The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
This is prep work for allowing the threshold to be different during layout,
and to enforce a single threshold between merging and duplicating during
layout. No observable change intended.
llvm-svn: 279117
Do not reorder and move up a loop latch block before a loop header
when optimising for size because this will generate an extra
unconditional branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22521
llvm-svn: 278840
The following pattern was being layed out poorly:
A
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
D E ? (Doesn't matter)
Where A->B is far more likely than A->C, and prob(B->D) = prob(B->E)
The current algorithm gives:
A,B,C,E (D goes on worklist)
It does this even if C has a frequency count of 0. This patch
adjusts the layout calculation so that if freq(B->E) >> freq(C->E)
then we go ahead and layout E rather than C. Fallthrough half the time
is better than fallthrough never, or fallthrough very rarely. The
resulting layout is:
A,B,E, (C and D are in a worklist)
llvm-svn: 277187
Document the new parameter and threshod computation
model. Also fix a bug when the threshold parameter
is set to be different from the default.
llvm-svn: 272749
Summary: With runtime profile, we have more confidence in branch probability, thus during basic block layout, we set a lower hot prob threshold so that blocks can be layouted optimally.
Reviewers: djasper, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20991
llvm-svn: 272729
Save machine function pointer so that
the reference does not need to be passed around.
This also gives other methods access to machine
function for information such as entry count etc.
llvm-svn: 272594
This is third patch to clean up the code.
Included in this patch:
1. Further unclutter trace/chain formation main routine;
2. Isolate the logic to compute global cost/conflict detection
into its own method;
3. Heavily document the selection algorithm;
4. Added helper hook to allow PGO specific logic to be
added in the future.
llvm-svn: 272582
This is second patch to clean up the code.
In this patch, the logic to determine block outlinining
is refactored and more comments are added.
llvm-svn: 272514
This is one of the patches to clean up the code so that
it is in a better form to make future enhancements easier.
In htis patch, the logic to collect viable successors are
extrated as a helper to unclutter the caller which gets very
large recenty. Also cleaned up BP adjustment code.
llvm-svn: 272482
This reapplies commit r271930, r271915, r271923. They hit a bug in
Thumb which is fixed in r272258 now.
The original message:
The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is not the
final layout optimized based on the branch probability. Generally, after
BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge.
This patch calls Tail Merging after MBP and calls MBP again if Tail Merging
merges anything.
llvm-svn: 272267
Summary:
Consider the following diamond CFG:
A
/ \
B C
\/
D
Suppose A->B and A->C have probabilities 81% and 19%. In block-placement, A->B is called a hot edge and the final placement should be ABDC. However, the current implementation outputs ABCD. This is because when choosing the next block of B, it checks if Freq(C->D) > Freq(B->D) * 20%, which is true (if Freq(A) = 100, then Freq(B->D) = 81, Freq(C->D) = 19, and 19 > 81*20%=16.2). Actually, we should use 25% instead of 20% as the probability here, so that we have 19 < 81*25%=20.25, and the desired ABDC layout will be generated.
Reviewers: djasper, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20989
llvm-svn: 272203
The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is not the
final layout optimized based on the branch probability. Generally, after
BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge.
This patch calls Tail Merging after MBP and calls MBP again if Tail Merging
merges anything.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20276
llvm-svn: 271925
The benefits of this patch are
-- We call AnalyzeBranch() to optimize unanalyzable branches, but the result of
AnalyzeBranch() is not used. Now the result is useful.
-- Before the layout of all the MBBs is set, the result of AnalyzeBranch() is
not correct and needs to be fixed before using it to optimize the branch
conditions. Now this optimization is called after the layout, the code used
to fix the result of AnalyzeBranch() is not needed.
-- The branch condition of the last block is not optimized before. Now it is
optimized.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20177
llvm-svn: 270623
Currently cost based loop rotation algo can only be turned on with
two conditions: the function has real profile data, and -precise-rotation-cost
flag is turned on. This is not convenient for developers to experiment
when profile is not available. Add a new option to force the new
rotation algorithm -force-precise-rotation-cost
llvm-svn: 269266
After the layout of the basic blocks is set, the target may be able to get rid
of unconditional branches to fallthrough blocks that the generic code does not
catch. This happens any time TargetInstrInfo::AnalyzeBranch is not able to
analyze all the branches involved in the terminators sequence, while still
understanding a few of them.
