Implemented frequency based cost/saving analysis
and related options.
The pass is now in a state ready to be turne on
in the pipeline (in follow up).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D32783
llvm-svn: 302967
This change is required because the notion of count is different for
sample profiling and getProfileCount will need to determine the
underlying profile type.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33012
llvm-svn: 302597
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
Added ability to estimate the entry count of the extracted function and
the branch probabilities of the exit branches.
Patch by River Riddle!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22744
llvm-svn: 277411
Added ability to estimate the entry count of the extracted function and
the branch probabilities of the exit branches.
Patch by River Riddle!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22744
llvm-svn: 277313
Modify the variable names and code style to be that of modern LLVM.
Patch by River Riddle!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22743
llvm-svn: 276610
The public InlineFunction utility assumes that the passed in
InlineFunctionInfo has a valid AssumptionCacheTracker.
Patch by River Riddle!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22706
llvm-svn: 276609
Remove the ModuleLevelChanges argument, and the ability to create new
subprograms for cloned functions. The latter was added without review in
r203662, but it has no in-tree clients (all non-test callers pass false
for ModuleLevelChanges [1], so it isn't reachable outside of tests). It
also isn't clear that adding a duplicate subprogram to the compile unit is
always the right thing to do when cloning a function within a module. If
this functionality comes back it should be accompanied with a more concrete
use case.
Furthermore, all in-tree clients add the returned function to the module.
Since that's pretty much the only sensible thing you can do with the function,
just do that in CloneFunction.
[1] http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/Utils/CloneFunction.cpp/rCloneFunction
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18628
llvm-svn: 269110
The original commit was reverted because of a buildbot problem with LazyCallGraph::SCC handling (not related to the OptBisect handling).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267231
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
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 of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
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
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
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
and expose it as a utility class rather than as free function wrappers.
The simple free-function interface works well for the bugpoint-specific
pass's uses of code extraction, but in an upcoming patch for more
advanced code extraction, they simply don't expose a rich enough
interface. I need to expose various stages of the process of doing the
code extraction and query information to decide whether or not to
actually complete the extraction or give up.
Rather than build up a new predicate model and pass that into these
functions, just take the class that was actually implementing the
functions and lift it up into a proper interface that can be used to
perform code extraction. The interface is cleaned up and re-documented
to work better in a header. It also is now setup to accept the blocks to
be extracted in the constructor rather than in a method.
In passing this essentially reverts my previous commit here exposing
a block-level query for eligibility of extraction. That is no longer
necessary with the more rich interface as clients can query the
extraction object for eligibility directly. This will reduce the number
of walks of the input basic block sequence by quite a bit which is
useful if this enters the normal optimization pipeline.
llvm-svn: 156163
Xinliang David Li