This is a follow-up to r331272.
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\@brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\@brief //g' $i & done
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331275
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Fixes cases like the new test @nonuniform. In that test, %cc itself
is a uniform value; however, when reading it after the end of the loop in
basic block %if, its value is effectively non-uniform, so the branch is
non-uniform.
This problem was encountered in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103743; however, this change
in itself is not sufficient to fix that bug, as there is another issue
in the AMDGPU backend.
As discovered after committing an earlier version of this change, this
exposes a subtle interaction between this pass and DivergenceAnalysis:
since we remove and re-create branch instructions, we can no longer rely
on DivergenceAnalysis for branches in subregions that were already
processed by the pass.
Explicitly remove branch instructions from DivergenceAnalysis to
avoid dangling pointers as a matter of defensive programming, and
change how we detect non-uniform subregions.
Change-Id: I32bbffece4a32f686fab54964dae1a5dd72949d4
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43743
llvm-svn: 329165
Summary:
This fixes cases like the new test @nonuniform. In that test, %cc itself
is a uniform value; however, when reading it after the end of the loop in
basic block %if, its value is effectively non-uniform.
This problem was encountered in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103743; however, this change
in itself is not sufficient to fix that bug, as there is another issue
in the AMDGPU backend.
Change-Id: I32bbffece4a32f686fab54964dae1a5dd72949d4
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec, jlebar
Subscribers: wdng, tpr, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40546
llvm-svn: 325881
It causes regressions in various OpenGL test suites.
Keep the test cases introduced by r321751 as XFAIL, and add a test case
for the regression.
Change-Id: I90b4cc354f68cebe5fcef1f2422dc8fe1c6d3514
Bugzilla: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36015
llvm-svn: 323355
The work order was changed in r228186 from SCC order
to RPO with an arbitrary sorting function. The sorting
function attempted to move inner loop nodes earlier. This
was was apparently relying on an assumption that every block
in a given loop / the same loop depth would be seen before
visiting another loop. In the broken testcase, a block
outside of the loop was encountered before moving onto
another block in the same loop. The testcase would then
structurize such that one blocks unconditional successor
could never be reached.
Revert to plain RPO for the analysis phase. This fixes
detecting edges as backedges that aren't really.
The processing phase does use another visited set, and
I'm unclear on whether the order there is as important.
An arbitrary order doesn't work, and triggers some infinite
loops. The reversed RPO list seems to work and is closer
to the order that was used before, minus the arbitary
custom sorting.
A few of the changed tests now produce smaller code,
and a few are slightly worse looking.
llvm-svn: 321751
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
This reverts commit r300732. This breaks a few tests.
I think the problem is related to adding more uses of
the condition that don't yet exist at this point.
llvm-svn: 301242
The most common case for a branch condition is
a single use compare. Directly invert the branch
predicate rather than adding a lot of xor i1 true
which the DAG will have to fold later.
This produces nicer to read structurizer output.
This produces some random changes in codegen
due to the DAG swapping branch conditions itself,
and then does a poor job of dealing with those
inverts.
llvm-svn: 300732
In some cases StructurizeCfg updates root node, but dominator info
remains unchanges, it causes crash when expensive checks are enabled.
To cope with this problem a new method was added to DominatorTreeBase
that allows adding new root nodes, it is called in StructurizeCfg to
put dominator tree in sync.
This change fixes PR27488.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28114
llvm-svn: 291530
Michel Dänzer reported that r288051, "[StructurizeCFG] Use range-based
for loops", introduced a bug into rebuildSSA, wherein we were iterating
over an instruction's use list while modifying it, without taking care
to do this correctly.
llvm-svn: 288200
Summary:
As far as I can tell, doing our own computations in
NearestCommonDominator is a false optimization -- DomTree will build up
what appears to be exactly this data when it decides it's worthwhile.
Moreover, by building the cache ourselves, we cannot take advantage of
the cache that the domtree might have available.
In addition, I am not convinced of the correctness of the original code.
In particular, setting ResultIndex = 1 on the first addBlock instead of
setting it to 0 is quite fishy. Similarly, it's not clear to me that
setting IndexMap[Node] = 0 for every node as we walk up the tree finding
a common parent is correct. But rather than ponder over these
questions, I'd rather just make the code do the obviously-correct thing.
This patch also changes the NearestCommonDominator API a bit, improving
the names and getting rid of the boolean parameter in addBlock -- see
http://jlebar.com/2011/12/16/Boolean_parameters_to_API_functions_considered_harmful..html
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: aemerson, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26998
llvm-svn: 288050
Summary:
No need to copy the RPOT vector before using it. Switch from std::map
to SmallDenseMap. Get rid of an unused variable (TempVisited). Get rid
of a typedef, RNVector, which is now used only once.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26997
llvm-svn: 287721
Summary:
"addRequired" and "addPreserved" look very similar when squished up next
to each other -- without the newline this code looked to me like it was
addRequired'ing DominatorTreeWrapperPass twice.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26996
llvm-svn: 287720
Summary: Lets us get rid of one member variable too.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26992
llvm-svn: 287716
Summary:
This fully solves the problem where the StructurizeCFG pass does not
consider the same branches as uniform as the SIAnnotateControlFlow pass.
The patch in D19013 helps with this problem, but is not sufficient
(and, interestingly, causes a "regression" with one of the existing
test cases).
No tests included here, because tests in D19013 already cover this.
Reviewers: arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19018
llvm-svn: 266346
Summary:
Tests for this will be added once the AMDGPU backend enables this
option.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16602
llvm-svn: 260336
Remove remaining `ilist_iterator` implicit conversions from
LLVMScalarOpts.
This change exposed some scary behaviour in
lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp around line 1770. This patch changes a
call from `Function::begin()` to `&Function::front()`, since the return
was immediately being passed into another function that takes a
`Function*`. `Function::front()` started to assert, since the function
was empty. Note that `Function::end()` does not point at a legal
`Function*` -- it points at an `ilist_half_node` -- so the other
function was getting garbage before. (I added the missing check for
`Function::isDeclaration()`.)
Otherwise, no functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 250211
After r244074, we now have a successors() method to iterate over
all the successors of a TerminatorInst. This commit changes a bunch
of eligible loops to use it.
llvm-svn: 244260
We were previously doing a post-order traversal and operating on the
list in reverse, however this would occasionaly cause backedges for
loops to be visited before some of the other blocks in the loop.
We know use a reverse post-order traversal, which avoids this issue.
The reverse post-order traversal is not completely ideal, so we need
to manually fixup the list to ensure that inner loop backedges are
visited before outer loop backedges.
llvm-svn: 228186
a LoopInfoWrapperPass to wire the object up to the legacy pass manager.
This switches all the clients of LoopInfo over and paves the way to port
LoopInfo to the new pass manager. No functionality change is intended
with this iteration.
llvm-svn: 226373
We were assuming that each back-edge in a region represented a unique
loop, which is not always the case. We need to use LoopInfo to
correctly determine which back-edges are loops.
llvm-svn: 223199
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
It's fishy to be changing the `std::vector<>` owned by the iterator, and
no one actual does it, so I'm going to remove the ability in a
subsequent commit. First, update the users.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207252
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
Adrian Prantl