to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
llvm-svn: 332240
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Removes verifyDomTree, using assert(verify()) everywhere instead, and
changes verify a little to always run IsSameAsFreshTree first in order
to print good output when we find errors. Also adds verifyAnalysis for
PostDomTrees, which will allow checking of PostDomTrees it the same way
we check DomTrees and MachineDomTrees.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41298
llvm-svn: 326315
Summary:
First step in adding MemorySSA as dependency for loop pass manager.
Adding the dependency under a flag.
New pass manager: MSSA pointer in LoopStandardAnalysisResults can be null.
Legacy and new pass manager: Use cl::opt EnableMSSALoopDependency. Disabled by default.
Reviewers: sanjoy, davide, gberry
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40274
llvm-svn: 318772
parameterized emit() calls
Summary: This is not functional change to adopt new emit() API added in r313691.
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38285
llvm-svn: 315476
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
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
In r267672, where the loop distribution pragma was introduced, I tried
it hard to keep the old behavior for opt: when opt is invoked
with -loop-distribute, it should distribute the loop (it's off by
default when ran via the optimization pipeline).
As MichaelZ has discovered this has the unintended consequence of
breaking a very common developer work-flow to reproduce compilations
using opt: First you print the pass pipeline of clang
with -debug-pass=Arguments and then invoking opt with the returned
arguments.
clang -debug-pass will include -loop-distribute but the pass is invoked
with default=off so nothing happens unless the loop carries the pragma.
While through opt (default=on) we will try to distribute all loops.
This changes opt's default to off as well to match clang. The tests are
modified to explicitly enable the transformation.
llvm-svn: 290235
Summary:
Current implementation of LI verifier isn't ideal and fails to detect
some cases when LI is incorrect. For instance, it checks that all
recorded loops are in a correct form, but it has no way to check if
there are no more other (unrecorded in LI) loops in the function. This
patch adds a way to detect such bugs.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, silvas, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23437
llvm-svn: 280280
Summary:
The direct motivation for the port is to ensure that the OptRemarkEmitter
tests work with the new PM.
This remains a function pass because we not only create multiple loops
but could also version the original loop.
In the test I need to invoke opt
with -passes='require<aa>,loop-distribute'. LoopDistribute does not
directly depend on AA however LAA does. LAA uses getCachedResult so
I *think* we need manually pull in 'aa'.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22437
llvm-svn: 275811
Summary:
The main goal is to able to start using the new OptRemarkEmitter
analysis from the LoopVectorizer. Since the vectorizer was recently
converted to the new PM, it makes sense to convert this analysis as
well.
This pass is currently tested through the LoopDistribution pass, so I am
also porting LoopDistribution to get coverage for this analysis with the
new PM.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22436
llvm-svn: 275810
Summary:
This is the first set of changes implementing the RFC from
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/98334
This is a cross-sectional patch; rather than implementing the hotness
attribute for all optimization remarks and all passes in a patch set, it
implements it for the 'missed-optimization' remark for Loop
Distribution. My goal is to shake out the design issues before scaling
it up to other types and passes.
Hotness is computed as an integer as the multiplication of the block
frequency with the function entry count. It's only printed in opt
currently since clang prints the diagnostic fields directly. E.g.:
remark: /tmp/t.c:3:3: loop not distributed: use -Rpass-analysis=loop-distribute for more info (hotness: 300)
A new API added is similar to emitOptimizationRemarkMissed. The
difference is that it additionally takes a code region that the
diagnostic corresponds to. From this, hotness is computed using BFI.
The new API is exposed via an analysis pass so that it can be made
dependent on LazyBFI. (Thanks to Hal for the analysis pass idea.)
This feature can all be enabled by setDiagnosticHotnessRequested in the
LLVM context. If this is off, LazyBFI is not calculated (D22141) so
there should be no overhead.
A new command-line option is added to turn this on in opt.
My plan is to switch all user of emitOptimizationRemark* to use this
module instead.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: rcox2, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21771
llvm-svn: 275583
For the new hotness attribute, the API will take the pass rather than
the pass name so we can no longer play the trick of AlwaysPrint being a
special pass name. This adds a getter to help the transition.
