary: Currently, there are 2 ways to verify a DomTree: * `DT.verify()` -- runs full tree verification and checks all the properties and gives a reason why the tree is incorrect. This is run by when EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are enabled or when `-verify-dom-info` flag is set. * `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` -- constructs a fresh tree and compares it against the old one. This does not check any other tree properties (DFS number, levels), nor ensures that the construction algorithm is correct. Used by some passes inside assertions. This patch introduces DomTree verification levels, that try to close the gape between the two ways of checking trees by introducing 3 verification levels: - Full -- checks all properties, but can be slow (O(N^3)). Used when manually requested (e.g. `assert(DT.verify())`) or when `-verify-dom-info` is set. - Basic -- checks all properties except the sibling property, and compares the current tree with a freshly constructed one instead. This should catch almost all errors, but does not guarantee that the construction algorithm is correct. Used when EXPENSIVE checks are enabled. - Fast -- checks only basic properties (reachablility, dfs numbers, levels, roots), and compares with a fresh tree. This is meant to replace the legacy `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` and in my tests doesn't cause any noticeable performance impact even in the most pessimistic examples. When used to verify dom tree wrapper pass analysis on sqlite3, the 3 new levels make `opt -O3` take the following amount of time on my machine: - no verification: 8.3s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Fast)`: 10.1s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Basic)`: 44.8s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Full)`: 1m 46.2s (and the previous `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` is within the noise of the Fast level) This patch makes `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` pick between the 3 verification levels depending on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and `-verify-dom-info`. Reviewers: dberlin, brzycki, davide, grosser, dmgreen Reviewed By: dberlin, brzycki Subscribers: MatzeB, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42337 llvm-svn: 323298
2018-01-24 10:40:35 +08:00
#ifdef EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
static constexpr bool ExpensiveChecksEnabled = true;
#else
static constexpr bool ExpensiveChecksEnabled = false;
#endif
bool BasicBlockEdge::isSingleEdge() const {
const Instruction *TI = Start->getTerminator();
unsigned NumEdgesToEnd = 0;
for (unsigned int i = 0, n = TI->getNumSuccessors(); i < n; ++i) {
if (TI->getSuccessor(i) == End)
++NumEdgesToEnd;
if (NumEdgesToEnd >= 2)
return false;
}
assert(NumEdgesToEnd == 1);
return true;
}
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
// DominatorTree Implementation
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// Provide public access to DominatorTree information. Implementation details
// can be found in Dominators.h, GenericDomTree.h, and
// GenericDomTreeConstruction.h.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
template class llvm::DomTreeNodeBase<BasicBlock>;
template class llvm::DominatorTreeBase<BasicBlock, false>; // DomTreeBase
template class llvm::DominatorTreeBase<BasicBlock, true>; // PostDomTreeBase
template class llvm::cfg::Update<BasicBlock *>;
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::Calculate<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT);
template void
llvm::DomTreeBuilder::CalculateWithUpdates<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT, BBUpdates U);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::Calculate<DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree &DT);
// No CalculateWithUpdates<PostDomTree> instantiation, unless a usecase arises.
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::InsertEdge<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT, BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::InsertEdge<DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree &DT, BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::DeleteEdge<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT, BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::DeleteEdge<DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree &DT, BasicBlock *From, BasicBlock *To);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::ApplyUpdates<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT, DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTreeGraphDiff &,
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTreeGraphDiff *);
template void llvm::DomTreeBuilder::ApplyUpdates<DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree>(
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree &DT, DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTreeGraphDiff &,
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTreeGraphDiff *);
template bool llvm::DomTreeBuilder::Verify<DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree>(
[Dominators] Introduce DomTree verification levels Summary: Currently, there are 2 ways to verify a DomTree: * `DT.verify()` -- runs full tree verification and checks all the properties and gives a reason why the tree is incorrect. This is run by when EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are enabled or when `-verify-dom-info` flag is set. * `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` -- constructs a fresh tree and compares it against the old one. This does not check any other tree properties (DFS number, levels), nor ensures that the construction algorithm is correct. Used by some passes inside assertions. This patch introduces DomTree verification levels, that try to close the gape between the two ways of checking trees by introducing 3 verification levels: - Full -- checks all properties, but can be slow (O(N^3)). Used when manually requested (e.g. `assert(DT.verify())`) or when `-verify-dom-info` is set. - Basic -- checks all properties except