LLVM's include tree and the use of using declarations to hide the
'legacy' namespace for the old pass manager.
This undoes the primary modules-hostile change I made to keep
out-of-tree targets building. I sent an email inquiring about whether
this would be reasonable to do at this phase and people seemed fine with
it, so making it a reality. This should allow us to start bootstrapping
with modules to a certain extent along with making it easier to mix and
match headers in general.
The updates to any code for users of LLVM are very mechanical. Switch
from including "llvm/PassManager.h" to "llvm/IR/LegacyPassManager.h".
Qualify the types which now produce compile errors with "legacy::". The
most common ones are "PassManager", "PassManagerBase", and
"FunctionPassManager".
llvm-svn: 229094
terms of the new pass manager's TargetIRAnalysis.
Yep, this is one of the nicer bits of the new pass manager's design.
Passes can in many cases operate in a vacuum and so we can just nest
things when convenient. This is particularly convenient here as I can
now consolidate all of the TargetMachine logic on this analysis.
The most important change here is that this pushes the function we need
TTI for all the way into the TargetMachine, and re-creates the TTI
object for each function rather than re-using it for each function.
We're now prepared to teach the targets to produce function-specific TTI
objects with specific subtargets cached, etc.
One piece of feedback I'd love here is whether its worth renaming any of
this stuff. None of the names really seem that awesome to me at this
point, but TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass is particularly ... odd.
TargetIRAnalysisWrapper might make more sense. I would want to do that
rename separately anyways, but let me know what you think.
llvm-svn: 227731
This should be sufficient to replace the initial (minor) function pass
pipeline in Clang with the new pass manager. I'll probably add an (off
by default) flag to do that just to ensure we can get extra testing.
llvm-svn: 227726
I've added RUN lines both to the basic test for EarlyCSE and the
target-specific test, as this serves as a nice test that the TTI layer
in the new pass manager is in fact working well.
llvm-svn: 227725
produce it.
This adds a function to the TargetMachine that produces this analysis
via a callback for each function. This in turn faves the way to produce
a *different* TTI per-function with the correct subtarget cached.
I've also done the necessary wiring in the opt tool to thread the target
machine down and make it available to the pass registry so that we can
construct this analysis from a target machine when available.
llvm-svn: 227721
live in a class.
While this isn't really significant right now, I need to expose some
state to the pass construction expressions, and making them get
evaluated within a class context is a nice way to collect members that
they may need to access.
llvm-svn: 227715
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
llvm-svn: 227685
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
If the personality is not a recognized MSVC personality function, this
pass delegates to the dwarf EH preparation pass. This chaining supports
people on *-windows-itanium or *-windows-gnu targets.
Currently this recognizes some personalities used by MSVC and turns
resume instructions into traps to avoid link errors. Even if cleanups
are not used in the source program, LLVM requires the frontend to emit a
code path that resumes unwinding after an exception. Clang does this,
and we get unreachable resume instructions. PR20300 covers cleaning up
these unreachable calls to resume.
Reviewers: majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7216
llvm-svn: 227405
This just lifts the logic into a static helper function, sinks the
legacy pass to be a trivial wrapper of that helper fuction, and adds
a trivial wrapper for the new PM as well. Not much to see here.
I switched a test case to run in both modes, but we have to strip the
dead prototypes separately as that pass isn't in the new pass manager
(yet).
llvm-svn: 226999
This is exciting as this is a much more involved port. This is
a complex, existing transformation pass. All of the core logic is shared
between both old and new pass managers. Only the access to the analyses
is separate because the actual techniques are separate. This also uses
a bunch of different and interesting analyses and is the first time
where we need to use an analysis across an IR layer.
This also paves the way to expose instcombine utility functions. I've
got a static function that implements the core pass logic over
a function which might be mildly interesting, but more interesting is
likely exposing a routine which just uses instructions *already in* the
worklist and combines until empty.
I've switched one of my favorite instcombine tests to run with both as
well to make sure this keeps working.
llvm-svn: 226987
manager to support the actual uses of it. =]
When I ported instcombine to the new pass manager I discover that it
didn't work because TLI wasn't available in the right places. This is
a somewhat surprising and/or subtle aspect of the new pass manager
design that came up before but I think is useful to be reminded of:
While the new pass manager *allows* a function pass to query a module
analysis, it requires that the module analysis is already run and cached
prior to the function pass manager starting up, possibly with
a 'require<foo>' style utility in the pass pipeline. This is an
intentional hurdle because using a module analysis from a function pass
*requires* that the module analysis is run prior to entering the
function pass manager. Otherwise the other functions in the module could
be in who-knows-what state, etc.
