Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231740
getTTI method used to get an actual TTI object.
No functionality changed. This just threads the argument and ensures
code like the inliner can correctly look up the callee's TTI rather than
using a fixed one.
The next change will use this to implement per-function subtarget usage
by TTI. The changes after that should eliminate the need for FTTI as that
will have become the default.
llvm-svn: 227730
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
APIs and replace it and numerous booleans with an option struct.
The critical edge splitting API has a really large surface of flags and
so it seems worth burning a small option struct / builder. This struct
can be constructed with the various preserved analyses and then flags
can be flipped in a builder style.
The various users are now responsible for directly passing along their
analysis information. This should be enough for the critical edge
splitting to work cleanly with the new pass manager as well.
This API is still pretty crufty and could be cleaned up a lot, but I've
focused on this change just threading an option struct rather than
a pass through the API.
llvm-svn: 226456
SplitLandingPadPredecessors and remove the Pass argument from its
interface.
Another step to the utilities being usable with both old and new pass
managers.
llvm-svn: 226426
a LoopInfoWrapperPass to wire the object up to the legacy pass manager.
This switches all the clients of LoopInfo over and paves the way to port
LoopInfo to the new pass manager. No functionality change is intended
with this iteration.
llvm-svn: 226373
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
This is a simple fix that brings the compilation time from 5min to 5s
on a specific real-world example. It's a large chain of computation in
a crypto routine (always a problem for SCEV). A unit test is not
feasible and there would be no way to check it. The fix is just basic
good practice for dealing with SCEVs, there's no risk of regression.
Patch by Daniel Reynaud!
llvm-svn: 220622
This commit introduces a canonical representation for the formulae.
Basically, as soon as a formula has more that one base register, the scaled
register field is used for one of them. The register put into the scaled
register is preferably a loop variant.
The commit refactors how the formulae are built in order to produce such
representation.
This yields a more accurate, but still perfectible, cost model.
<rdar://problem/16731508>
llvm-svn: 209230
clang directly from the LLVM test suite! That doesn't work. I've
followed up on the review thread to try and get a viable solution sorted
out, but trying to get the tree clean here.
llvm-svn: 207462
Consider this use from the new testcase:
LSR Use: Kind=ICmpZero, Offsets={0}, widest fixup type: i32
reg({1000,+,-1}<nw><%for.body>)
-3003 + reg({3,+,3}<nw><%for.body>)
-1001 + reg({1,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>)
-1000 + reg({0,+,1}<nw><%for.body>)
-3000 + reg({0,+,3}<nuw><%for.body>)
reg({-1000,+,1}<nw><%for.body>)
reg({-3000,+,3}<nsw><%for.body>)
This is the last use we consider for a solution in SolveRecurse, so CurRegs is
a large set. (CurRegs is the set of registers that are needed by the
previously visited uses in the in-progress solution.)
ReqRegs is {
{3,+,3}<nw><%for.body>,
{1,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
}
This is the intersection of the regs used by any of the formulas for the
current use and CurRegs.
Now, the code requires a formula to contain *all* these regs (the comment is
simply wrong), otherwise the formula is immediately disqualified. Obviously,
no formula for this use contains two regs so they will all get disqualified.
The fix modifies the check to allow the formula in this case. The idea is
that neither of these formulae is introducing any new registers which is the
point of this early pruning as far as I understand.
In terms of set arithmetic, we now allow formulas whose used regs are a subset
of the required regs not just the other way around.
There are few more loops in the test-suite that are now successfully LSRed. I
have benchmarked those and found very minimal change.
Fixes <rdar://problem/13965777>
llvm-svn: 207271
definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
Ideally only those transform passes that run at -O0 remain enabled,
in reality we get as close as we reasonably can.
Passes are responsible for disabling themselves, it's not the job of
the pass manager to do it for them.
llvm-svn: 200892
can be used by both the new pass manager and the old.
This removes it from any of the virtual mess of the pass interfaces and
lets it derive cleanly from the DominatorTreeBase<> template. In turn,
tons of boilerplate interface can be nuked and it turns into a very
straightforward extension of the base DominatorTree interface.
The old analysis pass is now a simple wrapper. The names and style of
this split should match the split between CallGraph and
CallGraphWrapperPass. All of the users of DominatorTree have been
updated to match using many of the same tricks as with CallGraph. The
goal is that the common type remains the resulting DominatorTree rather
than the pass. This will make subsequent work toward the new pass
manager significantly easier.
Also in numerous places things became cleaner because I switched from
re-running the pass (!!! mid way through some other passes run!!!) to
directly recomputing the domtree.
llvm-svn: 199104
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
operand into the Value interface just like the core print method is.
That gives a more conistent organization to the IR printing interfaces
-- they are all attached to the IR objects themselves. Also, update all
the users.
This removes the 'Writer.h' header which contained only a single function
declaration.
llvm-svn: 198836
are part of the core IR library in order to support dumping and other
basic functionality.
Rename the 'Assembly' include directory to 'AsmParser' to match the
library name and the only functionality left their -- printing has been
in the core IR library for quite some time.
Update all of the #includes to match.
All of this started because I wanted to have the layering in good shape
before I started adding support for printing LLVM IR using the new pass
infrastructure, and commandline support for the new pass infrastructure.
llvm-svn: 198688
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
Partial fix for PR17459: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
(affecting trunk and 3.3)
When SCEV expands a recurrence outside of a loop it attempts to scale
by the stride of the recurrence. Chained recurrences don't work that
way. We could compute binomial coefficients, but would hve to
guarantee that the chained AddRec's are in a perfectly reduced form.
llvm-svn: 193438
Prior to this change, the considered addressing modes may be invalid since the
maximum and minimum offsets were not taking into account.
This was causing an assertion failure.
The added test case exercices that behavior.
<rdar://problem/14199725> Assertion failed: (CurScaleCost >= 0 && "Legal
addressing mode has an illegal cost!")
llvm-svn: 184341
Account for the cost of scaling factor in Loop Strength Reduce when rating the
formulae. This uses a target hook.
The default implementation of the hook is: if the addressing mode is legal, the
scaling factor is free.
<rdar://problem/13806271>
llvm-svn: 183045
Namely, check if the target allows to fold more that one register in the
addressing mode and if yes, adjust the cost accordingly.
Prior to this commit, reg1 + scale * reg2 accesses were artificially preferred
to reg1 + reg2 accesses. Indeed, the cost model wrongly assumed that reg1 + reg2
needs a temporary register for the computation, whereas it was correctly
estimated for reg1 + scale * reg2.
<rdar://problem/13973908>
llvm-svn: 183021
Craig Topper