the sibling property, and compares the current tree with a freshly constructed one instead. This should catch almost all errors, but does not guarantee that the construction algorithm is correct. Used when EXPENSIVE checks are enabled. - Fast -- checks only basic properties (reachablility, dfs numbers, levels, roots), and compares with a fresh tree. This is meant to replace the legacy `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` and in my tests doesn't cause any noticeable performance impact even in the most pessimistic examples. When used to verify dom tree wrapper pass analysis on sqlite3, the 3 new levels make `opt -O3` take the following amount of time on my machine: - no verification: 8.3s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Fast)`: 10.1s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Basic)`: 44.8s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Full)`: 1m 46.2s (and the previous `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` is within the noise of the Fast level) This patch makes `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` pick between the 3 verification levels depending on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and `-verify-dom-info`. Reviewers: dberlin, brzycki, davide, grosser, dmgreen Reviewed By: dberlin, brzycki Subscribers: MatzeB, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42337 llvm-svn: 323298
2018-01-24 10:40:35 +08:00
const DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree &DT,
DomTreeBuilder::BBDomTree::VerificationLevel VL);
template bool llvm::DomTreeBuilder::Verify<DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree>(
[Dominators] Introduce DomTree verification levels Summary: Currently, there are 2 ways to verify a DomTree: * `DT.verify()` -- runs full tree verification and checks all the properties and gives a reason why the tree is incorrect. This is run by when EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are enabled or when `-verify-dom-info` flag is set. * `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` -- constructs a fresh tree and compares it against the old one. This does not check any other tree properties (DFS number, levels), nor ensures that the construction algorithm is correct. Used by some passes inside assertions. This patch introduces DomTree verification levels, that try to close the gape between the two ways of checking trees by introducing 3 verification levels: - Full -- checks all properties, but can be slow (O(N^3)). Used when manually requested (e.g. `assert(DT.verify())`) or when `-verify-dom-info` is set. - Basic -- checks all properties except the sibling property, and compares the current tree with a freshly constructed one instead. This should catch almost all errors, but does not guarantee that the construction algorithm is correct. Used when EXPENSIVE checks are enabled. - Fast -- checks only basic properties (reachablility, dfs numbers, levels, roots), and compares with a fresh tree. This is meant to replace the legacy `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` and in my tests doesn't cause any noticeable performance impact even in the most pessimistic examples. When used to verify dom tree wrapper pass analysis on sqlite3, the 3 new levels make `opt -O3` take the following amount of time on my machine: - no verification: 8.3s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Fast)`: 10.1s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Basic)`: 44.8s - `DT.verify(VerificationLevel::Full)`: 1m 46.2s (and the previous `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` is within the noise of the Fast level) This patch makes `DT.verifyDominatorTree()` pick between the 3 verification levels depending on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and `-verify-dom-info`. Reviewers: dberlin, brzycki, davide, grosser, dmgreen Reviewed By: dberlin, brzycki Subscribers: MatzeB, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42337 llvm-svn: 323298
2018-01-24 10:40:35 +08:00
const DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree &DT,
DomTreeBuilder::BBPostDomTree::VerificationLevel VL);
bool DominatorTree::invalidate(Function &F, const PreservedAnalyses &PA,
FunctionAnalysisManager::Invalidator &) {
// Check whether the analysis, all analyses on functions, or the function's
// CFG have been preserved.
auto PAC = PA.getChecker<DominatorTreeAnalysis>();
return !(PAC.preserved() || PAC.preservedSet<AllAnalysesOn<Function>>() ||
PAC.preservedSet<CFGAnalyses>());
}
// dominates - Return true if Def dominates a use in User. This performs
// the special checks necessary if Def and User are in the same basic block.
// Note that Def doesn't dominate a use in Def itself!
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const Value *DefV,
const Instruction *User) const {
const Instruction *Def = dyn_cast<Instruction>(DefV);
if (!Def) {
assert((isa<Argument>(DefV) || isa<Constant>(DefV)) &&
"Should be called with an instruction, argument or constant");
return true; // Arguments and constants dominate everything.
}
const BasicBlock *UseBB = User->getParent();
const BasicBlock *DefBB = Def->getParent();
// Any unreachable use is dominated, even if Def == User.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(UseBB))
return true;
// Unreachable definitions don't dominate anything.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(DefBB))
return false;
// An instruction doesn't dominate a use in itself.
if (Def == User)
return false;
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
// The value defined by an invoke dominates an instruction only if it
// dominates every instruction in UseBB.
// A PHI is dominated only if the instruction dominates every possible use in
// the UseBB.
if (isa<InvokeInst>(Def) || isa<CallBrInst>(Def) || isa<PHINode>(User))
return dominates(Def, UseBB);
if (DefBB != UseBB)
return dominates(DefBB, UseBB);
2012-02-19 03:46:02 +08:00
return Def->comesBefore(User);
}
2012-02-19 03:46:02 +08:00
// true if Def would dominate a use in any instruction in UseBB.
// note that dominates(Def, Def->getParent()) is false.