A somewhat surprising consequence of this design decision (at least to
me) is that you have to design a function pass that leverages
a module analysis to do so as an optional feature. Even if that means
your function pass does no work in the absence of the module analysis,
you have to handle that possibility and remain conservatively correct.
This is a natural consequence of things being able to invalidate the
module analysis and us being unable to re-run it. And it's a generally
good thing because it lets us reorder passes arbitrarily without
breaking correctness, etc.
This ends up causing problems in one case. What if we have a module
analysis that is *definitionally* impossible to invalidate. In the
places this might come up, the analysis is usually also definitionally
trivial to run even while other transformation passes run on the module,
regardless of the state of anything. And so, it follows that it is
natural to have a hard requirement on such analyses from a function
pass.
It turns out, that TargetLibraryInfo is just such an analysis, and
InstCombine has a hard requirement on it.
The approach I've taken here is to produce an analysis that models this
flexibility by making it both a module and a function analysis. This
exposes the fact that it is in fact safe to compute at any point. We can
even make it a valid CGSCC analysis at some point if that is useful.
However, we don't want to have a copy of the actual target library info
state for each function! This state is specific to the triple. The
somewhat direct and blunt approach here is to turn TLI into a pimpl,
with the state and mutators in the implementation class and the query
routines primarily in the wrapper. Then the analysis can lazily
construct and cache the implementations, keyed on the triple, and
on-demand produce wrappers of them for each function.
One minor annoyance is that we will end up with a wrapper for each
function in the module. While this is a bit wasteful (one pointer per
function) it seems tolerable. And it has the advantage of ensuring that
we pay the absolute minimum synchronization cost to access this
information should we end up with a nice parallel function pass manager
in the future. We could look into trying to mark when analysis results
are especially cheap to recompute and more eagerly GC-ing the cached
results, or we could look at supporting a variant of analyses whose
results are specifically *not* cached and expected to just be used and
discarded by the consumer. Either way, these seem like incremental
enhancements that should happen when we start profiling the memory and
CPU usage of the new pass manager and not before.
The other minor annoyance is that if we end up using the TLI in both
a module pass and a function pass, those will be produced by two
separate analyses, and thus will point to separate copies of the
implementation state. While a minor issue, I dislike this and would like
to find a way to cleanly allow a single analysis instance to be used
across multiple IR unit managers. But I don't have a good solution to
this today, and I don't want to hold up all of the work waiting to come
up with one. This too seems like a reasonable thing to incrementally
improve later.
llvm-svn: 226981
I had already factored this analysis specifically to enable doing this,
but hadn't actually committed the necessary wiring to get at this from
the new pass manager. This also nicely shows how the separate cache
object can be directly managed by the new pass manager.
This analysis didn't have any direct tests and so I've added a printer
pass and a boring test case. I chose to print the i1 value which is
being assumed rather than the call to llvm.assume as that seems much
more useful for testing... but suggestions on an even better printing
strategy welcome. My main goal was to make sure things actually work. =]
llvm-svn: 226868
pass and a LoopPrinterPass with the expected associated wiring.
I've added a RUN line to the only test case (!!!) we have that actually
prints loops. Everything seems to be working.
This is somewhat exciting as this is the first analysis using another
analysis to go in for the new pass manager. =D I also believe it is the
last analysis necessary for porting instcombine, but of course I may yet
discover more.
llvm-svn: 226560
TargetLibraryAnalysis pass.
There are actually no direct tests of this already in the tree. I've
added the most basic test that the pass manager bits themselves work,
and the TLI object produced will be tested by an upcoming patches as
they port passes which rely on TLI.
This is starting to point out the awkwardness of the invalidate API --
it seems poorly fitting on the *result* object. I suspect I will change
it to live on the analysis instead, but that's not for this change, and
I'd rather have a few more passes ported in order to have more
experience with how this plays out.
I believe there is only one more analysis required in order to start
porting instcombine. =]
llvm-svn: 226160
The pass is really just a means of accessing a cached instance of the
TargetLibraryInfo object, and this way we can re-use that object for the
new pass manager as its result.
Lots of delta, but nothing interesting happening here. This is the
common pattern that is developing to allow analyses to live in both the
old and new pass manager -- a wrapper pass in the old pass manager
emulates the separation intrinsic to the new pass manager between the
result and pass for analyses.
llvm-svn: 226157
While the term "Target" is in the name, it doesn't really have to do
with the LLVM Target library -- this isn't an abstraction which LLVM
targets generally need to implement or extend. It has much more to do
with modeling the various runtime libraries on different OSes and with
different runtime environments. The "target" in this sense is the more
general sense of a target of cross compilation.
