Without any loops, we don't even bother to build the standard analyses
used by loop passes. Without these, we can't run loop analyses or
invalidate them properly. Unfortunately, we did these things in the
wrong order which would allow a loop analysis manager's proxy to be
built but then not have the standard analyses built. When we went to do
the invalidation in the proxy thing would fall apart. In the test case
provided, it would actually crash.
The fix is to carefully check for loops first, and to in fact build the
standard analyses before building the proxy. This allows it to
correctly trigger invalidation for those standard analyses.
An alternative might seem to be to look at whether there are any loops
when doing invalidation, but this doesn't work when during the loop
pipeline run we delete the last loop. I've even included that as a test
case. It is both simpler and more robust to defer building the proxy
until there are definitely the standard set of analyses and indeed
loops.
This bug was uncovered by enabling GlobalsAA in the pipeline.
llvm-svn: 294728
This adds the last remaining core feature of the loop pass pipeline in
the new PM and removes the last of the really egregious hacks in the
LICM tests.
Sadly, this requires really substantial changes in the unittests in
order to provide and maintain simplified loops. This is particularly
hard because for example LoopSimplify will try to fold undef branches to
an ideal direction and simplify the loop accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28766
llvm-svn: 292709
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences
in type pretty-printing.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292536
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292530
LV no longer "requires" LCSSA and LoopSimplify, and instead forms
them internally as required. So, there's nothing preventing it from
being enabled.
llvm-svn: 292464
runnig LCSSA over them prior to running the loop pipeline.
This also teaches the loop PM to verify that LCSSA form is preserved
throughout the pipeline's run across the loop nest.
Most of the test updates just leverage this new functionality. One has to be
relaxed with the new PM as IVUsers is less powerful when it sees LCSSA input.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28743
llvm-svn: 292241
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
This requires custom handling because BasicAA caches handles to other
analyses and so it needs to trigger indirect invalidation.
This fixes one of the common crashes when using the new PM in real
pipelines. I've also tweaked a regression test to check that we are at
least handling the most immediate case.
I'm going to work at re-structuring this test some to both scale better
(rather than all being in one file) and check more invalidation paths in
a follow-up commit, but I wanted to get the basic bug fix in place.
llvm-svn: 290603
not really wired into the loop pass manager in a way that will let us
productively use these passes yet.
This lets the new PM get farther in basic testing which is useful for
establishing a good baseline of "doesn't explode". There are still
plenty of crashers in basic testing though, this just gets rid of some
noise that is well understood and not representing a specific or narrow
bug.
llvm-svn: 290601
inter-analysis dependencies) to use the new invalidation infrastructure.
This teaches it to invalidate itself when any of the peer function
AA results that it uses become invalid. We do this by just tracking the
originating IDs. I've kept it in a somewhat clunky API since some users
of AAResults are outside the new PM right now. We can clean this API up
if/when those users go away.
Secondly, it uses the registration on the outer analysis manager proxy
to trigger deferred invalidation when a module analysis result becomes
invalid.
I've included test cases that specifically try to trigger use-after-free
in both of these cases and they would crash or hang pretty horribly for
me even without ASan. Now they work nicely.
The `InvalidateAnalysis` utility pass required some tweaking to be
useful in this context and it still is pretty garbage. I'd like to
switch it back to the previous implementation and teach the explicit
invalidate method on the AnalysisManager to take care of correctly
triggering indirect invalidation, but I wanted to go ahead and send this
out so folks could see how all of this stuff works together in practice.
And, you know, that it does actually work. =]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27205
llvm-svn: 290595
Pretty boring and lame as-is but necessary. This is definitely a place
we'll end up with extension hooks longer term. =]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28076
llvm-svn: 290449
I was staring at these and didn't realize these were module-layer
proxies as opposed to some other layer. Justin and I have a plan to
rename things to make the names themselves much easier to reason about,
but I at least want the CHECK lines to be precise for now.
llvm-svn: 290328
from the old pass manager in the new one.
I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.
I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.
Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.
One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.
I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.
I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042
llvm-svn: 290325
Summary:
This never really got implemented, and was very hard to test before
a lot of the refactoring changes to make things more robust. But now we
can test it thoroughly and cleanly, especially at the CGSCC level.
The core idea is that when an inner analysis manager proxy receives the
invalidation event for the outer IR unit, it needs to walk the inner IR
units and propagate it to the inner analysis manager for each of those
units. For example, each function in the SCC needs to get an
invalidation event when the SCC gets one.
