This pass is being added in order to make the information available to BasicAA,
which can't do caching of this information itself, but possibly this information
may be useful for other passes.
Incorporates code based on Daniel Berlin's implementation of Tarjan's algorithm.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47893
llvm-svn: 335857
=== Generating the CG Profile ===
The CGProfile module pass simply gets the block profile count for each BB and scans for call instructions. For each call instruction it adds an edge from the current function to the called function with the current BB block profile count as the weight.
After scanning all the functions, it generates an appending module flag containing the data. The format looks like:
```
!llvm.module.flags = !{!0}
!0 = !{i32 5, !"CG Profile", !1}
!1 = !{!2, !3, !4} ; List of edges
!2 = !{void ()* @a, void ()* @b, i64 32} ; Edge from a to b with a weight of 32
!3 = !{void (i1)* @freq, void ()* @a, i64 11}
!4 = !{void (i1)* @freq, void ()* @b, i64 20}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48105
llvm-svn: 335794
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
LoopInstSimplify is unused and untested. Reading through the commit
history the pass also seems to have a high maintenance burden.
It would be best to retire the pass for now. It should be easy to
recover if we need something similar in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053
llvm-svn: 327329
Combine expression patterns to form expressions with fewer, simple instructions.
This pass does not modify the CFG.
For example, this pass reduce width of expressions post-dominated by TruncInst
into smaller width when applicable.
It differs from instcombine pass in that it contains pattern optimization that
requires higher complexity than the O(1), thus, it should run fewer times than
instcombine pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38313
llvm-svn: 323321
Summary:
This pass synthesizes function entry counts by traversing the callgraph
and using the relative block frequencies of the callsites. The intended
use of these counts is in inlining to determine hot/cold callsites in
the absence of profile information.
The pass is split into two files with the code that propagates the
counts in a callgraph in a Utils file. I plan to add support for
propagation in the thinlto link phase and the propagation code will be
shared and hence this split. I did not add support to the old PM since
hot callsite determination in inlining is not possible in old PM
(although we could use hot callee heuristic with synthetic counts in the
old PM it is not worth the effort tuning it)
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: mgorny, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41604
llvm-svn: 322110
Summary:
The port is nearly straightforward.
The only complication is related to the analyses handling,
since one of the analyses used in this module pass is domtree,
which is a function analysis. That requires asking for the results
of each function and disallows a single interface for run-on-module
pass action.
Decided to copy-paste the main body of this pass.
Most of its code is requesting analyses anyway, so not that much
of a copy-paste.
The rest of the code movement is to transform all the implementation
helper functions like stripNonValidData into non-member statics.
Extended all the related LLVM tests with new-pass-manager use.
No failures.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: skatkov, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41162
llvm-svn: 320796
The core idea is to (re-)introduce some redundancies where their cost is
hidden by the cost of materializing immediates for constant operands of
PHI nodes. When the cost of the redundancies is covered by this,
avoiding materializing the immediate has numerous benefits:
1) Less register pressure
2) Potential for further folding / combining
3) Potential for more efficient instructions due to immediate operand
As a motivating example, consider the remarkably different cost on x86
of a SHL instruction with an immediate operand versus a register
operand.
This pattern turns up surprisingly frequently, but is somewhat rarely
obvious as a significant performance problem.
The pass is entirely target independent, but it does rely on the target
cost model in TTI to decide when to speculate things around the PHI
node. I've included x86-focused tests, but any target that sets up its
immediate cost model should benefit from this pass.
There is probably more that can be done in this space, but the pass
as-is is enough to get some important performance on our internal
benchmarks, and should be generally performance neutral, but help with
more extensive benchmarking is always welcome.
One awkward part is that this pass has to be scheduled after
*everything* that can eliminate these kinds of redundancies. This
includes SimplifyCFG, GVN, etc. I'm open to suggestions about better
places to put this. We could in theory make it part of the codegen pass
pipeline, but there doesn't really seem to be a good reason for that --
it isn't "lowering" in any sense and only relies on pretty standard cost
model based TTI queries, so it seems to fit well with the "optimization"
pipeline model. Still, further thoughts on the pipeline position are
welcome.