This is in preparation for porting this analysis to the new pass
manager.
No functionality changed, and updates inbound for Clang and Polly.
llvm-svn: 226078
utils/sort_includes.py.
I clearly haven't done this in a while, so more changed than usual. This
even uncovered a missing include from the InstrProf library that I've
added. No functionality changed here, just mechanical cleanup of the
include order.
llvm-svn: 225974
This adds the domtree analysis to the new pass manager. The analysis
returns the same DominatorTree result entity used by the old pass
manager and essentially all of the code is shared. We just have
different boilerplate for running and printing the analysis.
I've converted one test to run in both modes just to make sure this is
exercised while both are live in the tree.
llvm-svn: 225969
and expose the necessary hooks in the API directly.
This makes it much cleaner for example to log the usage of a pass
manager from a library. It also makes it more obvious that this
functionality isn't "optional" or "asserts-only" for the pass manager.
llvm-svn: 225841
template.
This consolidates three copies of nearly the same core logic. It adds
"complexity" to the ModuleAnalysisManager in that it makes it possible
to share a ModuleAnalysisManager across multiple modules... But it does
so by deleting *all of the code*, so I'm OK with that. This will
naturally make fixing bugs in this code much simpler, etc.
The only down side here is that we have to use 'typename' and 'this->'
in various places, and the implementation is lifted into the header.
I'll take that for the code size reduction.
The convenient names are still typedef-ed and used throughout so that
users can largely ignore this aspect of the implementation.
The follow-up change to this will do the exact same refactoring for the
PassManagers. =D
It turns out that the interesting different code is almost entirely in
the adaptors. At the end, that should be essentially all that is left.
llvm-svn: 225757
requiring and invalidating specific analyses. Also make their printed
names match their class names. Writing these out as prose really doesn't
make sense to me any more.
llvm-svn: 225346
Use this to test that path of invalidation. This test actually shows
redundant invalidation here that is really bad. I'm going to work on
fixing that next, but wanted to commit the test harness now that its all
working.
llvm-svn: 225257
remove an extra, redundant pass manager wrapping every run.
I had kept seeing these when manually testing, but it was getting really
annoying and was going to cause problems with overly eager invalidation.
The root cause was an overly complex and unnecessary pile of code for
parsing the outer layer of the pass pipeline. We can instead delegate
most of this to the recursive pipeline parsing.
I've added some somewhat more basic and precise tests to catch this.
llvm-svn: 225253
a specific analysis result.
This is quite handy to test things, and will also likely be very useful
for debugging issues. You could narrow down pass validation failures by
walking these invalidate pass runs up and down the pass pipeline, etc.
I've added support to the pass pipeline parsing to be able to create one
of these for any analysis pass desired.
Just adding this class uncovered one latent bug where the
AnalysisManager CRTP base class had a hard-coded Module type rather than
using IRUnitT.
I've also added tests for invalidation and caching of analyses in
a basic way across all the pass managers. These in turn uncovered two
more bugs where we failed to correctly invalidate an analysis -- its
results were invalidated but the key for re-running the pass was never
cleared and so it was never re-run. Quite nasty. I'm very glad to debug
this here rather than with a full system.
Also, yes, the naming here is horrid. I'm going to update some of the
names to be slightly less awful shortly. But really, I've no "good"
ideas for naming. I'll be satisfied if I can get it to "not bad".
llvm-svn: 225246
more verbose than I'd like, but the code really isn't that interesting,
and this still seems vastly simpler than any other solutions I've come
up with. =] Maybe if we get to the 10th IR unit, this will be a problem
in practice.
llvm-svn: 225245
manager tests to use them and be significantly more comprehensive.
This, naturally, uncovered a bug where the CGSCC pass manager wasn't
printing analyses when they were run.
The only remaining core manipulator is I think an invalidate pass
similar to the require pass. That'll be next. =]
llvm-svn: 225240
simplify things. This will become more important as I add no-op analyses
that want to re-use the logic we already have for analyses in the
registry. For now, no functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 225238
a normal interface for it in Passes.h.
This gives us essentially a single interface for running pass managers
which are provided from the bottom of the LLVM stack through interfaces
at the top of the LLVM stack that populate them with all of the
different analyses available throughout. It also means there is a single
blob of code that needs to include all of the pass headers and needs to
deal with the registry of passes and parsing names.
