While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
Some personality routines require funclet exit points to be clearly
marked, this is done by producing a token at the funclet pad and
consuming it at the corresponding ret instruction. CleanupReturnInst
already had a spot for this operand but CatchReturnInst did not.
Other personality routines don't need to use this which is why it has
been made optional.
llvm-svn: 245149
I folded the check for the flag -verify-dom-info into the only caller
where I think it is supposed to be checked: verifyAnalysis. (The idea
of the flag is to enable this expensive verification in
verifyPreservedAnalysis.)
I'm assuming that when manually scheduling the verification pass
with -passes=verify<domtree>, we do want to perform the verification.
llvm-svn: 236575
This adds the domtree analysis to the new pass manager. The analysis
returns the same DominatorTree result entity used by the old pass
manager and essentially all of the code is shared. We just have
different boilerplate for running and printing the analysis.
I've converted one test to run in both modes just to make sure this is
exercised while both are live in the tree.
llvm-svn: 225969
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
This should be a small build time improvement in general and fixes
the build on OS X with -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON.
The issue is that not all users are including GenericDomTreeConstruction.h,
causing undefined references when ld64 managed to hide the
linkonce_odr symbols.
llvm-svn: 201440
can be used by both the new pass manager and the old.
This removes it from any of the virtual mess of the pass interfaces and
lets it derive cleanly from the DominatorTreeBase<> template. In turn,
tons of boilerplate interface can be nuked and it turns into a very
straightforward extension of the base DominatorTree interface.
The old analysis pass is now a simple wrapper. The names and style of
this split should match the split between CallGraph and
CallGraphWrapperPass. All of the users of DominatorTree have been
updated to match using many of the same tricks as with CallGraph. The
goal is that the common type remains the resulting DominatorTree rather
than the pass. This will make subsequent work toward the new pass
manager significantly easier.
Also in numerous places things became cleaner because I switched from
re-running the pass (!!! mid way through some other passes run!!!) to
directly recomputing the domtree.
llvm-svn: 199104
trees into the Support library.
These are all expressed in terms of the generic GraphTraits and CFG,
with no reliance on any concrete IR types. Putting them in support
clarifies that and makes the fact that the static analyzer in Clang uses
them much more sane. When moving the Dominators.h file into the IR
library I claimed that this was the right home for it but not something
I planned to work on. Oops.
So why am I doing this? It happens to be one step toward breaking the
requirement that IR verification can only be performed from inside of
a pass context, which completely blocks the implementation of
verification for the new pass manager infrastructure. Fixing it will
also allow removing the concept of the "preverify" step (WTF???) and
allow the verifier to cleanly flag functions which fail verification in
a way that precludes even computing dominance information. Currently,
that results in a fatal error even when you ask the verifier to not
fatally error. It's awesome like that.
The yak shaving will continue...
llvm-svn: 199095
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
operand into the Value interface just like the core print method is.
That gives a more conistent organization to the IR printing interfaces
-- they are all attached to the IR objects themselves. Also, update all
the users.
This removes the 'Writer.h' header which contained only a single function
declaration.
llvm-svn: 198836
are part of the core IR library in order to support dumping and other
basic functionality.
Rename the 'Assembly' include directory to 'AsmParser' to match the
library name and the only functionality left their -- printing has been
in the core IR library for quite some time.
Update all of the #includes to match.
All of this started because I wanted to have the layering in good shape
before I started adding support for printing LLVM IR using the new pass
infrastructure, and commandline support for the new pass infrastructure.
llvm-svn: 198688
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
Aside from moving the actual files, this patch only updates the build
system and the source file comments under lib/... that are relevant.
I'll be updating other docs and other files in smaller subsequnet
commits.
While I've tried to test this, but it is entirely possible that there
will still be some build system fallout.
Also, note that I've not changed the library name itself: libLLVMCore.a
is still the library name. I'd be interested in others' opinions about
whether we should rename this as well (I think we should, just not sure
what it might break)
llvm-svn: 171359
David Majnemer