Summary:
This change splits `makeICmpRegion` into `makeAllowedICmpRegion` and
`makeSatisfyingICmpRegion` with slightly different contracts. The first
one is useful for determining what values some expression //may// take,
given that a certain `icmp` evaluates to true. The second one is useful
for determining what values are guaranteed to //satisfy// a given
`icmp`.
Reviewers: nlewycky
Reviewed By: nlewycky
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8345
llvm-svn: 232575
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
Summary:
DataLayout keeps the string used for its creation.
As a side effect it is no longer needed in the Module.
This is "almost" NFC, the string is no longer
canonicalized, you can't rely on two "equals" DataLayout
having the same string returned by getStringRepresentation().
Get rid of DataLayoutPass: the DataLayout is in the Module
The DataLayout is "per-module", let's enforce this by not
duplicating it more than necessary.
One more step toward non-optionality of the DataLayout in the
module.
Make DataLayout Non-Optional in the Module
Module->getDataLayout() will never returns nullptr anymore.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: resistor, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7992
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231270
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
a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
llvm-svn: 225131
If solveBlockValue() needs results from predecessors that are not already
computed, it returns false with the intention of resuming when the dependencies
have been resolved. However, the computation would never be resumed since an
'overdefined' result had been placed in the cache, preventing any further
computation.
The point of placing the 'overdefined' result in the cache seems to have been
to break cycles, but we can check for that when inserting work items in the
BlockValue stack instead. This makes the "stop and resume" mechanism of
solveBlockValue() work as intended, unlocking more analysis.
Using this patch shaves 120 KB off a 64-bit Chromium build on Linux.
I benchmarked compiling bzip2.c at -O2 but couldn't measure any difference in
compile time.
Tests by Jiangning Liu from r215343 / PR21238, Pete Cooper, and me.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6397
llvm-svn: 222768
Philip Reames and I had a long conversation about this, mostly because it is
not obvious why the current logic is correct. Hopefully, these comments will
prevent such confusion in the future.
llvm-svn: 219882
When LazyValueInfo uses @llvm.assume intrinsics to provide edge-value
constraints, we should check for intrinsics that dominate the edge's branch,
not just any potential context instructions. An assumption that dominates the
edge's branch represents a truth on that edge. This is specifically useful, for
example, if multiple predecessors assume a pointer to be nonnull, allowing us
to simplify a later null comparison.
The test case, and an initial patch, were provided by Philip Reames. Thanks!
llvm-svn: 219688
for LVI algorithm. For a specific value to be lowered, when the number of basic
blocks being checked for overdefined lattice value is larger than
lvi-overdefined-BB-threshold, or the times of encountering overdefined value
for a single basic block is larger than lvi-overdefined-threshold, the LVI
algorithm will stop further lowering the lattice value.
llvm-svn: 218231
This change teaches LazyValueInfo to use the @llvm.assume intrinsic. Like with
the known-bits change (r217342), this requires feeding a "context" instruction
pointer through many functions. Aside from a little refactoring to reuse the
logic that turns predicates into constant ranges in LVI, the only new code is
that which can 'merge' the range from an assumption into that otherwise
computed. There is also a small addition to JumpThreading so that it can have
LVI use assumptions in the same block as the comparison feeding a conditional
branch.
With this patch, we can now simplify this as expected:
int foo(int a) {
__builtin_assume(a > 5);
if (a > 3) {
bar();
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
llvm-svn: 217345
and the lattice will be updated to be a state other than "undefined". This
limiation could miss some opportunities of lowering "overdefined" to be an
even accurate value. So this patch ask the algorithm to try to lower the
lattice value again even if the value has been lowered to be "overdefined".
llvm-svn: 215343
Summary: This patch introduces two new iterator ranges and updates existing code to use it. No functional change intended.
Test Plan: All tests (make check-all) still pass.
Reviewers: dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4481
llvm-svn: 213474
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
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
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
instructions in a block. GetUnderlyingObject is more expensive than it looks as
it can, for instance, call SimplifyInstruction.
This might have some behavioural changes in odd corner cases, but only because
of some strange artefacts of the original implementation. If you were relying
on those, we can fix that by replacing this with a smarter algorithm. Change
passes the existing tests.
llvm-svn: 166754
switch, make sure we include the value for the cases when calculating edge
value from switch to the default destination.
rdar://12241132
llvm-svn: 163270
Renamed methods caseBegin, caseEnd and caseDefault with case_begin, case_end, and case_default.
Added some notes relative to case iterators.
llvm-svn: 152532
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120130/136146.html
Implemented CaseIterator and it solves almost all described issues: we don't need to mix operand/case/successor indexing anymore. Base iterator class is implemented as a template since it may be initialized either from "const SwitchInst*" or from "SwitchInst*".
ConstCaseIt is just a read-only iterator.
CaseIt is read-write iterator; it allows to change case successor and case value.
Usage of iterator allows totally remove resolveXXXX methods. All indexing convertions done automatically inside the iterator's getters.
Main way of iterator usage looks like this:
SwitchInst *SI = ... // intialize it somehow
for (SwitchInst::CaseIt i = SI->caseBegin(), e = SI->caseEnd(); i != e; ++i) {
BasicBlock *BB = i.getCaseSuccessor();
ConstantInt *V = i.getCaseValue();
// Do something.
}
If you want to convert case number to TerminatorInst successor index, just use getSuccessorIndex iterator's method.
If you want initialize iterator from TerminatorInst successor index, use CaseIt::fromSuccessorIndex(...) method.
There are also related changes in llvm-clients: klee and clang.
llvm-svn: 152297
This could probably be made a lot smarter, but this is a common case and doesn't require LVI to scan a lot
of code. With this change CVP can optimize away the "shift == 0" case in Hashing.h that only gets hit when
"shift" is in a range not containing 0.
llvm-svn: 151919
The purpose of refactoring is to hide operand roles from SwitchInst user (programmer). If you want to play with operands directly, probably you will need lower level methods than SwitchInst ones (TerminatorInst or may be User). After this patch we can reorganize SwitchInst operands and successors as we want.
What was done:
1. Changed semantics of index inside the getCaseValue method:
getCaseValue(0) means "get first case", not a condition. Use getCondition() if you want to resolve the condition. I propose don't mix SwitchInst case indexing with low level indexing (TI successors indexing, User's operands indexing), since it may be dangerous.
2. By the same reason findCaseValue(ConstantInt*) returns actual number of case value. 0 means first case, not default. If there is no case with given value, ErrorIndex will returned.
3. Added getCaseSuccessor method. I propose to avoid usage of TerminatorInst::getSuccessor if you want to resolve case successor BB. Use getCaseSuccessor instead, since internal SwitchInst organization of operands/successors is hidden and may be changed in any moment.
4. Added resolveSuccessorIndex and resolveCaseIndex. The main purpose of these methods is to see how case successors are really mapped in TerminatorInst.
4.1 "resolveSuccessorIndex" was created if you need to level down from SwitchInst to TerminatorInst. It returns TerminatorInst's successor index for given case successor.
4.2 "resolveCaseIndex" converts low level successors index to case index that curresponds to the given successor.
Note: There are also related compatability fix patches for dragonegg, klee, llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, safecode, clang.
llvm-svn: 149481
Sanjoy Das