I've also only implemented this in the new pass manager. If folks are
very interested, I can try to add it to the old PM as well, but I didn't
really see much point (my use case is already switched over to the new
PM).
I've tested this pretty heavily without issue. A wide range of
benchmarks internally show no change outside the noise, and I don't see
any significant changes in SPEC either. However, the size class
computation in tcmalloc is substantially improved by this, which turns
into a 2% to 4% win on the hottest path through tcmalloc for us, so
there are definitely important cases where this is going to make
a substantial difference.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467
llvm-svn: 319164
Clang implements the -finstrument-functions flag inherited from GCC, which
inserts calls to __cyg_profile_func_{enter,exit} on function entry and exit.
This is useful for getting a trace of how the functions in a program are
executed. Normally, the calls remain even if a function is inlined into another
function, but it is useful to be able to turn this off for users who are
interested in a lower-level trace, i.e. one that reflects what functions are
called post-inlining. (We use this to generate link order files for Chromium.)
LLVM already has a pass for inserting similar instrumentation calls to
mcount(), which it does after inlining. This patch renames and extends that
pass to handle calls both to mcount and the cygprofile functions, before and/or
after inlining as controlled by function attributes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39287
llvm-svn: 318195
Registers it and everything, updates all the references, etc.
Next patch will add support to Clang's `-fexperimental-new-pass-manager`
path to actually enable BoundsChecking correctly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39084
llvm-svn: 318128
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
This patch adds a new pass for attaching !callees metadata to indirect call
sites. The pass propagates values to call sites by performing an IPSCCP-like
analysis using the generic sparse propagation solver. For indirect call sites
having a small set of possible callees, the attached metadata indicates what
those callees are. The metadata can be used to facilitate optimizations like
intersecting the function attributes of the possible callees, refining the call
graph, performing indirect call promotion, etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37355
llvm-svn: 316576
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
Currently, this pass only focuses on *trivial* loop unswitching. At that
reduced problem it remains significantly better than the current loop
unswitch:
- Old pass is worse than cubic complexity. New pass is (I think) linear.
- New pass is much simpler in its design by focusing on full unswitching. (See
below for details on this).
- New pass doesn't carry state for thresholds between pass iterations.
- New pass doesn't carry state for correctness (both miscompile and
infloop) between pass iterations.
- New pass produces substantially better code after unswitching.
- New pass can handle more trivial unswitch cases.
- New pass doesn't recompute the dominator tree for the entire function
and instead incrementally updates it.
I've ported all of the trivial unswitching test cases from the old pass
to the new one to make sure that major functionality isn't lost in the
process. For several of the test cases I've worked to improve the
precision and rigor of the CHECKs, but for many I've just updated them
to handle the new IR produced.
My initial motivation was the fact that the old pass carried state in
very unreliable ways between pass iterations, and these mechansims were
incompatible with the new pass manager. However, I discovered many more
improvements to make along the way.
This pass makes two very significant assumptions that enable most of these
improvements:
1) Focus on *full* unswitching -- that is, completely removing whatever
control flow construct is being unswitched from the loop. In the case
of trivial unswitching, this means removing the trivial (exiting)
edge. In non-trivial unswitching, this means removing the branch or
switch itself. This is in opposition to *partial* unswitching where
some part of the unswitched control flow remains in the loop. Partial
unswitching only really applies to switches and to folded branches.
These are very similar to full unrolling and partial unrolling. The
full form is an effective canonicalization, the partial form needs
a complex cost model, cannot be iterated, isn't canonicalizing, and
should be a separate pass that runs very late (much like unrolling).
2) Leverage LLVM's Loop machinery to the fullest. The original unswitch
dates from a time when a great deal of LLVM's loop infrastructure was
missing, ineffective, and/or unreliable. As a consequence, a lot of
complexity was added which we no longer need.
With these two overarching principles, I think we can build a fast and
effective unswitcher that fits in well in the new PM and in the
canonicalization pipeline. Some of the remaining functionality around
partial unswitching may not be relevant today (not many test cases or
benchmarks I can find) but if they are I'd like to add support for them
as a separate layer that runs very late in the pipeline.
