Includes adding more general support for the pattern: VZEXT_MOVL(VZEXT_LOAD(ptr)) -> VZEXT_LOAD(ptr)
This has unearthed a couple of latent poor codegen issues (MINSS/MAXSS scalar load folding and MOVDDUP/BROADCAST load folding patterns), which will be fixed shortly.
Its also reduced a couple of tests so that they no longer reach the instruction threshold necessary to be combined to PSHUFB (see PR26183).
llvm-svn: 279646
Summary:
With support now in the new LTO API for caching (r279576), add
optional ThinLTO caching in the gold-plugin.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23836
llvm-svn: 279631
This patch includes the following changes:
- Included header "Code coverage report" and include the date that the report was created.
- Included title (as specified in a command line option, (i.e llvm-cov -project-title="Simple Test")
- In the summary, list the elf files that the source code file has contributed to.
- Used column heading for "Line No.", "Count No.", Source".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23345
llvm-svn: 279628
I deleted a fold from InstCombine at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279568
because it (like any InstCombine to a constant?) should always happen in InstSimplify,
however, it's not obvious what the assumptions are in the remaining code.
Add a comment and assert to make it clearer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23819
llvm-svn: 279626
The register allocator can split a live interval of a register into a set
of smaller intervals. After the allocation of registers is complete, the
rewriter will modify the IR to replace virtual registers with the corres-
ponding physical registers. At this stage, if a register corresponding
to a subregister of a virtual register is used, the rewriter will check
if that subregister is undefined, and if so, it will add the <undef> flag
to the machine operand. The function verifying liveness of the subregis-
ter would assume that it is undefined, unless any of the subranges of the
live interval proves otherwise.
The problem is that the live intervals created during splitting do not
have any subranges, even if the original parent interval did. This could
result in the <undef> flag placed on a register that is actually defined.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21189
llvm-svn: 279625
Extend instruction definitions from nearly all ISAs to include
appropriate instruction itineraries. Change MIPS16s gp prologue
generation to use real instructions instead of using a pseudo
instruction.
Reviewers: dsanders, vkalintiris
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23548
llvm-svn: 279623
div/rem instructions in basic blocks that require predication currently prevent
vectorization. This patch extends the existing mechanism for predicating stores
to handle other instructions and leverages it to predicate divs and rems.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22918
llvm-svn: 279620
Consecutive load matching (EltsFromConsecutiveLoads) currently uses VZEXT_LOAD (load scalar into lowest element and zero uppers) for vXi64 / vXf64 vectors only.
For vXi32 / vXf32 vectors it instead creates a scalar load, SCALAR_TO_VECTOR and finally VZEXT_MOVL (zero upper vector elements), relying on tablegen patterns to match this into an equivalent of VZEXT_LOAD.
This patch adds the VZEXT_LOAD patterns for vXi32 / vXf32 vectors directly and updates EltsFromConsecutiveLoads to use this.
This has proven necessary to allow us to easily make VZEXT_MOVL a full member of the target shuffle set - without this change the call to combineShuffle (which is the main caller of EltsFromConsecutiveLoads) tended to recursively recreate VZEXT_MOVL nodes......
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23673
llvm-svn: 279619
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
Summary:
This patch adds coroutine frame building algorithm. Now, simple coroutines such as ex0.ll and ex1.ll (first examples from docs\Coroutines.rst can be compiled).
Documentation and overview is here: http://llvm.org/docs/Coroutines.html.
Upstreaming sequence (rough plan)
1.Add documentation. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22603)
2.Add coroutine intrinsics. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22659)
...
7. Split coroutine into subfunctions. (https://reviews.llvm.org/D23461)
8. Coroutine Frame Building algorithm <= we are here
9. Add f.cleanup subfunction.
10+. The rest of the logic
Reviewers: majnemer
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23586
llvm-svn: 279609
We should not consider subregister definitions as reads for schedule
model purposes (they are just modeled as reads of the overal vreg for
liveness calculation purposes, the CPU instructions are not actually
reading).
