For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Function joinOrderedInstructions merges instructions when a leader is encountered twice.
It also notices that leaders in SeenLeaders may lose their leadership in previous merging,
and tries to handle the case using following code:
Instruction *PrevLeader = UnionFind.getLeaderValue(SeenLeaders.back());
However, this is wrong because it always gets leader for the last element of SeenLeaders,
and I believe it's wrong even we get leader for Prev here. As a result, Statements in cases
like the one in patch aren't merged as expected. After investigation, I believe it's
unnecessary to get leader instruction at all. This is based on fact: Although leaders in
SeenLeaders could lose leadership, they only lose to others in SeenLeaders, in other words,
one existing leader will be chosen as new leader of merged equivalent statements. We can
take advantage of this and simply check if current leader equals to Prev and break merging
if it does.
The patch also adds a new test.
Patch by bin.narwal <bin.narwal@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67007
llvm-svn: 371801
Eli Friedman