There is also a corresponding clang patch.
llvm-svn: 274100
I closely followed the precedents set by the vectorizer:
* With -Rpass-missed, the loop is reported with further details pointing
to -Rpass--analysis.
* -Rpass-analysis reports the details why distribution has failed.
* Regardless of -Rpass*, when distribution fails for a loop where
distribution was forced with the pragma, a warning is produced according
to -Wpass-failed. In this case the analysis info is also printed even
without -Rpass-analysis.
llvm-svn: 267952
The next patch will start using these for -Rpass-analysis so they won't
be internal-only anymore.
Move the 'Skipping; ' prefix that some of the message are using into the
'fail' function. We don't want to include this prefix in
the -Rpass-analysis report.
llvm-svn: 267951
Summary:
D19403 adds a new pragma for loop distribution. This change adds
support for the corresponding metadata that the pragma is translated to
by the FE.
As part of this I had to rethink the flag -enable-loop-distribute. My
goal was to be backward compatible with the existing behavior:
A1. pass is off by default from the optimization pipeline
unless -enable-loop-distribute is specified
A2. pass is on when invoked directly from opt (e.g. for unit-testing)
The new pragma/metadata overrides these defaults so the new behavior is:
B1. A1 + enable distribution for individual loop with the pragma/metadata
B2. A2 + disable distribution for individual loop with the pragma/metadata
The default value whether the pass is on or off comes from the initiator
of the pass. From the PassManagerBuilder the default is off, from opt
it's on.
I moved -enable-loop-distribute under the pass. If the flag is
specified it overrides the default from above.
Then the pragma/metadata can further modifies this per loop.
As a side-effect, we can now also use -enable-loop-distribute=0 from opt
to emulate the default from the optimization pipeline. So to be precise
this is the new behavior:
C1. pass is off by default from the optimization pipeline
unless -enable-loop-distribute or the pragma/metadata enables it
C2. pass is on when invoked directly from opt
unless -enable-loop-distribute=0 or the pragma/metadata disables it
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: joker.eph, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19431
llvm-svn: 267672
This splits out the per-loop functionality from the Pass class.
With this the fact whether the loop is forced-distribute with the new
metadata/pragma can be cached in the per-loop class rather than passed
around.
llvm-svn: 267643
Summary:
If we decide to version a loop to benefit a transformation, it makes
sense to record the now non-aliasing accesses in the newly versioned
loop. This allows non-aliasing information to be used by subsequent
passes.
One example is 456.hmmer in SPECint2006 where after loop distribution,
we vectorize one of the newly distributed loops. To vectorize we
version this loop to fully disambiguate may-aliasing accesses. If we
add the noalias markers, we can use the same information in a later DSE
pass to eliminate some dead stores which amounts to ~25% of the
instructions of this hot memory-pipeline-bound loop. The overall
performance improves by 18% on our ARM64.
The scoped noalias annotation is added in LoopVersioning. The patch
then enables this for loop distribution. A follow-on patch will enable
it for the vectorizer. Eventually this should be run by default when
versioning the loop but first I'd like to get some feedback whether my
understanding and application of scoped noalias metadata is correct.
Essentially my approach was to have a separate alias domain for each
versioning of the loop. For example, if we first version in loop
distribution and then in vectorization of the distributed loops, we have
a different set of memchecks for each versioning. By keeping the scopes
in different domains they can conveniently be defined independently
since different alias domains don't affect each other.
As written, I also have a separate domain for each loop. This is not
necessary and we could save some metadata here by using the same domain
across the different loops. I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Probably the best is to review the tests first to see if I mapped this
problem correctly to scoped noalias markers. I have plenty of comments
in the tests.
Note that the interface is prepared for the vectorizer which needs the
annotateInstWithNoAlias API. The vectorizer does not use LoopVersioning
so we need a way to pass in the versioned instructions. This is also
why the maps have to become part of the object state.
