abomination.
For starters, this API is incredibly slow. In order to lookup the name
of a pass it must take a memory fence to acquire a pointer to the
managed static pass registry, and then potentially acquire locks while
it consults this registry for information about what passes exist by
that name. This stops the world of LLVMs in your process no matter
how little they cared about the result.
To make this more joyful, you'll note that we are preserving many passes
which *do not exist* any more, or are not even analyses which one might
wish to have be preserved. This means we do all the work only to say
"nope" with no error to the user.
String-based APIs are a *bad idea*. String-based APIs that cannot
produce any meaningful error are an even worse idea. =/
I have a patch that simply removes this API completely, but I'm hesitant
to commit it as I don't really want to perniciously break out-of-tree
users of the old pass manager. I'd rather they just have to migrate to
the new one at some point. If others disagree and would like me to kill
it with fire, just say the word. =]
llvm-svn: 227294
SimplifyCFG currently does this transformation, but I'm planning to remove that
to allow other passes, such as this one, to exploit the unreachable default.
This patch takes care to keep track of what case values are unreachable even
after the transformation, allowing for more efficient lowering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6697
llvm-svn: 226934
Follow up from r222926. Also handle multiple destinations from merged
cases on multiple and subsequent phi instructions.
rdar://problem/19106978
llvm-svn: 223135
Switch cases statements with sequential values that branch to the same
destination BB may often be handled together in a single new source BB.
In this scenario we need to remove remaining incoming values from PHI
instructions in the destination BB, as to match the number of source
branches.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6415
rdar://problem/19040894
llvm-svn: 222926
Switch statements may have more than one incoming edge into the same BB if they
all have the same value. When the switch statement is converted these incoming
edges are now coming from multiple BBs. Updating all incoming values to be from
a single BB is incorrect and would generate invalid LLVM IR.
The fix is to only update the first occurrence of an incoming value. Switch
lowering will perform subsequent calls to this helper function for each incoming
edge with a new basic block - updating all edges in the process.
This fixes rdar://problem/18916275.
llvm-svn: 221627
When LowerSwitch transforms a switch instruction into a tree of ifs it
is actually performing a binary search into the various case ranges, to
see if the current value falls into one cases range of values.
So, if we have a program with something like this:
switch (a) {
case 0:
do0();
break;
case 1:
do1();
break;
case 2:
do2();
break;
default:
break;
}
the code produced is something like this:
if (a < 1) {
if (a == 0) {
do0();
}
} else {
if (a < 2) {
if (a == 1) {
do1();
}
} else {
if (a == 2) {
do2();
}
}
}
This code is inefficient because the check (a == 1) to execute do1() is
not needed.
The reason is that because we already checked that (a >= 1) initially by
checking that also (a < 2) we basically already inferred that (a == 1)
without the need of an extra basic block spawned to check if actually (a
== 1).
The patch addresses this problem by keeping track of already
checked bounds in the LowerSwitch algorithm, so that when the time
arrives to produce a Leaf Block that checks the equality with the case
value / range the algorithm can decide if that block is really needed
depending on the already checked bounds .
For example, the above with "a = 1" would work like this:
the bounds start as LB: NONE , UB: NONE
as (a < 1) is emitted the bounds for the else path become LB: 1 UB:
NONE. This happens because by failing the test (a < 1) we know that the
value "a" cannot be smaller than 1 if we enter the else branch.
After the emitting the check (a < 2) the bounds in the if branch become
LB: 1 UB: 1. This is because by checking that "a" is smaller than 2 then
the upper bound becomes 2 - 1 = 1.
When it is time to emit the leaf block for "case 1:" we notice that 1
can be squeezed exactly in between the LB and UB, which means that if we
arrived to that block there is no need to emit a block that checks if (a
== 1).
Patch by: Marcello Maggioni <hayarms@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 211038
behavior based on other files defining DEBUG_TYPE, which means it cannot
define DEBUG_TYPE at all. This is actually better IMO as it forces folks
to define relevant DEBUG_TYPEs for their files. However, it requires all
files that currently use DEBUG(...) to define a DEBUG_TYPE if they don't
already. I've updated all such files in LLVM and will do the same for
other upstream projects.
This still leaves one important change in how LLVM uses the DEBUG_TYPE
macro going forward: we need to only define the macro *after* header
files have been #include-ed. Previously, this wasn't possible because
Debug.h required the macro to be pre-defined. This commit removes that.
By defining DEBUG_TYPE after the includes two things are fixed:
- Header files that need to provide a DEBUG_TYPE for some inline code
can do so by defining the macro before their inline code and undef-ing
it afterward so the macro does not escape.
- We no longer have rampant ODR violations due to including headers with
different DEBUG_TYPE definitions. This may be mostly an academic
violation today, but with modules these types of violations are easy
to check for and potentially very relevant.
Where necessary to suppor headers with DEBUG_TYPE, I have moved the
definitions below the includes in this commit. I plan to move the rest
of the DEBUG_TYPE macros in LLVM in subsequent commits; this one is big
enough.
The comments in Debug.h, which were hilariously out of date already,
have been updated to reflect the recommended practice going forward.
llvm-svn: 206822
The work on this project was left in an unfinished and inconsistent state.
Hopefully someone will eventually get a chance to implement this feature, but
in the meantime, it is better to put things back the way the were. I have
left support in the bitcode reader to handle the case-range bitcode format,
so that we do not lose bitcode compatibility with the llvm 3.3 release.
