This warning fires on:
Operator::~Operator() {
llvm_unreachable("should never destroy an Operator");
}
That seems like a false positive. I don't see any good way to silence
the warning here, so I'm disabling it.
llvm-svn: 173455
Only for integers, pointers, and vectors of those. No floats.
Instrumentation seems very heavy, and may need to be replaced
with some approximation in the future.
llvm-svn: 173452
with an initial number of elements, instead of DenseMap, which has
zero initial elements, in order to avoid the copying of elements
when the size changes and to avoid allocating space every time
LegalizeTypes is run. This patch will not affect the memory footprint,
because DenseMap will increase the element size to 64
when the first element is added.
Patch by Wan Xiaofei.
llvm-svn: 173448
Maintain separate per-node and per-tree book-keeping.
Track all instructions above a DAG node including nested subtrees.
Seperately track instructions within a subtree.
Record subtree parents.
llvm-svn: 173426
loops over instructions in the basic block or the use-def list of the
value, neither of which are really efficient when repeatedly querying
about values in the same basic block.
What's more, we already know that the CondBB is small, and so we can do
a much more efficient test by counting the uses in CondBB, and seeing if
those account for all of the uses.
Finally, we shouldn't blanket fail on any such instruction, instead we
should conservatively assume that those instructions are part of the
cost.
Note that this actually fixes a bug in the pass because
isUsedInBasicBlock has a really terrible bug in it. I'll fix that in my
next commit, but the fix for it would make this code suddenly take the
compile time hit I thought it already was taking, so I wanted to go
ahead and migrate this code to a faster & better pattern.
The bug in isUsedInBasicBlock was also causing other tests to test the
wrong thing entirely: for example we weren't actually disabling
speculation for floating point operations as intended (and tested), but
the test passed because we failed to speculate them due to the
isUsedInBasicBlock failure.
llvm-svn: 173417
For sanity, create a root when NumDataSuccs >= 4. Splitting large
subtrees will no longer be detrimental after my next checkin to handle
nested tree. A magic number of 4 is fine because single subtrees
seldom rejoin more than this. It makes subtrees easier to visualize
and heuristics more sane.
llvm-svn: 173399
No functionality change intended.
This captures the first two cases GPR32/64. For the others, we need
an addition operator (if we have one, I've not yet found it).
Based on a suggestion made by Tom Stellard in the AArch64 review!
llvm-svn: 173366
Change messages to help identify which interpreter was actually selected (safe
vs testing).
Signed-off-by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Reviewed-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 173360
Set the message returned after the GCC runner has been constructed as otherwise
the message will be overwritten by the construction of the runner, resulting in
misleading messages.
Signed-off-by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Reviewed-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 173359
Original commit message:
Plug TTI into the speculation logic, giving it a real cost interface
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173357
We use constant folding to see if an intrinsic evaluates to the same value as a
constant that we know. If we don't take the undefinedness into account we get a
value that doesn't match the actual implementation, and miscompiled code.
This was uncovered by Chandler's simplifycfg changes.
llvm-svn: 173356
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173342
a cost fuction that seems both a bit ad-hoc and also poorly suited to
evaluating constant expressions.
Notably, it is missing any support for trivial expressions such as
'inttoptr'. I could fix this routine, but it isn't clear to me all of
the constraints its other users are operating under.
The core protection that seems relevant here is avoiding the formation
of a select instruction wich a further chain of select operations in
a constant expression operand. Just explicitly encode that constraint.
Also, update the comments and organization here to make it clear where
this needs to go -- this should be driven off of real cost measurements
which take into account the number of constants expressions and the
depth of the constant expression tree.
llvm-svn: 173340
terms of cost rather than hoisting a single instruction.
This does *not* change the cost model! We still set the cost threshold
at 1 here, it's just that we track it by accumulating cost rather than
by storing an instruction.
The primary advantage is that we no longer leave no-op intrinsics in the
basic block. For example, this will now move both debug info intrinsics
and a single instruction, instead of only moving the instruction and
leaving a basic block with nothing bug debug info intrinsics in it, and
those intrinsics now no longer ordered correctly with the hoisted value.
Instead, we now splice the entire conditional basic block's instruction
sequence.
This also places the code for checking the safety of hoisting next to
the code computing the cost.
Currently, the only observable side-effect of this change is that debug
info intrinsics are no longer abandoned. I'm not sure how to craft
a test case for this, and my real goal was the refactoring, but I'll
talk to Dave or Eric about how to add a test case for this.
llvm-svn: 173339
Benjamin Kramer