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const Instruction *Def,
const BasicBlock *UseBB) const {
const BasicBlock *DefBB = Def->getParent();
2012-02-19 03:46:02 +08:00
// Any unreachable use is dominated, even if DefBB == UseBB.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(UseBB))
return true;
// Unreachable definitions don't dominate anything.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(DefBB))
return false;
if (DefBB == UseBB)
return false;
2012-02-19 03:46:02 +08:00
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
// Invoke results are only usable in the normal destination, not in the
// exceptional destination.
if (const auto *II = dyn_cast<InvokeInst>(Def)) {
BasicBlock *NormalDest = II->getNormalDest();
BasicBlockEdge E(DefBB, NormalDest);
return dominates(E, UseBB);
}
2012-02-19 03:46:02 +08:00
// Callbr results are similarly only usable in the default destination.
if (const auto *CBI = dyn_cast<CallBrInst>(Def)) {
BasicBlock *NormalDest = CBI->getDefaultDest();
BasicBlockEdge E(DefBB, NormalDest);
return dominates(E, UseBB);
}
return dominates(DefBB, UseBB);
}
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const BasicBlockEdge &BBE,
const BasicBlock *UseBB) const {
// If the BB the edge ends in doesn't dominate the use BB, then the
// edge also doesn't.
const BasicBlock *Start = BBE.getStart();
const BasicBlock *End = BBE.getEnd();
if (!dominates(End, UseBB))
return false;
// Simple case: if the end BB has a single predecessor, the fact that it
// dominates the use block implies that the edge also does.
if (End->getSinglePredecessor())
return true;
// The normal edge from the invoke is critical. Conceptually, what we would
// like to do is split it and check if the new block dominates the use.
// With X being the new block, the graph would look like:
//
// DefBB
// /\ . .
// / \ . .
// / \ . .
// / \ | |
// A X B C
// | \ | /
// . \|/
// . NormalDest
// .
//
// Given the definition of dominance, NormalDest is dominated by X iff X
// dominates all of NormalDest's predecessors (X, B, C in the example). X
// trivially dominates itself, so we only have to find if it dominates the
// other predecessors. Since the only way out of X is via NormalDest, X can
// only properly dominate a node if NormalDest dominates that node too.
int IsDuplicateEdge = 0;
for (const_pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(End), E = pred_end(End);
PI != E; ++PI) {
const BasicBlock *BB = *PI;
if (BB == Start) {
// If there are multiple edges between Start and End, by definition they
// can't dominate anything.
if (IsDuplicateEdge++)
return false;
continue;
}
if (!dominates(End, BB))
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const BasicBlockEdge &BBE, const Use &U) const {
Instruction *UserInst = cast<Instruction>(U.getUser());
// A PHI in the end of the edge is dominated by it.
PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(UserInst);
if (PN && PN->getParent() == BBE.getEnd() &&
PN->getIncomingBlock(U) == BBE.getStart())
return true;
// Otherwise use the edge-dominates-block query, which
// handles the crazy critical edge cases properly.
const BasicBlock *UseBB;
if (PN)
UseBB = PN->getIncomingBlock(U);
else
UseBB = UserInst->getParent();
return dominates(BBE, UseBB);
}
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const Value *DefV, const Use &U) const {
const Instruction *Def = dyn_cast<Instruction>(DefV);
if (!Def) {
assert((isa<Argument>(DefV) || isa<Constant>(DefV)) &&
"Should be called with an instruction, argument or constant");
return true; // Arguments and constants dominate everything.
}
Instruction *UserInst = cast<Instruction>(U.getUser());
const BasicBlock *DefBB = Def->getParent();
// Determine the block in which the use happens. PHI nodes use
// their operands on edges; simulate this by thinking of the use
// happening at the end of the predecessor block.
const BasicBlock *UseBB;
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(UserInst))
UseBB = PN->getIncomingBlock(U);
else
UseBB = UserInst->getParent();
// Any unreachable use is dominated, even if Def == User.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(UseBB))
return true;
// Unreachable definitions don't dominate anything.
if (!isReachableFromEntry(DefBB))
return false;
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
// Invoke instructions define their return values on the edges to their normal
// successors, so we have to handle them specially.
// Among other things, this means they don't dominate anything in
// their own block, except possibly a phi, so we don't need to
// walk the block in any case.
if (const InvokeInst *II = dyn_cast<InvokeInst>(Def)) {
BasicBlock *NormalDest = II->getNormalDest();
BasicBlockEdge E(DefBB, NormalDest);
return dominates(E, U);
}
// Callbr results are similarly only usable in the default destination.
if (const auto *CBI = dyn_cast<CallBrInst>(Def)) {
BasicBlock *NormalDest = CBI->getDefaultDest();
BasicBlockEdge E(DefBB, NormalDest);
return dominates(E, U);
}
// If the def and use are in different blocks, do a simple CFG dominator
// tree query.
if (DefBB != UseBB)
return dominates(DefBB, UseBB);
// Ok, def and use are in the same block. If the def is an invoke, it
// doesn't dominate anything in the block. If it's a PHI, it dominates
// everything in the block.
if (isa<PHINode>(UserInst))
return true;
return Def->comesBefore(UserInst);
}
bool DominatorTree::isReachableFromEntry(const Use &U) const {
Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(U.getUser());
// ConstantExprs aren't really reachable from the entry block, but they
// don't need to be treated like unreachable code either.
if (!I) return true;
// PHI nodes use their operands on their incoming edges.