This reverts the following commits: 155464, 156374, 156377, 156613, 156704,
156757, 156804 156808, 156985, 157046, 157112, 157183, 157315, 157384, 157575,
157576, 157586, 157612, 157810, 157814, 157815, 157880, 157881, 157882, 157884,
157887, 157901, 158979, 157987, 157989, 158986, 158997, 159076, 159101, 159100,
159200, 159201, 159207, 159527, 159532, 159540, 159583, 159618, 159658, 159659,
159660, 159661, 159703, 159704, 160076, 167356, 172025, 186736
llvm-svn: 190328
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
IntegersSubsetMapping
- Replaced type of Items field from std::list with std::map. In neares future I'll test it with DenseMap and do the correspond replacement
if possible.
llvm-svn: 159703
IntegersSubsetMapping
- Replaced type of Items field from std::list with std::map. In neares future I'll test it with DenseMap and do the correspond replacement
if possible.
llvm-svn: 159659
Implemented IntItem - the wrapper around APInt. Why not to use APInt item directly right now?
1. It will very difficult to implement case ranges as series of small patches. We got several large and heavy patches. Each patch will about 90-120 kb. If you replace ConstantInt with APInt in SwitchInst you will need to changes at the same time all Readers,Writers and absolutely all passes that uses SwitchInst.
2. We can implement APInt pool inside and save memory space. E.g. we use several switches that works with 256 bit items (switch on signatures, or strings). We can avoid value duplicates in this case.
3. IntItem can be easyly easily replaced with APInt.
4. Currenly we can interpret IntItem both as ConstantInt and as APInt. It allows to provide SwitchInst methods that works with ConstantInt for non-updated passes.
Why I need it right now? Currently I need to update SimplifyCFG pass (EqualityComparisons). I need to work with APInts directly a lot, so peaces of code
ConstantInt *V = ...;
if (V->getValue().ugt(AnotherV->getValue()) {
...
}
will look awful. Much more better this way:
IntItem V = ConstantIntVal->getValue();
if (AnotherV < V) {
}
Of course any reviews are welcome.
P.S.: I'm also going to rename ConstantRangesSet to IntegersSubset, and CRSBuilder to IntegersSubsetMapping (allows to map individual subsets of integers to the BasicBlocks).
Since in future these classes will founded on APInt, it will possible to use them in more generic ways.
llvm-svn: 157576
LowerSwitch::Clusterify : main functinality was replaced with CRSBuilder::optimize, so big part of Clusterify's code was reduced.
test/Transform/LowerSwitch/feature.ll - this test was refactored: grep + count was replaced with FileCheck usage.
llvm-svn: 157384
Renamed methods caseBegin, caseEnd and caseDefault with case_begin, case_end, and case_default.
Added some notes relative to case iterators.
llvm-svn: 152532
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120130/136146.html
Implemented CaseIterator and it solves almost all described issues: we don't need to mix operand/case/successor indexing anymore. Base iterator class is implemented as a template since it may be initialized either from "const SwitchInst*" or from "SwitchInst*".
ConstCaseIt is just a read-only iterator.
CaseIt is read-write iterator; it allows to change case successor and case value.
Usage of iterator allows totally remove resolveXXXX methods. All indexing convertions done automatically inside the iterator's getters.
Main way of iterator usage looks like this:
SwitchInst *SI = ... // intialize it somehow
for (SwitchInst::CaseIt i = SI->caseBegin(), e = SI->caseEnd(); i != e; ++i) {
BasicBlock *BB = i.getCaseSuccessor();
ConstantInt *V = i.getCaseValue();
// Do something.
}
If you want to convert case number to TerminatorInst successor index, just use getSuccessorIndex iterator's method.
If you want initialize iterator from TerminatorInst successor index, use CaseIt::fromSuccessorIndex(...) method.
There are also related changes in llvm-clients: klee and clang.
llvm-svn: 152297
The purpose of refactoring is to hide operand roles from SwitchInst user (programmer). If you want to play with operands directly, probably you will need lower level methods than SwitchInst ones (TerminatorInst or may be User). After this patch we can reorganize SwitchInst operands and successors as we want.
What was done:
1. Changed semantics of index inside the getCaseValue method:
getCaseValue(0) means "get first case", not a condition. Use getCondition() if you want to resolve the condition. I propose don't mix SwitchInst case indexing with low level indexing (TI successors indexing, User's operands indexing), since it may be dangerous.
2. By the same reason findCaseValue(ConstantInt*) returns actual number of case value. 0 means first case, not default. If there is no case with given value, ErrorIndex will returned.
3. Added getCaseSuccessor method. I propose to avoid usage of TerminatorInst::getSuccessor if you want to resolve case successor BB. Use getCaseSuccessor instead, since internal SwitchInst organization of operands/successors is hidden and may be changed in any moment.
4. Added resolveSuccessorIndex and resolveCaseIndex. The main purpose of these methods is to see how case successors are really mapped in TerminatorInst.
4.1 "resolveSuccessorIndex" was created if you need to level down from SwitchInst to TerminatorInst. It returns TerminatorInst's successor index for given case successor.
4.2 "resolveCaseIndex" converts low level successors index to case index that curresponds to the given successor.
Note: There are also related compatability fix patches for dragonegg, klee, llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, safecode, clang.
llvm-svn: 149481
must be called in the pass's constructor. This function uses static dependency declarations to recursively initialize
the pass's dependencies.
Clients that only create passes through the createFooPass() APIs will require no changes. Clients that want to use the
CommandLine options for passes will need to manually call the appropriate initialization functions in PassInitialization.h
before parsing commandline arguments.
I have tested this with all standard configurations of clang and llvm-gcc on Darwin. It is possible that there are problems
with the static dependencies that will only be visible with non-standard options. If you encounter any crash in pass
registration/creation, please send the testcase to me directly.
llvm-svn: 116820
Chandler Carruth