The function / module interaction is somewhat boring here. This really
becomes interesting in the face of analysis-backed IR units. This patch
effectively handles all of the CGSCC layer's needs -- both invalidating
SCC analysis and invalidating function analysis when an SCC gets
invalidated.
However, this second aspect doesn't really handle the
LoopAnalysisManager well at this point. That one will need some change
of design in order to fully integrate, because unlike the call graph,
the entire function behind a LoopAnalysis's results can vanish out from
under us, and we won't even have a cached API to access. I'd like to try
to separate solving the loop problems into a subsequent patch though in
order to keep this more focused so I've adapted them to the API and
updated the tests that immediately fail, but I've not added the level of
testing and validation at that layer that I have at the CGSCC layer.
An important aspect of this change is that the proxy for the
FunctionAnalysisManager at the SCC pass layer doesn't work like the
other proxies for an inner IR unit as it doesn't directly manage the
FunctionAnalysisManager and invalidation or clearing of it. This would
create an ever worsening problem of dual ownership of this
responsibility, split between the module-level FAM proxy and this
SCC-level FAM proxy. Instead, this patch changes the SCC-level FAM proxy
to work in terms of the module-level proxy and defer to it to handle
much of the updates. It only does SCC-specific invalidation. This will
become more important in subsequent patches that support more complex
invalidaiton scenarios.
Reviewers: jlebar
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27197
llvm-svn: 289317
manager, including both plumbing and logic to handle function pass
updates.
There are three fundamentally tied changes here:
1) Plumbing *some* mechanism for updating the CGSCC pass manager as the
CG changes while passes are running.
2) Changing the CGSCC pass manager infrastructure to have support for
the underlying graph to mutate mid-pass run.
3) Actually updating the CG after function passes run.
I can separate them if necessary, but I think its really useful to have
them together as the needs of #3 drove #2, and that in turn drove #1.
The plumbing technique is to extend the "run" method signature with
extra arguments. We provide the call graph that intrinsically is
available as it is the basis of the pass manager's IR units, and an
output parameter that records the results of updating the call graph
during an SCC passes's run. Note that "...UpdateResult" isn't a *great*
name here... suggestions very welcome.
I tried a pretty frustrating number of different data structures and such
for the innards of the update result. Every other one failed for one
reason or another. Sometimes I just couldn't keep the layers of
complexity right in my head. The thing that really worked was to just
directly provide access to the underlying structures used to walk the
call graph so that their updates could be informed by the *particular*
nature of the change to the graph.
The technique for how to make the pass management infrastructure cope
with mutating graphs was also something that took a really, really large
number of iterations to get to a place where I was happy. Here are some
of the considerations that drove the design:
- We operate at three levels within the infrastructure: RefSCC, SCC, and
Node. In each case, we are working bottom up and so we want to
continue to iterate on the "lowest" node as the graph changes. Look at
how we iterate over nodes in an SCC running function passes as those
function passes mutate the CG. We continue to iterate on the "lowest"
SCC, which is the one that continues to contain the function just
processed.
- The call graph structure re-uses SCCs (and RefSCCs) during mutation
events for the *highest* entry in the resulting new subgraph, not the
lowest. This means that it is necessary to continually update the
current SCC or RefSCC as it shifts. This is really surprising and
subtle, and took a long time for me to work out. I actually tried
changing the call graph to provide the opposite behavior, and it
breaks *EVERYTHING*. The graph update algorithms are really deeply
tied to this particualr pattern.
- When SCCs or RefSCCs are split apart and refined and we continually
re-pin our processing to the bottom one in the subgraph, we need to
enqueue the newly formed SCCs and RefSCCs for subsequent processing.
Queuing them presents a few challenges:
1) SCCs and RefSCCs use wildly different iteration strategies at
a high level. We end up needing to converge them on worklist
approaches that can be extended in order to be able to handle the
mutations.
2) The order of the enqueuing need to remain bottom-up post-order so
that we don't get surprising order of visitation for things like
the inliner.
3) We need the worklists to have set semantics so we don't duplicate
things endlessly. We don't need a *persistent* set though because
we always keep processing the bottom node!!!! This is super, super
surprising to me and took a long time to convince myself this is
correct, but I'm pretty sure it is... Once we sink down to the
bottom node, we can't re-split out the same node in any way, and
the postorder of the current queue is fixed and unchanging.
4) We need to make sure that the "current" SCC or RefSCC actually gets
enqueued here such that we re-visit it because we continue
processing a *new*, *bottom* SCC/RefSCC.
