Minimum density for both optsize and non optsize are now options
-sparse-jump-table-density (default 10) for non optsize functions
-dense-jump-table-density (default 40) for optsize functions, which
matches the current default. This improves several benchmarks at google
at the cost of a small codesize increase. For code compiled with -Os,
the old behavior continues
llvm-svn: 264689
(This is the second attempt to submit this patch. The first caused two assertion
failures and was reverted. See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25687)
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254377
and the follow-up r254356: "Fix a bug in MachineBlockPlacement that may cause assertion failure during BranchProbability construction."
Asserts were firing in Chromium builds. See PR25687.
llvm-svn: 254366
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13908).
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights (http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361).
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This patch is 3+4 above. In this patch, MBB won't provide weight-based
interfaces any more, which are totally replaced by probability-based ones.
The interface addSuccessor() is redesigned so that the default probability is
unknown. We allow unknown probabilities but don't allow using it together
with known probabilities in successor list. That is to say, we either have a
list of successors with all known probabilities, or all unknown
probabilities. In the latter case, we assume each successor has 1/N
probability where N is the number of successors. An assertion checks if the
user is attempting to add a successor with the disallowed mixed use as stated
above. This can help us catch many misuses.
All uses of weight-based interfaces are now updated to use probability-based
ones.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14973
llvm-svn: 254348
The patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D13745 is broken into four parts:
1. New interfaces without functional changes.
2. Use new interfaces in SelectionDAG, while in other passes treat probabilities
as weights.
3. Use new interfaces in all other passes.
4. Remove old interfaces.
This the second patch above. In this patch SelectionDAG starts to use
probability-based interfaces in MBB to add successors but other MC passes are
still using weight-based interfaces. Therefore, we need to maintain correct
weight list in MBB even when probability-based interfaces are used. This is
done by updating weight list in probability-based interfaces by treating the
numerator of probabilities as weights. This change affects many test cases
that check successor weight values. I will update those test cases once this
patch looks good to you.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14361
llvm-svn: 253965
Currently, when edge weights are assigned to edges that are created when lowering switch statement, the weight on the edge to default statement (let's call it "default weight" here) is not considered. We need to distribute this weight properly. However, without value profiling, we have no idea how to distribute it. In this patch, I applied the heuristic that this weight is evenly distributed to successors.
For example, given a switch statement with cases 1,2,3,5,10,11,20, and every edge from switch to each successor has weight 10. If there is a binary search tree built to test if n < 10, then its two out-edges will have weight 4x10+10/2 = 45 and 3x10 + 10/2 = 35 respectively (currently they are 40 and 30 without considering the default weight). Each distribution (which is 5 here) will be stored in each SwitchWorkListItem for further distribution.
There are some exceptions:
For a jump table header which doesn't have any edge to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
For a bit test header which covers a contiguous range and hence has no edges to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
When the branch checks a single value or a contiguous range with no edge to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
In other cases, the default weight is evenly distributed to successors.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12418
llvm-svn: 246522
This is a one-line-change patch that moves the update to UnhandledWeights to the correct position: it should be updated for all clusters instead of just range clusters.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12391
llvm-svn: 246129
Kyle Butt