Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Sean Silva 284b0324e2 [PM] Avoid getResult on a higher level in LoopAccessAnalysis
Note that require<domtree> and require<loops> aren't needed because they
come in implicitly via the loop pass manager.

llvm-svn: 274712
2016-07-07 01:01:53 +00:00
Xinliang David Li 8a021317a2 [PM] Port LoopAccessInfo analysis to new PM
It is implemented as a LoopAnalysis pass as 
discussed and agreed upon.

llvm-svn: 274452
2016-07-02 21:18:40 +00:00
Adam Nemet a2df750fb3 [LAA] LLE 3/6: Rename InterestingDependence to Dependences, NFC
Summary:
We now collect all types of dependences including lexically forward
deps not just "interesting" ones.

Reviewers: hfinkel

Subscribers: rengolin, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13256

llvm-svn: 251985
2015-11-03 21:39:52 +00:00
Adam Nemet b45516e875 [LAA] LLE 1/6: Expose Forward dependences
Summary:
Before this change, we didn't use to collect forward dependences since
none of the current clients (LV, LDist) required them.

The motivation to also collect forward dependences is a new pass
LoopLoadElimination (LLE) which discovers store-to-load forwarding
opportunities across the loop's backedge.  The pass uses both lexically
forward or backward loop-carried dependences to detect these
opportunities.

The new pass also analyzes loop-independent (forward) dependences since
they can conflict with the loop-carried dependences in terms of how the
data flows through memory.

The newly added test only covers loop-carried forward dependences
because loop-independent ones are currently categorized as NoDep.  The
next patch will fix this.

The two patches were tested together for compile-time regression.  None
found in LNT/SPEC.

Note that with this change LAA provides all dependences rather than just
"interesting" ones.  A subsequent NFC patch will remove the now trivial
isInterestingDependence and rename the APIs.

Reviewers: hfinkel

Subscribers: jmolloy, rengolin, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13254

llvm-svn: 251972
2015-11-03 20:13:23 +00:00
Adam Nemet 26da8e9800 [LoopAccesses] Properly print whether memchecks are needed
Fix oversight in -analyze output.  PtrRtCheck contains the pointers that
need to be checked against each other and not whether memchecks are
necessary.

For instance in the testcase PtrRtCheck has four elements but all
no-alias so no checking is necessary.

llvm-svn: 234833
2015-04-14 01:12:55 +00:00