- We also need the ability to *skip* SCCs and RefSCCs that get merged
into a larger component. We even need the ability to skip *nodes* from
an SCC that are no longer part of that SCC.
This led to the design you see in the patch which uses SetVector-based
worklists. The RefSCC worklist is always empty until an update occurs
and is just used to handle those RefSCCs created by updates as the
others don't even exist yet and are formed on-demand during the
bottom-up walk. The SCC worklist is pre-populated from the RefSCC, and
we push new SCCs onto it and blacklist existing SCCs on it to get the
desired processing.
We then *directly* update these when updating the call graph as I was
never able to find a satisfactory abstraction around the update
strategy.
Finally, we need to compute the updates for function passes. This is
mostly used as an initial customer of all the update mechanisms to drive
their design to at least cover some real set of use cases. There are
a bunch of interesting things that came out of doing this:
- It is really nice to do this a function at a time because that
function is likely hot in the cache. This means we want even the
function pass adaptor to support online updates to the call graph!
- To update the call graph after arbitrary function pass mutations is
quite hard. We have to build a fairly comprehensive set of
data structures and then process them. Fortunately, some of this code
is related to the code for building the cal graph in the first place.
Unfortunately, very little of it makes any sense to share because the
nature of what we're doing is so very different. I've factored out the
one part that made sense at least.
- We need to transfer these updates into the various structures for the
CGSCC pass manager. Once those were more sanely worked out, this
became relatively easier. But some of those needs necessitated changes
to the LazyCallGraph interface to make it significantly easier to
extract the changed SCCs from an update operation.
- We also need to update the CGSCC analysis manager as the shape of the
graph changes. When an SCC is merged away we need to clear analyses
associated with it from the analysis manager which we didn't have
support for in the analysis manager infrsatructure. New SCCs are easy!
But then we have the case that the original SCC has its shape changed
but remains in the call graph. There we need to *invalidate* the
analyses associated with it.
- We also need to invalidate analyses after we *finish* processing an
SCC. But the analyses we need to invalidate here are *only those for
the newly updated SCC*!!! Because we only continue processing the
bottom SCC, if we split SCCs apart the original one gets invalidated
once when its shape changes and is not processed farther so its
analyses will be correct. It is the bottom SCC which continues being
processed and needs to have the "normal" invalidation done based on
the preserved analyses set.
All of this is mostly background and context for the changes here.
Many thanks to all the reviewers who helped here. Especially Sanjoy who
caught several interesting bugs in the graph algorithms, David, Sean,
and others who all helped with feedback.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21464
llvm-svn: 279618
unit for use in the PreservedAnalyses set.
This doesn't have any important functional change yet but it cleans
things up and makes the analysis substantially more efficient by
avoiding querying through the type erasure for every analysis.
I also think it makes it much easier to reason about how analyses are
preserved when walking across pass managers and across IR unit
abstractions.
Thanks to Sean and Mehdi both for the comments and suggestions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23691
llvm-svn: 279360
overloaded (and simpler).
Sean rightly pointed out in code review that we've started using
"wrapper pass" as a specific part of the old pass manager, and in fact
it is more applicable there. Here, we really have a pass *template* to
build a repeated pass, so call it that.
llvm-svn: 277689
manager.
While this has some utility for debugging and testing on its own, it is
primarily intended to demonstrate the technique for adding custom
wrappers that can provide more interesting interation behavior in
a nice, orthogonal, and composable layer.
Being able to write these kinds of very dynamic and customized controls
for running passes was one of the motivating use cases of the new pass
manager design, and this gives a hint at how they might look. The actual
logic is tiny here, and most of this is just wiring in the pipeline
parsing so that this can be widely used.
I'm adding this now to show the wiring without a lot of business logic.
This is a precursor patch for showing how a "iterate up to N times as
long as we devirtualize a call" utility can be added as a separable and
composable component along side the CGSCC pass management.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22405
llvm-svn: 277581
the new pass manager.
This adds operator<< overloads for the various bits of the
LazyCallGraph, dump methods for use from the debugger, and debug logging
using them to the CGSCC pass manager.
Having this was essential for debugging the call graph update patch, and
I've extracted what I could from that patch here to minimize the delta.
llvm-svn: 273961
actually finish wiring up the old call graph.
There were bugs in the old call graph that hadn't been caught because it
wasn't being tested. It wasn't being tested because it wasn't in the
pipeline system and we didn't have a printing pass to run in tests. This
fixes all of that.
