Verifications of dominator tree and loop info are expensive operations
so they are disabled by default. They can be enabled by command line
options -verify-dom-info and -verify-loop-info. These options however
enable checks only in files Dominators.cpp and LoopInfo.cpp. If some
transformation changes dominaror tree and/or loop info, it would be
convenient to place similar checks to the files implementing the
transformation.
This change makes corresponding flags global, so they can be used in
any file to optionally turn verification on.
llvm-svn: 292889
Summary:
Use getLoopLatch in place of isLoopSimplifyForm. we do not need
to know whether the loop has a preheader nor dedicated exits.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, atrick, mkuper
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28724
llvm-svn: 292078
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
Running tests with expensive checks enabled exhibits some problems with
verification of pass results.
First, the pass verification may require results of analysis that are not
available. For instance, verification of loop info requires results of dominator
tree analysis. A pass may be marked as conserving loop info but does not need to
be dependent on DominatorTreePass. When a pass manager tries to verify that loop
info is valid, it needs dominator tree, but corresponding analysis may be
already destroyed as no user of it remained.
Another case is a pass that is skipped. For instance, entities with linkage
available_externally do not need code generation and such passes are skipped for
them. In this case result verification must also be skipped.
To solve these problems this change introduces a special flag to the Pass
structure to mark passes that have valid results. If this flag is reset,
verifications dependent on the pass result are skipped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27190
llvm-svn: 291882
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
analyses to have a common type which is enforced rather than using
a char object and a `void *` type when used as an identifier.
This has a number of advantages. First, it at least helps some of the
confusion raised in Justin Lebar's code review of why `void *` was being
used everywhere by having a stronger type that connects to documentation
about this.
However, perhaps more importantly, it addresses a serious issue where
the alignment of these pointer-like identifiers was unknown. This made
it hard to use them in pointer-like data structures. We were already
dodging this in dangerous ways to create the "all analyses" entry. In
a subsequent patch I attempted to use these with TinyPtrVector and
things fell apart in a very bad way.
And it isn't just a compile time or type system issue. Worse than that,
the actual alignment of these pointer-like opaque identifiers wasn't
guaranteed to be a useful alignment as they were just characters.
This change introduces a type to use as the "key" object whose address
forms the opaque identifier. This both forces the objects to have proper
alignment, and provides type checking that we get it right everywhere.
It also makes the types somewhat less mysterious than `void *`.
We could go one step further and introduce a truly opaque pointer-like
type to return from the `ID()` static function rather than returning
`AnalysisKey *`, but that didn't seem to be a clear win so this is just
the initial change to get to a reliably typed and aligned object serving
is a key for all the analyses.
Thanks to Richard Smith and Justin Lebar for helping pick plausible
names and avoid making this refactoring many times. =] And thanks to
Sean for the super fast review!
While here, I've tried to move away from the "PassID" nomenclature
entirely as it wasn't really helping and is overloaded with old pass
manager constructs. Now we have IDs for analyses, and key objects whose
address can be used as IDs. Where possible and clear I've shortened this
to just "ID". In a few places I kept "AnalysisID" to make it clear what
was being identified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27031
llvm-svn: 287783
This additional information can be used to improve the locations when generating remarks for loops.
Patch by Florian Hahn.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25763
llvm-svn: 286227
For each block check that it doesn't have any uses outside of it's innermost loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25364
llvm-svn: 283877
Summary:
Current implementation of LI verifier isn't ideal and fails to detect
some cases when LI is incorrect. For instance, it checks that all
recorded loops are in a correct form, but it has no way to check if
there are no more other (unrecorded in LI) loops in the function. This
patch adds a way to detect such bugs.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, silvas, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23437
llvm-svn: 280280
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278077
We just set PreserveLCSSA to always true since we don't have an
analogous method `mustPreserveAnalysisID(LCSSA)`.
Also port LoopInfo verifier pass to test LoopUnrollPass.
llvm-svn: 276063
pass manager passes' `run` methods.