Unfortunately I cannot submit a test for this as it requires a target
which uses ReadAdvance annotation in the scheduling model and has
subregister liveness enabled at the same time, which is only the case on
an out of tree target.
llvm-svn: 279604
Re-apply this patch, hopefully I will get away without any warnings
in the constructor now.
This patch removes the MachineFunctionAnalysis. Instead we keep a
map from IR Function to MachineFunction in the MachineModuleInfo.
This allows the insertion of ModulePasses into the codegen pipeline
without breaking it because the MachineFunctionAnalysis gets dropped
before a module pass.
Peak memory should stay unchanged without a ModulePass in the codegen
pipeline: Previously the MachineFunction was freed at the end of a codegen
function pipeline because the MachineFunctionAnalysis was dropped; With
this patch the MachineFunction is freed after the AsmPrinter has
finished.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23736
llvm-svn: 279602
Specifying isSSA is an extra line at best and results in invalid MI at
worst. Compute the value instead.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22722
llvm-svn: 279600
Change this pass constructor to just accept a const TargetMachine * and
use INITIALIZE_TM_PASS, that way we can get rid of the dummy
constructor. The pass will still fail when calling the default
constructor leading to TM == nullptr, this is no different than before
but is more in line what other codegen passes are doing and avoids the
dummy constructor.
llvm-svn: 279598
Summary:
This is part of a serious of patches to evolve ADCE.cpp to support
removing of unnecessary control flow.
This patch adds the ability to compute control dependences using
the iterated dominance frontier. We extend the liveness propagation
to alternate between data and control dependences until convergences.
Modify the pass manager intergation to compute the post-dominator tree
needed for iterator dominance frontier.
We still force all terminators live for now until we add code to
handlinge removing control flow in a later patch.
No changes to effective behavior with this patch
Previous patches:
D23225 [ADCE] Modify data structures to support removing control flow
D23065 [ADCE] Refactor anticipating new functionality (NFC)
D23102 [ADCE] Refactoring for new functionality (NFC)
Reviewers: nadav, majnemer, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: twoh, freik, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23559
llvm-svn: 279594
Summary:
In clang commit r268509 we started to invoke loop-unroll pass from the
driver even under -Os. However, we happen to not initialize optsize
thresholds properly, which si fixed with this change.
r268509 led to some big compile time regressions, because we started to
unroll some loops that we didn't unroll before. With this change I hope
to recover most of the regressions. We still are slightly slower than
before, because we do some checks here and there in loop-unrolling
before we bail out, but at least the slowdown is not that huge now.
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23388
llvm-svn: 279585
since 2015 (n4387), though it's allowed by a library DR so new implementations
accept it in their C++11 modes...
This should unbreak the build with libstdc++ 4.9.
llvm-svn: 279583
While these directives are mostly aliases for the existing integer
and float value directives, some of them like .dc.a have no direct
equivalents and are sometimes being used for convenience.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23810
llvm-svn: 279577
Add the ability to plug a cache on the LTO API.
I tried to write such that a linker implementation can
control the cache backend. This is intrusive and I'm
not totally happy with it, but I can't figure out a
better design right now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23599
llvm-svn: 279576
There will only be 3 lines of code in foldICmpShrConst() when the cleanup is done,
so it doesn't make much sense to have a separate function for a single fold.
llvm-svn: 279575
I want to compute the SSA property of .mir files automatically in
upcoming patches. The problem with this is that some inputs will be
reported as static single assignment with some passes claiming not to
support SSA form. In reality though those passes do not support PHI
instructions => Track the presence of PHI instructions separate from the
SSA property.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22719
llvm-svn: 279573
AFAICT, these already worked in all cases for scalar types, and I enhanced
the code to work for vector types in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279543
llvm-svn: 279568
They really should have both types represented, but early variants were created
before MachineInstrs could have multiple types so they're rather ambiguous.
llvm-svn: 279567
Simon Pilgrim