As for why I'm still keeping the old call graph alive its so that I can
port GlobalsAA to the new pass manager with out forking it to work with
the lazy call graph. That's clearly the right eventual design, but it
seems pragmatic to defer that until its necessary. The old call graph
works just fine for GlobalsAA.
llvm-svn: 263104
This is a fairly straightforward port to the new pass manager with one
exception. It removes a very questionable use of releaseMemory() in
the old pass to invalidate its caches between runs on a function.
I don't think this is really guaranteed to be safe. I've just used the
more direct port to the new PM to address this by nuking the results
object each time the pass runs. While this could cause some minor malloc
traffic increase, I don't expect the compile time performance hit to be
noticable, and it makes the correctness and other aspects of the pass
much easier to reason about. In some cases, it may make things faster by
making the sets and maps smaller with better locality. Indeed, the
measurements collected by Bruno (thanks!!!) show mostly compile time
improvements.
There is sadly very limited testing at this point as there are only two
tests of memdep, and both rely on GVN. I'll be porting GVN next and that
will exercise this heavily though.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17962
llvm-svn: 263082
in the PassBuilder.
These are really just stubs for now, but they give a nice API surface
that Clang or other tools can start learning about and enabling for
experimentation.
I've also wired up parsing various synthetic module pass names to
generate these set pipelines. This allows the pipelines to be combined
with other passes and have their order controlled, with clear separation
between the *kind* of canned pipeline, and the *level* of optimization
to be used within that canned pipeline.
The most interesting part of this patch is almost certainly the spec for
the different optimization levels. I don't think we can ever have hard
and fast rules that would make it easy to determine whether a particular
optimization makes sense at a particular level -- it will always be in
large part a judgement call. But hopefully this will outline the
expected rationale that should be used, and the direction that the
pipelines should be taken. Much of this was based on a long llvm-dev
discussion I started years ago to try and crystalize the intent behind
these pipelines, and now, at long long last I'm returning to the task of
actually writing it down somewhere that we can cite and try to be
consistent with.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12826
llvm-svn: 262196
manager as some compilers print the typedef name and others print the
"canonical" name of the underlying class template.
This isn't really an important artifact of the test anyways so it seems
fine to just loosen the test assertions here.
llvm-svn: 262129
manager proxies and use those rather than repeating their definition
four times.
There are real differences between the two directions: outer AMs are
const and don't need to have invalidation tracked. But every proxy in
a particular direction is identical except for the analysis manager type
and the IR unit they proxy into. This makes them prime candidates for
nice templates.
I've started introducing explicit template instantiation declarations
and definitions as well because we really shouldn't be emitting all this
everywhere. I'm going to go back and add the same for the other
templates like this in a follow-up patch.
I've left the analysis manager as an opaque type rather than using two
IR units and requiring it to be an AnalysisManager template
specialization. I think its important that users retain the ability to
provide their own custom analysis management layer and provided it has
the appropriate API everything should Just Work.
llvm-svn: 262127
analyses in the new pass manager.
These just handle really basic stuff: turning a type name into a string
statically that is nice to print in logs, and getting a static unique ID
for each analysis.
Sadly, the format of passes in anonymous namespaces makes using their
names in tests really annoying so I've customized the names of the no-op
passes to keep tests sane to read.
This is the first of a few simplifying refactorings for the new pass
manager that should reduce boilerplate and confusion.
llvm-svn: 262004
the testing more more explicit.
This will currently fail on platforms without support for getTypeName.
While an assert failure seems too harsh, I'm hoping we're OK with the
regression test failure, and I'd like to find out about what platforms
actually exist in this state if there are any so we can get
implementations in place for them.
But if we just can't fix all the host compilers to have a reasonably
portable variant of getTypeName and are worried about xfailing this test
on those platforms, I can add the horrible regular expression magic to
make the tests support "unknown" here as well.
llvm-svn: 261853
analysis passes, support pre-registering analyses, and use that to
implement parsing and pre-registering a custom alias analysis pipeline.
With this its possible to configure the particular alias analysis
pipeline used by the AAManager from the commandline of opt. I've updated
the test to show this effectively in use to build a pipeline including
basic-aa as part of it.
My big question for reviewers are around the APIs that are used to
expose this functionality. Are folks happy with pass-by-lambda to do
pass registration? Are folks happy with pre-registering analyses as
a way to inject customized instances of an analysis while still using
the registry for the general case?