This removes a bunch of SFINAE goop from the pass manager and just
requires pass authors to accept `AnalysisManager<IRUnitT> &` as a dead
argument. This is a small price to pay for the simplicity of the system
as a whole, despite the noise that changing it causes at this stage.
This will also helpfull allow us to make the signature of the run
methods much more flexible for different kinds af passes to support
things like intelligently updating the pass's progression over IR units.
While this touches many, many, files, the changes are really boring.
Mostly made with the help of my trusty perl one liners.
Thanks to Sean and Hal for bouncing ideas for this with me in IRC.
llvm-svn: 272978
Getting accurate locations for loops is important, because those locations are
used by the frontend to generate optimization remarks. Currently, optimization
remarks for loops often appear on the wrong line, often the first line of the
loop body instead of the loop itself. This is confusing because that line might
itself be another loop, or might be somewhere else completely if the body was
inlined function call. This happens because of the way we find the loop's
starting location. First, we look for a preheader, and if we find one, and its
terminator has a debug location, then we use that. Otherwise, we look for a
location on an instruction in the loop header.
The fallback heuristic is not bad, but will almost always find the beginning of
the body, and not the loop statement itself. The preheader location search
often fails because there's often not a preheader, and even when there is a
preheader, depending on how it was formed, it sometimes carries the location of
some preceeding code.
I don't see any good theoretical way to fix this problem. On the other hand,
this seems like a straightforward solution: Put the debug location in the
loop's llvm.loop metadata. A companion Clang patch will cause Clang to insert
llvm.loop metadata with appropriate locations when generating debugging
information. With these changes, our loop remarks have much more accurate
locations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19738
llvm-svn: 270771
Fix "Logic error" warnings of the type "Called C++ object pointer is
null" reported by Clang Static Analyzer on the following files:
lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp,
lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp.
Patch by Apelete Seketeli!
llvm-svn: 269424
We were overly cautious in our analysis of loops which have invokes
which unwind to EH pads. The loop unroll transform is safe because it
only clones blocks in the loop body, it does not try to split critical
edges involving EH pads. Instead, move the necessary safety check to
LoopUnswitch.
N.B. The safety check for loop unswitch is covered by an existing test
which fails without it.
llvm-svn: 268357
Summary:
Historically, we had a switch in the Makefiles for turning on "expensive
checks". This has never been ported to the cmake build, but the
(dead-ish) code is still around.
This will also make it easier to turn it on in buildbots.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: jyknight, mzolotukhin, RKSimon, gberry, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19723
llvm-svn: 268050
This reserves an MDKind for !llvm.loop, which allows callers to avoid a
string-based lookup. I'm not sure why it was missing.
There should be no functionality change here, just a small compile-time
speedup.
llvm-svn: 264371
This was originally a pointer to support pass managers which didn't use
AnalysisManagers. However, that doesn't realistically come up much and
the complexity of supporting it doesn't really make sense.
In fact, *many* parts of the pass manager were just assuming the pointer
was never null already. This at least makes it much more explicit and
clear.
llvm-svn: 263219
work in the face of the limitations of DLLs and templated static
variables.
This requires passes that use the AnalysisBase mixin provide a static
variable themselves. So as to keep their APIs clean, I've made these
private and befriended the CRTP base class (which is the common
practice).
I've added documentation to AnalysisBase for why this is necessary and
at what point we can go back to the much simpler system.
This is clearly a better pattern than the extern template as it caught
*numerous* places where the template magic hadn't been applied and
things were "just working" but would eventually have broken
mysteriously.
llvm-svn: 263216
analyses in the new pass manager.
These just handle really basic stuff: turning a type name into a string
statically that is nice to print in logs, and getting a static unique ID
for each analysis.
Sadly, the format of passes in anonymous namespaces makes using their
names in tests really annoying so I've customized the names of the no-op
passes to keep tests sane to read.