Also currently, we only have an AA-aware DSE after the vectorizer if we
also run the LTO pipeline. Depending how widely this triggers we may
want to schedule a DSE toward the end of the regular pass pipeline.
Reviewers: hfinkel, nadav, ashutosh.nema
Subscribers: mssimpso, aemerson, llvm-commits, mcrosier
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16712
llvm-svn: 263743
A large number of loop utility functions take a `Pass *` and reach
into it to find out which analyses to preserve. There are a number of
problems with this:
- The APIs have access to pretty well any Pass state they want, so
it's hard to tell what they may or may not do.
- Other APIs have copied these and pass around a `Pass *` even though
they don't even use it. Some of these just hand a nullptr to the API
since the callers don't even have a pass available.
- Passes in the new pass manager don't work like the current ones, so
the APIs can't be used as is there.
Instead, we should explicitly thread the analysis results that we
actually care about through these APIs. This is both simpler and more
reusable.
llvm-svn: 255669
ScalarEvolution.h, in order to avoid cyclic dependencies between the Transform
and Analysis modules:
[LV][LAA] Add a layer over SCEV to apply run-time checked knowledge on SCEV expressions
Summary:
This change creates a layer over ScalarEvolution for LAA and LV, and centralizes the
usage of SCEV predicates. The SCEVPredicatedLayer takes the statically deduced knowledge
by ScalarEvolution and applies the knowledge from the SCEV predicates. The end goal is
that both LAA and LV should use this interface everywhere.
This also solves a problem involving the result of SCEV expression rewritting when
the predicate changes. Suppose we have the expression (sext {a,+,b}) and two predicates
P1: {a,+,b} has nsw
P2: b = 1.
Applying P1 and then P2 gives us {a,+,1}, while applying P2 and the P1 gives us
sext({a,+,1}) (the AddRec expression was changed by P2 so P1 no longer applies).
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains the order of transformations by feeding back
the results of previous transformations into new transformations, and therefore
avoiding this issue.
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains a cache to remember the results of previous
SCEV rewritting results. This also has the benefit of reducing the overall number
of expression rewrites.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet
Subscribers: jmolloy, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14296
llvm-svn: 255122
Summary:
This change creates a layer over ScalarEvolution for LAA and LV, and centralizes the
usage of SCEV predicates. The SCEVPredicatedLayer takes the statically deduced knowledge
by ScalarEvolution and applies the knowledge from the SCEV predicates. The end goal is
that both LAA and LV should use this interface everywhere.
This also solves a problem involving the result of SCEV expression rewritting when
the predicate changes. Suppose we have the expression (sext {a,+,b}) and two predicates
P1: {a,+,b} has nsw
P2: b = 1.
Applying P1 and then P2 gives us {a,+,1}, while applying P2 and the P1 gives us
sext({a,+,1}) (the AddRec expression was changed by P2 so P1 no longer applies).
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains the order of transformations by feeding back
the results of previous transformations into new transformations, and therefore
avoiding this issue.
The SCEVPredicatedLayer maintains a cache to remember the results of previous
SCEV rewritting results. This also has the benefit of reducing the overall number
of expression rewrites.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, anemet
Subscribers: jmolloy, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14296
llvm-svn: 255115
Summary:
LAA currently generates a set of SCEV predicates that must be checked by users.
In the case of Loop Distribute/Loop Load Elimination, no such predicates could have
been emitted, since we don't allow stride versioning. However, in the future there
could be SCEV predicates that will need to be checked.
This change adds support for SCEV predicate versioning in the Loop Distribute, Loop
Load Eliminate and the loop versioning infrastructure.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: mssimpso, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14240
llvm-svn: 252467
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
Since Ashutosh made findDefsUsedOutsideOfLoop public, we can clean this
up.
Now clients that don't compute DefsUsedOutsideOfLoop can just call
versionLoop() and computing DefsUsedOutsideOfLoop will happen
implicitly. With that there is no reason to expose addPHINodes anymore.
Ashutosh, you can now drop the calls to findDefsUsedOutsideOfLoop and
addPHINodes in LVerLICM and things should just work.
llvm-svn: 245579
Chandler Carruth