Other thoughts of course welcome. The next round of patches will be to
add the rest of the alias analyses into the new pass manager and wire
them up here so that they can be used from opt. This will require
extending the (somewhate limited) functionality of AAManager w.r.t.
module passes.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17259
llvm-svn: 261197
This ensures that all of the various pieces are working. The next patch
will wire up commandline-driven alias analysis chain building and allow
BasicAA to work with the AAManager.
llvm-svn: 260838
into the new pass manager and fix the latent bugs there.
This lets everything live together nicely, but it isn't really useful
yet. I never finished wiring the AA layer up for the new pass manager,
and so subsequent patches will change this to do that wiring and get AA
stuff more fully integrated into the new pass manager. Turns out this is
necessary even to get functionattrs ported over. =]
llvm-svn: 260836
over declarations.
This is both quite unproductive and causes things to crash, for example
domtree would just assert.
I've added a declaration and a domtree run to the basic high-level tests
for the new pass manager.
llvm-svn: 227724
produce it.
This adds a function to the TargetMachine that produces this analysis
via a callback for each function. This in turn faves the way to produce
a *different* TTI per-function with the correct subtarget cached.
I've also done the necessary wiring in the opt tool to thread the target
machine down and make it available to the pass registry so that we can
construct this analysis from a target machine when available.
llvm-svn: 227721
TargetLibraryAnalysis pass.
There are actually no direct tests of this already in the tree. I've
added the most basic test that the pass manager bits themselves work,
and the TLI object produced will be tested by an upcoming patches as
they port passes which rely on TLI.
This is starting to point out the awkwardness of the invalidate API --
it seems poorly fitting on the *result* object. I suspect I will change
it to live on the analysis instead, but that's not for this change, and
I'd rather have a few more passes ported in order to have more
experience with how this plays out.
I believe there is only one more analysis required in order to start
porting instcombine. =]
llvm-svn: 226160
Even before I sunk the debug flag into the opt tool this had been made
obsolete by factoring the pass and analysis managers into a single set
of templates that all used the core flag. No functionality changed here.
llvm-svn: 225842
the generic functionality of the pass managers themselves.
In the new infrastructure, the pass "manager" isn't actually interesting
at all. It just pipelines a single chunk of IR through N passes. We
don't need to know anything about the IR or the passes to do this really
and we can replace the 3 implementations of the exact same functionality
with a single generic PassManager template, complementing the single
generic AnalysisManager template.
I've left typedefs in place to give convenient names to the various
obvious instantiations of the template.
With this, I think I've nuked almost all of the redundant logic in the
managers, and I think the overall design is actually simpler for having
single templates that clearly indicate there is no special logic here.
The logging is made somewhat more annoying by this change, but I don't
think the difference is worth having heavy-weight traits to help log
things.
llvm-svn: 225783
template.
This consolidates three copies of nearly the same core logic. It adds
"complexity" to the ModuleAnalysisManager in that it makes it possible
to share a ModuleAnalysisManager across multiple modules... But it does
so by deleting *all of the code*, so I'm OK with that. This will
naturally make fixing bugs in this code much simpler, etc.
The only down side here is that we have to use 'typename' and 'this->'
in various places, and the implementation is lifted into the header.
I'll take that for the code size reduction.
The convenient names are still typedef-ed and used throughout so that
users can largely ignore this aspect of the implementation.
The follow-up change to this will do the exact same refactoring for the
PassManagers. =D
It turns out that the interesting different code is almost entirely in
the adaptors. At the end, that should be essentially all that is left.
llvm-svn: 225757
requiring and invalidating specific analyses. Also make their printed
names match their class names. Writing these out as prose really doesn't
make sense to me any more.
llvm-svn: 225346
passes too many time.
I think this is actually the issue that someone raised with me at the
developer's meeting and in an email, but that we never really got to the
bottom of. Having all the testing utilities made it much easier to dig
down and uncover the core issue.
When a pass manager is running many passes over a single function, we
need it to invalidate the analyses between each run so that they can be
re-computed as needed. We also need to track the intersection of
preserved higher-level analyses across all the passes that we run (for
example, if there is one module analysis which all the function analyses
preserve, we want to track that and propagate it). Unfortunately, this
interacted poorly with any enclosing pass adaptor between two IR units.
It would see the intersection of preserved analyses, and need to
invalidate any other analyses, but some of the un-preserved analyses
might have already been invalidated *and recomputed*! We would fail to
propagate the fact that the analysis had already been invalidated.