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(I))
return isReachableFromEntry(PN->getIncomingBlock(U));
// Everything else uses their operands in their own block.
return isReachableFromEntry(I->getParent());
}
// Edge BBE1 dominates edge BBE2 if they match or BBE1 dominates start of BBE2.
bool DominatorTree::dominates(const BasicBlockEdge &BBE1,
const BasicBlockEdge &BBE2) const {
if (BBE1.getStart() == BBE2.getStart() && BBE1.getEnd() == BBE2.getEnd())
return true;
return dominates(BBE1, BBE2.getStart());
}
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
// DominatorTreeAnalysis and related pass implementations
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This implements the DominatorTreeAnalysis which is used with the new pass
// manager. It also implements some methods from utility passes.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
DominatorTree DominatorTreeAnalysis::run(Function &F,
FunctionAnalysisManager &) {
DominatorTree DT;
DT.recalculate(F);
return DT;
}
[PM] Change the static object whose address is used to uniquely identify analyses to have a common type which is enforced rather than using a char object and a `void *` type when used as an identifier. This has a number of advantages. First, it at least helps some of the confusion raised in Justin Lebar's code review of why `void *` was being used everywhere by having a stronger type that connects to documentation about this. However, perhaps more importantly, it addresses a serious issue where the alignment of these pointer-like identifiers was unknown. This made it hard to use them in pointer-like data structures. We were already dodging this in dangerous ways to create the "all analyses" entry. In a subsequent patch I attempted to use these with TinyPtrVector and things fell apart in a very bad way. And it isn't just a compile time or type system issue. Worse than that, the actual alignment of these pointer-like opaque identifiers wasn't guaranteed to be a useful alignment as they were just characters. This change introduces a type to use as the "key" object whose address forms the opaque identifier. This both forces the objects to have proper alignment, and provides type checking that we get it right everywhere. It also makes the types somewhat less mysterious than `void *`. We could go one step further and introduce a truly opaque pointer-like type to return from the `ID()` static function rather than returning `AnalysisKey *`, but that didn't seem to be a clear win so this is just the initial change to get to a reliably typed and aligned object serving is a key for all the analyses. Thanks to Richard Smith and Justin Lebar for helping pick plausible names and avoid making this refactoring many times. =] And thanks to Sean for the super fast review! While here, I've tried to move away from the "PassID" nomenclature entirely as it wasn't really helping and is overloaded with old pass manager constructs. Now we have IDs for analyses, and key objects whose address can be used as IDs. Where possible and clear I've shortened this to just "ID". In a few places I kept "AnalysisID" to make it clear what was being identified. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27031 llvm-svn: 287783
2016-11-24 01:53:26 +08:00
AnalysisKey DominatorTreeAnalysis::Key;
DominatorTreePrinterPass::DominatorTreePrinterPass(raw_ostream &OS) : OS(OS) {}
PreservedAnalyses DominatorTreePrinterPass::run(Function &F,
FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
OS << "DominatorTree for function: " << F.getName() << "\n";
AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F).print(OS);
return PreservedAnalyses::all();
}
PreservedAnalyses DominatorTreeVerifierPass::run(Function &F,
FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
auto &DT = AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
assert(DT.verify());
(void)DT;
return PreservedAnalyses::all();
}
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
// DominatorTreeWrapperPass Implementation
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// The implementation details of the wrapper pass that holds a DominatorTree
// suitable for use with the legacy pass manager.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
char DominatorTreeWrapperPass::ID = 0;
DominatorTreeWrapperPass::DominatorTreeWrapperPass() : FunctionPass(ID) {
initializeDominatorTreeWrapperPassPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
INITIALIZE_PASS(DominatorTreeWrapperPass, "domtree",
"Dominator Tree Construction", true, true)
bool DominatorTreeWrapperPass::runOnFunction(Function &F) {
DT.recalculate(F);
return false;
}
void DominatorTreeWrapperPass::verifyAnalysis() const {
if (VerifyDomInfo)
assert(DT.verify(DominatorTree::VerificationLevel::Full));
else if (ExpensiveChecksEnabled)
assert(DT.verify(DominatorTree::VerificationLevel::Basic));
}
void DominatorTreeWrapperPass::print(raw_ostream &OS, const Module *) const {
DT.print(OS);
}