This is the first of a few simplifying refactorings for the new pass
manager that should reduce boilerplate and confusion.
llvm-svn: 262004
It's strange that LoopInfo mostly owns the Loop objects, but that it
defers deleting them to the loop pass manager. Instead, change the
oddly named "updateUnloop" to "markAsRemoved" and have it queue the
Loop object for deletion. We can't delete the Loop immediately when we
remove it, since we need its pointer identity still, so we'll mark the
object as "invalid" so that clients can see what's going on.
llvm-svn: 257191
When a pass removes a loop it currently has to reach up into the
LPPassManager's internals to update the state of the iteration over
loops. This reverse dependency results in a pretty awkward interplay
of the LPPassManager and its Passes.
Here, we change this to instead keep track of when a loop has become
"unlooped" in the Loop objects themselves, then the LPPassManager can
check this and manipulate its own state directly. This opens the door
to allow most of the loop passes to work without a backreference to
the LPPassManager.
I've kept passes calling the LPPassManager::deleteLoopFromQueue API
now so I could put an assert in to prove that this is NFC, but a later
pass will update passes just to preserve the LoopInfo directly and
stop referencing the LPPassManager completely.
llvm-svn: 255720
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
Summary:
Also add a stricter post-condition for IndVarSimplify.
Fixes PR25578. Test case by Michael Zolotukhin.
Reviewers: hfinkel, atrick, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15059
llvm-svn: 254977
This is fix for PR24059.
When we are hoisting instruction above some condition it may turn out
that metadata on this instruction was control dependant on the condition.
This metadata becomes invalid and we need to drop it.
This patch should cover most obvious places of speculative execution (which
I have found by greping isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute). I think there are more
cases but at least this change covers the severe ones.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14398
llvm-svn: 252604
Splits PrintLoopPass into a new-style pass and a PrintLoopPassWrapper,
much like we already do for PrintFunctionPass and PrintModulePass.
llvm-svn: 252085
This introduces the basic functionality to support "token types".
The motivation stems from the need to perform operations on a Value
whose provenance cannot be obscured.
There are several applications for such a type but my immediate
motivation stems from WinEH. Our personality routine enforces a
single-entry - single-exit regime for cleanups. After several rounds of
optimizations, we may be left with a terminator whose "cleanup-entry
block" is not entirely clear because control flow has merged two
cleanups together. We have experimented with using labels as operands
inside of instructions which are not terminators to indicate where we
came from but found that LLVM does not expect such exotic uses of
BasicBlocks.
Instead, we can use this new type to clearly associate the "entry point"
and "exit point" of our cleanup. This is done by having the cleanuppad
yield a Token and consuming it at the cleanupret.
The token type makes it impossible to obscure or otherwise hide the
Value, making it trivial to track the relationship between the two
points.
What is the burden to the optimizer? Well, it turns out we have already
paid down this cost by accepting that there are certain calls that we
are not permitted to duplicate, optimizations have to watch out for
such instructions anyway. There are additional places in the optimizer
that we will probably have to update but early examination has given me
the impression that this will not be heroic.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11861
llvm-svn: 245029
This introduces new instructions neccessary to implement MSVC-compatible
exception handling support. Most of the middle-end and none of the
back-end haven't been audited or updated to take them into account.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11097
llvm-svn: 243766
Those new constructors make it more natural to construct an object for a function. For example, previously to build a LoopInfo for a function, we need four statements:
DominatorTree DT;
LoopInfo LI;
DT.recalculate(F);
LI.analyze(DT);
Now we only need one statement:
LoopInfo LI(DominatorTree(F));
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11274
llvm-svn: 242486
The benefit of turning the parameter of LoopInfo::analyze() to const& is that it now can accept a rvalue.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11250
llvm-svn: 242426
This version doesn't need begin/end but can instead just take a type which has begin/end methods.
Use this to replace an eligible foreach loop in LoopInfo found by David Blaikie in r237224.
Reviewed by David Blaikie.
llvm-svn: 237301
Serge Pavlov