Purely to make reviewing and introducing this code more manageable, I've
split this into first a trivial-unswitch-only pass and in the next patch
I'll add support for full non-trivial unswitching against a *fixed*
threshold, exactly like full unrolling. I even plan to re-use the
unrolling thresholds, as these are incredibly similar cost tradeoffs:
we're cloning a loop body in order to end up with simplified control
flow. We should only do that when the total growth is reasonably small.
One of the biggest changes with this pass compared to the previous one
is that previously, each individual trivial exiting edge from a switch
was unswitched separately as a branch. Now, we unswitch the entire
switch at once, with cases going to the various destinations. This lets
us unswitch multiple exiting edges in a single operation and also avoids
numerous extremely bad behaviors, where we would introduce 1000s of
branches to test for thousands of possible values, all of which would
take the exact same exit path bypassing the loop. Now we will use
a switch with 1000s of cases that can be efficiently lowered into
a jumptable. This avoids relying on somehow forming a switch out of the
branches or getting horrible code if that fails for any reason.
Another significant change is that this pass actively updates the CFG
based on unswitching. For trivial unswitching, this is actually very
easy because of the definition of loop simplified form. Doing this makes
the code coming out of loop unswitch dramatically more friendly. We
still should run loop-simplifycfg (at the least) after this to clean up,
but it will have to do a lot less work.
Finally, this pass makes much fewer attempts to simplify instructions
based on the unswitch. Something like loop-instsimplify, instcombine, or
GVN can be used to do increasingly powerful simplifications based on the
now dominating predicate. The old simplifications are things that
something like loop-instsimplify should get today or a very, very basic
loop-instcombine could get. Keeping that logic separate is a big
simplifying technique.
Most of the code in this pass that isn't in the old one has to do with
achieving specific goals:
- Updating the dominator tree as we go
- Unswitching all cases in a switch in a single step.
I think it is still shorter than just the trivial unswitching code in
the old pass despite having this functionality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32409
llvm-svn: 301576
This patch optimizes two memory intrinsic operations: memset and memcpy based
on the profiled size of the operation. The high level transformation is like:
mem_op(..., size)
==>
switch (size) {
case s1:
mem_op(..., s1);
goto merge_bb;
case s2:
mem_op(..., s2);
goto merge_bb;
...
default:
mem_op(..., size);
goto merge_bb;
}
merge_bb:
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28966
llvm-svn: 299446
Now that the call graph supports efficient replacement of a function and
spurious reference edges, we can port ArgumentPromotion to the new pass
manager very easily.
The old PM-specific bits are sunk into callbacks that the new PM simply
doesn't use. Unlike the old PM, the new PM simply does argument
promotion and afterward does the update to LCG reflecting the promoted
function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29580
llvm-svn: 294667
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
llvm-svn: 293249
factory functions for the two modes the loop unroller is actually used
in in-tree: simplified full-unrolling and the entire thing including
partial unrolling.
I've also wired these up to nice names so you can express both of these
being in a pipeline easily. This is a precursor to actually enabling
these parts of the O2 pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28897
llvm-svn: 293136
This patch introduces guard based loop predication optimization. The new LoopPredication pass tries to convert loop variant range checks to loop invariant by widening checks across loop iterations. For example, it will convert
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(i < len);
...
}
to
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(n - 1 < len);
...
}
After this transformation the condition of the guard is loop invariant, so loop-unswitch can later unswitch the loop by this condition which basically predicates the loop by the widened condition:
if (n - 1 < len)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
...
}
else
deoptimize
This patch relies on an NFC change to make ScalarEvolution::isMonotonicPredicate public (revision 293062).
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29034
llvm-svn: 293064
Like several other loop passes (the vectorizer, etc) this pass doesn't
really fit the model of a loop pass. The critical distinction is that it
isn't intended to be pipelined together with other loop passes. I plan
to add some documentation to the loop pass manager to make this more
clear on that side.