In such situation, AnalyzeBranch can directly modify the branches if it has been
instructed to do so.
This patch takes advantage of that.
llvm-svn: 268328
The original commit was reverted because of a buildbot problem with LazyCallGraph::SCC handling (not related to the OptBisect handling).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267231
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
Summary:
EHPad BB are not entered the classic way and therefor do not need to be placed after their predecessors. This patch make sure EHPad BB are not chosen amongst successors to form chains, and are selected as last resort when selecting the best candidate.
EHPad are scheduled in reverse probability order in order to have them flow into each others naturally.
Reviewers: chandlerc, majnemer, rafael, MatzeB, escha, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17625
llvm-svn: 265726
Summary: There are places in MachineBlockPlacement where a worklist is filled in pretty much identical way. The code is duplicated. This refactor it so that the same code is used in both scenarii.
Reviewers: chandlerc, majnemer, rafael, MatzeB, escha, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18077
llvm-svn: 263495
If we have a loop with a rarely taken path, we will prune that from the blocks which get added as part of the loop chain. The problem is that we weren't then recognizing the loop chain as schedulable when considering the preheader when forming the function chain. We'd then fall to various non-predecessors before finally scheduling the loop chain (as if the CFG was unnatural.) The net result was that there could be lots of garbage between a loop preheader and the loop, even though we could have directly fallen into the loop. It also meant we separated hot code with regions of colder code.
The particular reason for the rejection of the loop chain was that we were scanning predecessor of the header, seeing the backedge, believing that was a globally more important predecessor (true), but forgetting to account for the fact the backedge precessor was already part of the existing loop chain (oops!.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17830
llvm-svn: 262547
Summary: This option is being added for testing purposes.
Reviewers: mcrosier
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16410
llvm-svn: 258409
(This is the second attempt to submit this patch. The first caused two assertion
failures and was reverted. See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25687)
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254377
and the follow-up r254356: "Fix a bug in MachineBlockPlacement that may cause assertion failure during BranchProbability construction."
Asserts were firing in Chromium builds. See PR25687.
llvm-svn: 254366
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254348
When looking for the best successor from the outer loop for a block
belonging to an inner loop, the edge probability computation can be
improved so that edges in the inner loop are ignored. For example,
suppose we are building chains for the non-loop part of the following
code, and looking for B1's best successor. Assume the true body is very
hot, then B3 should be the best candidate. However, because of the
existence of the back edge from B1 to B0, the probability from B1 to B3
can be very small, preventing B3 to be its successor. In this patch, when
computing the probability of the edge from B1 to B3, the weight on the
back edge B1->B0 is ignored, so that B1->B3 will have 100% probability.
if (...)
do {
B0;
... // some branches
B1;
} while(...);
else
B2;
B3;
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10825
llvm-svn: 253414
In the current BB placement algorithm, a loop chain always contains all loop blocks. This has a drawback that cold blocks in the loop may be inserted on a hot function path, hence increasing branch cost and also reducing icache locality.
Consider a simple example shown below:
A
|
B⇆C
|
D
When B->C is quite cold, the best BB-layout should be A,B,D,C. But the current implementation produces A,C,B,D.
This patch filters those cold blocks off from the loop chain by comparing the ratio:
LoopBBFreq / LoopFreq
to 20%: if it is less than 20%, we don't include this BB to the loop chain. Here LoopFreq is the frequency of the loop when we reduce the loop into a single node. In general we have more cold blocks when the loop has few iterations. And vice versa.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11662
llvm-svn: 251833
Currently, in MachineBlockPlacement pass the loop is rotated to let the best exit to be the last BB in the loop chain, to maximize the fall-through from the loop to outside. With profile data, we can determine the cost in terms of missed fall through opportunities when rotating a loop chain and select the best rotation. Basically, there are three kinds of cost to consider for each rotation:
1. The possibly missed fall through edge (if it exists) from BB out of the loop to the loop header.
2. The possibly missed fall through edges (if they exist) from the loop exits to BB out of the loop.
3. The missed fall through edge (if it exists) from the last BB to the first BB in the loop chain.
Therefore, the cost for a given rotation is the sum of costs listed above. We select the best rotation with the smallest cost. This is only for PGO mode when we have more precise edge frequencies.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10717
llvm-svn: 250754
Remove implicit ilist iterator conversions from MachineBasicBlock.cpp.