The solution to this struck me as really strange at first, but the more
I thought about it, the more natural it seemed. After a nice discussion
with Duncan about it on IRC, it seemed even nicer. The idea is that
invalidating an analysis *causes* it to be preserved! Preserving the
lack of result is trivial. If it is recomputed, great. Until something
*else* invalidates it again, we're good.
The consequence of this is that the invalidate methods on the analysis
manager which operate over many passes now consume their
PreservedAnalyses object, update it to "preserve" every analysis pass to
which it delivers an invalidation (regardless of whether the pass
chooses to be removed, or handles the invalidation itself by updating
itself). Then we return this augmented set from the invalidate routine,
letting the pass manager take the result and use the intersection of
*that* across each pass run to compute the final preserved set. This
accounts for all the places where the early invalidation of an analysis
has already "preserved" it for a future run.
I've beefed up the testing and adjusted the assertions to show that we
no longer repeatedly invalidate or compute the analyses across nested
pass managers.
llvm-svn: 225333
Use this to test that path of invalidation. This test actually shows
redundant invalidation here that is really bad. I'm going to work on
fixing that next, but wanted to commit the test harness now that its all
working.
llvm-svn: 225257
remove an extra, redundant pass manager wrapping every run.
I had kept seeing these when manually testing, but it was getting really
annoying and was going to cause problems with overly eager invalidation.
The root cause was an overly complex and unnecessary pile of code for
parsing the outer layer of the pass pipeline. We can instead delegate
most of this to the recursive pipeline parsing.
I've added some somewhat more basic and precise tests to catch this.
llvm-svn: 225253
a specific analysis result.
This is quite handy to test things, and will also likely be very useful
for debugging issues. You could narrow down pass validation failures by
walking these invalidate pass runs up and down the pass pipeline, etc.
I've added support to the pass pipeline parsing to be able to create one
of these for any analysis pass desired.
Just adding this class uncovered one latent bug where the
AnalysisManager CRTP base class had a hard-coded Module type rather than
using IRUnitT.
I've also added tests for invalidation and caching of analyses in
a basic way across all the pass managers. These in turn uncovered two
more bugs where we failed to correctly invalidate an analysis -- its
results were invalidated but the key for re-running the pass was never
cleared and so it was never re-run. Quite nasty. I'm very glad to debug
this here rather than with a full system.
Also, yes, the naming here is horrid. I'm going to update some of the
names to be slightly less awful shortly. But really, I've no "good"
ideas for naming. I'll be satisfied if I can get it to "not bad".
llvm-svn: 225246
manager tests to use them and be significantly more comprehensive.
This, naturally, uncovered a bug where the CGSCC pass manager wasn't
printing analyses when they were run.
The only remaining core manipulator is I think an invalidate pass
similar to the require pass. That'll be next. =]
llvm-svn: 225240
is a no-op other than requiring some analysis results be available.
This can be used in real pass pipelines to force the usually lazy
analysis running to eagerly compute something at a specific point, and
it can be used to test the pass manager infrastructure (my primary use
at the moment).
I've also added bit of pipeline parsing magic to support generating
these directly from the opt command so that you can directly use these
when debugging your analysis. The syntax is:
require<analysis-name>
This can be used at any level of the pass manager. For example:
cgscc(function(require<my-analysis>,no-op-function))
This would produce a no-op function pass requiring my-analysis, followed
by a fully no-op function pass, both of these in a function pass manager
which is nested inside of a bottom-up CGSCC pass manager which is in the
top-level (implicit) module pass manager.
I have zero attachment to the particular syntax I'm using here. Consider
it a straw man for use while I'm testing and fleshing things out.
Suggestions for better syntax welcome, and I'll update everything based
on any consensus that develops.
I've used this new functionality to more directly test the analysis
printing rather than relying on the cgscc pass manager running an
analysis for me. This is still minimally tested because I need to have
analyses to run first! ;] That patch is next, but wanted to keep this
one separate for easier review and discussion.
llvm-svn: 225236
when all are being preserved.
We want to short-circuit this for a couple of reasons. One, I don't
really want passes to grow a dependency on actually receiving their
invalidate call when they've been preserved. I'm thinking about removing
this entirely. But more importantly, preserving everything is likely to
be the common case in a lot of scenarios, and it would be really good to
bypass all of the invalidation and preservation machinery there.
Avoiding calling N opaque functions to try to invalidate things that are
by definition still valid seems important. =]
This wasn't really inpsired by much other than seeing the spam in the
logging for analyses, but it seems better ot get it checked in rather
than forgetting about it.
llvm-svn: 225163
Chandler Carruth