No functionality changed intended, should just be cleanup.
llvm-svn: 225237
is a no-op other than requiring some analysis results be available.
This can be used in real pass pipelines to force the usually lazy
analysis running to eagerly compute something at a specific point, and
it can be used to test the pass manager infrastructure (my primary use
at the moment).
I've also added bit of pipeline parsing magic to support generating
these directly from the opt command so that you can directly use these
when debugging your analysis. The syntax is:
require<analysis-name>
This can be used at any level of the pass manager. For example:
cgscc(function(require<my-analysis>,no-op-function))
This would produce a no-op function pass requiring my-analysis, followed
by a fully no-op function pass, both of these in a function pass manager
which is nested inside of a bottom-up CGSCC pass manager which is in the
top-level (implicit) module pass manager.
I have zero attachment to the particular syntax I'm using here. Consider
it a straw man for use while I'm testing and fleshing things out.
Suggestions for better syntax welcome, and I'll update everything based
on any consensus that develops.
I've used this new functionality to more directly test the analysis
printing rather than relying on the cgscc pass manager running an
analysis for me. This is still minimally tested because I need to have
analyses to run first! ;] That patch is next, but wanted to keep this
one separate for easier review and discussion.
llvm-svn: 225236
units.
This was debated back and forth a bunch, but using references is now
clearly cleaner. Of all the code written using pointers thus far, in
only one place did it really make more sense to have a pointer. In most
cases, this just removes immediate dereferencing from the code. I think
it is much better to get errors on null IR units earlier, potentially
at compile time, than to delay it.
Most notably, the legacy pass manager uses references for its routines
and so as more and more code works with both, the use of pointers was
likely to become really annoying. I noticed this when I ported the
domtree analysis over and wrote the entire thing with references only to
have it fail to compile. =/ It seemed better to switch now than to
delay. We can, of course, revisit this is we learn that references are
really problematic in the API.
llvm-svn: 225145
The required functionality has been there for some time, but I never
managed to actually wire it into the command line registry of passes.
Let's do that.
llvm-svn: 225144
StringSet is still a bit dodgy in that it exposes the raw iterator of
the StringMap parent, which exposes the weird detail that StringSet
actually has a 'value'... but anyway, this is useful for a handful of
clients that want to reference the newly inserted/persistent string data
in the StringSet/Map/Entry/thing.
llvm-svn: 222302
Instead, we're going to separate metadata from the Value hierarchy. See
PR21532.
This reverts commit r221375.
This reverts commit r221373.
This reverts commit r221359.
This reverts commit r221167.
This reverts commit r221027.
This reverts commit r221024.
This reverts commit r221023.
This reverts commit r220995.
This reverts commit r220994.
llvm-svn: 221711
This introduces the symbol rewriter. This is an IR->IR transformation that is
implemented as a CodeGenPrepare pass. This allows for the transparent
adjustment of the symbols during compilation.
It provides a clean, simple, elegant solution for symbol inter-positioning. This
technique is often used, such as in the various sanitizers and performance
analysis.
The control of this is via a custom YAML syntax map file that indicates source
to destination mapping, so as to avoid having the compiler to know the exact
details of the source to destination transformations.
llvm-svn: 221548
Change `NamedMDNode::getOperator()` from returning `MDNode *` to
returning `Value *`. To reduce boilerplate at some call sites, add a
`getOperatorAsMDNode()` for named metadata that's expected to only
return `MDNode` -- for now, that's everything, but debug node named
metadata (such as llvm.dbg.cu and llvm.dbg.sp) will soon change. This
is part of PR21433.
Note that there's a follow-up patch to clang for the API change.
llvm-svn: 221375
With this a DataLayoutPass can be reused for multiple modules.
Once we have doInitialization/doFinalization, it doesn't seem necessary to pass
a Module to the constructor.
Overall this change seems in line with the idea of making DataLayout a required
part of Module. With it the only way of having a DataLayout used is to add it
to the Module.
llvm-svn: 217548
Take a StringRef instead of a "const char *".
Take a "std::error_code &" instead of a "std::string &" for error.
A create static method would be even better, but this patch is already a bit too
big.
llvm-svn: 216393
AtomicExpandLoadLinked is currently rather ARM-specific. This patch is the first of
a group that aim at making it more target-independent. See
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075873.html
for details
The command line option is "atomic-expand"
llvm-svn: 216231
Reid Kleckner