I've also added an overload of `splice()` that takes a pointer, since
it's a natural API. This is similar to the overloads I added for
`remove()` and `erase()` in r249867.
llvm-svn: 249883
We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step
is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues.
llvm-svn: 246235
1. Create a utility function normalizeEdgeWeights() in MachineBranchProbabilityInfo that normalizes a list of edge weights so that the sum of then can fit in uint32_t.
2. Provide an interface in MachineBasicBlock to normalize its successors' weights.
3. Add a flag in MachineBasicBlock that tracks whether its successors' weights are normalized.
4. Provide an overload of getSumForBlock that accepts a non-const pointer to a MBB so that it can force normalizing this MBB's successors' weights.
5. Update several uses of getSumForBlock() by eliminating the once needed weight scale.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11442
llvm-svn: 244154
Create wrapper methods in the Function class for the OptimizeForSize and MinSize
attributes. We want to hide the logic of "or'ing" them together when optimizing
just for size (-Os).
Currently, we are not consistent about this and rely on a front-end to always set
OptimizeForSize (-Os) if MinSize (-Oz) is on. Thus, there are 18 FIXME changes here
that should be added as follow-on patches with regression tests.
This patch is NFC-intended: it just replaces existing direct accesses of the attributes
by the equivalent wrapper call.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11734
llvm-svn: 243994
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
With the option -outline-optional-branches, LLVM will place optional
branches out of line (more details on r231230).
With this patch, this is not done for short optional branches. A short
optional branch is a branch containing a single block with an
instruction count below a certain threshold (defaulting to 3). Still
everything is guarded under -outline-optional-branches).
Outlining a short branch can't significantly improve code locality. It
can however decrease performance because of the additional jmp and in
cases where the optional branch is hot. This fixes a compile time
regression I have observed in a benchmark.
Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8108
llvm-svn: 232802
already been added and the inconsistency made choosing names and
changing code more annoying. Plus, wow are they better for this code!
llvm-svn: 231347
result reasonable.
This code predated clang-format and so there was a reasonable amount of
crufty formatting that had accumulated. This should ensure that neither
myself nor others end up with formatting-only changes sneaking into
other fixes.
llvm-svn: 231341
just arbitrarily interleaving unrelated control flows once they get
moved "out-of-line" (both outside of natural CFG ordering and with
diamonds that cannot be fully laid out by chaining fallthrough edges).
This easy solution doesn't work in practice, and it isn't just a small
bug. It looks like a very different strategy will be required. I'm
working on that now, and it'll again go behind some flag so that
everyone can experiment and make sure it is working well for them.
llvm-svn: 231332
a flag for now.
First off, thanks to Daniel Jasper for really pointing out the issue
here. It's been here forever (at least, I think it was there when
I first wrote this code) without getting really noticed or fixed.
The key problem is what happens when two reasonably common patterns
happen at the same time: we outline multiple cold regions of code, and
those regions in turn have diamonds or other CFGs for which we can't
just topologically lay them out. Consider some C code that looks like:
if (a1()) { if (b1()) c1(); else d1(); f1(); }
if (a2()) { if (b2()) c2(); else d2(); f2(); }
done();
Now consider the case where a1() and a2() are unlikely to be true. In
that case, we might lay out the first part of the function like:
a1, a2, done;
And then we will be out of successors in which to build the chain. We go
to find the best block to continue the chain with, which is perfectly
reasonable here, and find "b1" let's say. Laying out successors gets us
to:
a1, a2, done; b1, c1;
At this point, we will refuse to lay out the successor to c1 (f1)
because there are still un-placed predecessors of f1 and we want to try
to preserve the CFG structure. So we go get the next best block, d1.
... wait for it ...
Except that the next best block *isn't* d1. It is b2! d1 is waaay down
inside these conditionals. It is much less important than b2. Except
that this is exactly what we didn't want. If we keep going we get the
entire set of the rest of the CFG *interleaved*!!!
a1, a2, done; b1, c1; b2, c2; d1, f1; d2, f2;
So we clearly need a better strategy here. =] My current favorite
strategy is to actually try to place the block whose predecessor is
closest. This very simply ensures that we unwind these kinds of CFGs the
way that is natural and fitting, and should minimize the number of cache
lines instructions are spread across.