LoopSink is also different because it doesn't really need a lot of the
infrastructure of our loop passes. For example, if there aren't loop
invariant instructions causing a preheader to exist, there is no need to
form a preheader. It also doesn't need LCSSA because this pass is
only involved in sinking invariant instructions from a preheader into
the loop, not reasoning about live-outs.
This allows some nice simplifications to the pass in the new PM where we
can directly walk the loops once without restructuring them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28921
llvm-svn: 292589
This doesn't implement *every* feature of the existing inliner, but
tries to implement the most important ones for building a functional
optimization pipeline and beginning to sort out bugs, regressions, and
other problems.
Notable, but intentional omissions:
- No alloca merging support. Why? Because it isn't clear we want to do
this at all. Active discussion and investigation is going on to remove
it, so for simplicity I omitted it.
- No support for trying to iterate on "internally" devirtualized calls.
Why? Because it adds what I suspect is inappropriate coupling for
little or no benefit. We will have an outer iteration system that
tracks devirtualization including that from function passes and
iterates already. We should improve that rather than approximate it
here.
- Optimization remarks. Why? Purely to make the patch smaller, no other
reason at all.
The last one I'll probably work on almost immediately. But I wanted to
skip it in the initial patch to try to focus the change as much as
possible as there is already a lot of code moving around and both of
these *could* be skipped without really disrupting the core logic.
A summary of the different things happening here:
1) Adding the usual new PM class and rigging.
2) Fixing minor underlying assumptions in the inline cost analysis or
inline logic that don't generally hold in the new PM world.
3) Adding the core pass logic which is in essence a loop over the calls
in the nodes in the call graph. This is a bit duplicated from the old
inliner, but only a handful of lines could realistically be shared.
(I tried at first, and it really didn't help anything.) All told,
this is only about 100 lines of code, and most of that is the
mechanics of wiring up analyses from the new PM world.
4) Updating the LazyCallGraph (in the new PM) based on the *newly
inlined* calls and references. This is very minimal because we cannot
form cycles.
5) When inlining removes the last use of a function, eagerly nuking the
body of the function so that any "one use remaining" inline cost
heuristics are immediately refined, and queuing these functions to be
completely deleted once inlining is complete and the call graph
updated to reflect that they have become dead.
6) After all the inlining for a particular function, updating the
LazyCallGraph and the CGSCC pass manager to reflect the
function-local simplifications that are done immediately and
internally by the inline utilties. These are the exact same
fundamental set of CG updates done by arbitrary function passes.
7) Adding a bunch of test cases to specifically target CGSCC and other
subtle aspects in the new PM world.
Many thanks to the careful review from Easwaran and Sanjoy and others!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24226
llvm-svn: 290161
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
Summary:
This never really got implemented, and was very hard to test before
a lot of the refactoring changes to make things more robust. But now we
can test it thoroughly and cleanly, especially at the CGSCC level.
The core idea is that when an inner analysis manager proxy receives the
invalidation event for the outer IR unit, it needs to walk the inner IR
units and propagate it to the inner analysis manager for each of those
units. For example, each function in the SCC needs to get an
invalidation event when the SCC gets one.
The function / module interaction is somewhat boring here. This really
becomes interesting in the face of analysis-backed IR units. This patch
effectively handles all of the CGSCC layer's needs -- both invalidating
SCC analysis and invalidating function analysis when an SCC gets
invalidated.
However, this second aspect doesn't really handle the
LoopAnalysisManager well at this point. That one will need some change
of design in order to fully integrate, because unlike the call graph,
the entire function behind a LoopAnalysis's results can vanish out from
under us, and we won't even have a cached API to access. I'd like to try
to separate solving the loop problems into a subsequent patch though in
order to keep this more focused so I've adapted them to the API and
updated the tests that immediately fail, but I've not added the level of
testing and validation at that layer that I have at the CGSCC layer.