It also happens to be *dead simple*. It's like the datastructure was
specifically set up for this use case or something. We only push blocks
onto the work list when the last predecessor for them is placed into the
chain. So the back of the worklist *is* the nearest next block.
Unfortunately, a change like this is going to cause *soooo* many
benchmarks to swing wildly. So for now I'm adding this under a flag so
that we and others can validate that this is fixing the problems
described, that it seems possible to enable, and hopefully that it fixes
more of our problems long term.
llvm-svn: 231238
In a CFG with the edges A->B->C and A->C, B is an optional branch.
LLVM's default behavior is to lay the blocks out naturally, i.e. A, B,
C, in order to improve code locality and fallthroughs. However, if a
function contains many of those optional branches only a few of which
are taken, this leads to a lot of unnecessary icache misses. Moving B
out of line can work around this.
Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7719
llvm-svn: 231230
No functional changes intended.
(I plan on doing some modifications to this function and would like to
have as few unrelated changes as possible in the patch)
llvm-svn: 229649
Canonicalize access to function attributes to use the simpler API.
getAttributes().getAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> getFnAttribute(Kind)
getAttributes().hasAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> hasFnAttribute(Kind)
Also, add `Function::getFnStackAlignment()`, and canonicalize:
getAttributes().getStackAlignment(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex)
=> getFnStackAlignment()
llvm-svn: 229208
Some benchmarks have shown that this could lead to a potential
performance benefit, and so adding some flags to try to help measure the
difference.
A possible explanation. In diamond-shaped CFGs (A followed by either
B or C both followed by D), putting B and C both in between A and
D leads to the code being less dense than it could be. Always either
B or C have to be skipped increasing the chance of cache misses etc.
Moving either B or C to after D might be beneficial on average.
In the long run, but we should probably do a better job of analyzing the
basic block and branch probabilities to move the correct one of B or
C to after D. But even if we don't use this in the long run, it is
a good baseline for benchmarking.
Original patch authored by Daniel Jasper with test tweaks and a second
flag added by me.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6969
llvm-svn: 226034
The existing code provided for specifying a global loop alignment preference.
However, the preferred loop alignment might depend on the loop itself. For
recent POWER cores, loops between 5 and 8 instructions should have 32-byte
alignment (while the others are better with 16-byte alignment) so that the
entire loop will fit in one i-cache line.
To support this, getPrefLoopAlignment has been made virtual, and can be
provided with an optional MachineLoop* so the target can inspect the loop
before answering the query. The default behavior, as before, is to return the
value set with setPrefLoopAlignment. MachineBlockPlacement now queries the
target for each loop instead of only once per function. There should be no
functional change for other targets.
llvm-svn: 225117
This is to be consistent with StringSet and ultimately with the standard
library's associative container insert function.
This lead to updating SmallSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update SmallPtrSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update all the existing users of those functions...
llvm-svn: 222334
shorter/easier and have the DAG use that to do the same lookup. This
can be used in the future for TargetMachine based caching lookups from
the MachineFunction easily.
Update the MIPS subtarget switching machinery to update this pointer
at the same time it runs.
llvm-svn: 214838
string_ostream is a safe and efficient string builder that combines opaque
stack storage with a built-in ostream interface.
small_string_ostream<bytes> additionally permits an explicit stack storage size
other than the default 128 bytes to be provided. Beyond that, storage is
transferred to the heap.
This convenient class can be used in most places an
std::string+raw_string_ostream pair or SmallString<>+raw_svector_ostream pair
would previously have been used, in order to guarantee consistent access
without byte truncation.
The patch also converts much of LLVM to use the new facility. These changes
include several probable bug fixes for truncated output, a programming error
that's no longer possible with the new interface.
llvm-svn: 211749
define below all header includes in the lib/CodeGen/... tree. While the
current modules implementation doesn't check for this kind of ODR
violation yet, it is likely to grow support for it in the future. It
also removes one layer of macro pollution across all the included
headers.
Other sub-trees will follow.
llvm-svn: 206837
Kyle Butt