An important aspect of this change is that the proxy for the
FunctionAnalysisManager at the SCC pass layer doesn't work like the
other proxies for an inner IR unit as it doesn't directly manage the
FunctionAnalysisManager and invalidation or clearing of it. This would
create an ever worsening problem of dual ownership of this
responsibility, split between the module-level FAM proxy and this
SCC-level FAM proxy. Instead, this patch changes the SCC-level FAM proxy
to work in terms of the module-level proxy and defer to it to handle
much of the updates. It only does SCC-specific invalidation. This will
become more important in subsequent patches that support more complex
invalidaiton scenarios.
Reviewers: jlebar
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27197
llvm-svn: 289317
Summary:
This pass shrink-wraps a condition to some library calls where the call
result is not used. For example:
sqrt(val);
is transformed to
if (val < 0)
sqrt(val);
Even if the result of library call is not being used, the compiler cannot
safely delete the call because the function can set errno on error
conditions.
Note in many functions, the error condition solely depends on the incoming
parameter. In this optimization, we can generate the condition can lead to
the errno to shrink-wrap the call. Since the chances of hitting the error
condition is low, the runtime call is effectively eliminated.
These partially dead calls are usually results of C++ abstraction penalty
exposed by inlining. This optimization hits 108 times in 19 C/C++ programs
in SPEC2006.
Reviewers: hfinkel, mehdi_amini, davidxl
Subscribers: modocache, mgorny, mehdi_amini, xur, llvm-commits, beanz
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24414
llvm-svn: 284542
Summary:
Use MemorySSA, if requested, to do less conservative memory dependency
checking.
This change doesn't enable the MemorySSA enhanced EarlyCSE in the
default pipelines, so should be NFC.
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, reames, majnemer
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19821
llvm-svn: 280279
minimal and boring form than the old pass manager's version.
This pass does the very minimal amount of work necessary to inline
functions declared as always-inline. It doesn't support a wide array of
things that the legacy pass manager did support, but is alse ... about
20 lines of code. So it has that going for it. Notably things this
doesn't support:
- Array alloca merging
- To support the above, bottom-up inlining with careful history
tracking and call graph updates
- DCE of the functions that become dead after this inlining.
- Inlining through call instructions with the always_inline attribute.
Instead, it focuses on inlining functions with that attribute.
The first I've omitted because I'm hoping to just turn it off for the
primary pass manager. If that doesn't pan out, I can add it here but it
will be reasonably expensive to do so.
The second should really be handled by running global-dce after the
inliner. I don't want to re-implement the non-trivial logic necessary to
do comdat-correct DCE of functions. This means the -O0 pipeline will
have to be at least 'always-inline,global-dce', but that seems
reasonable to me. If others are seriously worried about this I'd like to
hear about it and understand why. Again, this is all solveable by
factoring that logic into a utility and calling it here, but I'd like to
wait to do that until there is a clear reason why the existing
pass-based factoring won't work.
The final point is a serious one. I can fairly easily add support for
this, but it seems both costly and a confusing construct for the use
case of the always inliner running at -O0. This attribute can of course
still impact the normal inliner easily (although I find that
a questionable re-use of the same attribute). I've started a discussion
to sort out what semantics we want here and based on that can figure out
if it makes sense ta have this complexity at O0 or not.
One other advantage of this design is that it should be quite a bit
faster due to checking for whether the function is a viable candidate
for inlining exactly once per function instead of doing it for each call
site.
Anyways, hopefully a reasonable starting point for this pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23299
llvm-svn: 278896
Summary:
Refactor the existing support into a LoopDataPrefetch implementation
class and a LoopDataPrefetchLegacyPass class that invokes it.
Add a new LoopDataPrefetchPass for the new pass manager that utilizes
the LoopDataPrefetch implementation class.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23483
llvm-svn: 278591
Summary:
Port the NameAnonFunction pass and add a test.
Depends on D23439.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23440
llvm-svn: 278509
Summary:
Port the ModuleSummaryAnalysisWrapperPass to the new pass manager.
Use it in the ported BitcodeWriterPass (similar to how we use the
legacy ModuleSummaryAnalysisWrapperPass in the legacy WriteBitcodePass).
Also, pass the -module-summary opt flag through to the new pass
manager pipeline and through to the bitcode writer pass, and add
a test that uses it.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23439
llvm-svn: 278508
John Brawn