Summary:
There are some rough corners, since the new pass manager doesn't have
(as far as I can tell) LoopSimplify and LCSSA, so I've updated the
tests to run them separately in the old pass manager in the lit tests.
We also don't have an equivalent for AU.setPreservesCFG() in the new
pass manager, so I've left a FIXME.
Reviewers: bogner, chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: sanjoy, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20783
llvm-svn: 271846
Add support for the new pass manager to MemorySSA pass.
Change MemorySSA to be computed eagerly upon construction.
Change MemorySSAWalker to be owned by the MemorySSA object that creates
it.
Reviewers: dberlin, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19664
llvm-svn: 271432
Summary:
Implement guard widening in LLVM. Description from GuardWidening.cpp:
The semantics of the `@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic lets LLVM
transform it so that it fails more often that it did before the
transform. This optimization is called "widening" and can be used hoist
and common runtime checks in situations like these:
```
%cmp0 = 7 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
%cmp1 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp1) [ "deopt"(...) ]
...
```
to
```
%cmp0 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
...
```
If `%cmp0` is false, `@llvm.experimental.guard` will "deoptimize" back
to a generic implementation of the same function, which will have the
correct semantics from that point onward. It is always _legal_ to
deoptimize (so replacing `%cmp0` with false is "correct"), though it may
not always be profitable to do so.
NB! This pass is a work in progress. It hasn't been tuned to be
"production ready" yet. It is known to have quadriatic running time and
will not scale to large numbers of guards
Reviewers: reames, atrick, bogner, apilipenko, nlewycky
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20143
llvm-svn: 269997
Ported DA to the new PM by splitting the former DependenceAnalysis Pass
into a DependenceInfo result type and DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass type
and adding a new PM-style DependenceAnalysis analysis pass returning the
DependenceInfo.
Patch by Philip Pfaffe, most of the review by Justin.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18834
llvm-svn: 269370
allow the transformation to strip invalid debug info.
This patch separates the Verifier into an analysis and a transformation
pass, with the transformation pass optionally stripping malformed
debug info.
The problem I'm trying to solve with this sequence of patches is that
historically we've done a really bad job at verifying debug info. We want
to be able to make the verifier stricter without having to worry about
breaking bitcode compatibility with existing producers. For example, we
don't necessarily want IR produced by an older version of clang to be
rejected by an LTO link just because of malformed debug info, and rather
provide an option to strip it. Note that merely outdated (but well-formed)
debug info would continue to be auto-upgraded in this scenario.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19988
rdar://problem/25818489
This reapplies r268937 without modifications.
llvm-svn: 268966
allow the transformation to strip invalid debug info.
This patch separates the Verifier into an analysis and a transformation
pass, with the transformation pass optionally stripping malformed
debug info.
The problem I'm trying to solve with this sequence of patches is that
historically we've done a really bad job at verifying debug info. We want
to be able to make the verifier stricter without having to worry about
breaking bitcode compatibility with existing producers. For example, we
don't necessarily want IR produced by an older version of clang to be
rejected by an LTO link just because of malformed debug info, and rather
provide an option to strip it. Note that merely outdated (but well-formed)
debug info would continue to be auto-upgraded in this scenario.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19988
rdar://problem/25818489
llvm-svn: 268937
It's missing a dependency on Instrumentation (needed for
llvm::InstrProfiling::run(llvm::Module&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module>&))
llvm-svn: 266656
clarify their purpose.
Firstly, call them "...Mixin" types so it is clear that there is no
type hierarchy being formed here. Secondly, use the term 'Info' to
clarify that they aren't adding any interesting *semantics* to the
passes or analyses, just exposing APIs used by the management layer to
get information about the pass or analysis.
Thanks to Manuel for helping pin down the naming confusion here and come
up with effective names to address it.
In case you already have some out-of-tree stuff, the following should be
roughly what you want to update:
perl -pi -e 's/\b(Pass|Analysis)Base\b/\1InfoMixin/g'
llvm-svn: 263217
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
tests to run GVN in both modes.
This is mostly the boring refactoring just like SROA and other complex
transformation passes. There is some trickiness in that GVN's
ValueNumber class requires hand holding to get to compile cleanly. I'm
open to suggestions about a better pattern there, but I tried several
before settling on this. I was trying to balance my desire to sink as
much implementation detail into the source file as possible without
introducing overly many layers of abstraction.
Much like with SROA, the design of this system is made somewhat more
cumbersome by the need to support both pass managers without duplicating
the significant state and logic of the pass. The same compromise is
struck here.
I've also left a FIXME in a doxygen comment as the GVN pass seems to
have pretty woeful documentation within it. I'd like to submit this with
the FIXME and let those more deeply familiar backfill the information
here now that we have a nice place in an interface to put that kind of
documentaiton.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18019
llvm-svn: 263208
actually finish wiring up the old call graph.
There were bugs in the old call graph that hadn't been caught because it
wasn't being tested. It wasn't being tested because it wasn't in the
pipeline system and we didn't have a printing pass to run in tests. This
fixes all of that.
As for why I'm still keeping the old call graph alive its so that I can
port GlobalsAA to the new pass manager with out forking it to work with
the lazy call graph. That's clearly the right eventual design, but it
seems pragmatic to defer that until its necessary. The old call graph
works just fine for GlobalsAA.
llvm-svn: 263104
This is a fairly straightforward port to the new pass manager with one
exception. It removes a very questionable use of releaseMemory() in
the old pass to invalidate its caches between runs on a function.
I don't think this is really guaranteed to be safe. I've just used the
more direct port to the new PM to address this by nuking the results
object each time the pass runs. While this could cause some minor malloc
traffic increase, I don't expect the compile time performance hit to be
noticable, and it makes the correctness and other aspects of the pass
much easier to reason about. In some cases, it may make things faster by
making the sets and maps smaller with better locality. Indeed, the
measurements collected by Bruno (thanks!!!) show mostly compile time
improvements.
There is sadly very limited testing at this point as there are only two
tests of memdep, and both rely on GVN. I'll be porting GVN next and that
will exercise this heavily though.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17962
llvm-svn: 263082
in the PassBuilder.
These are really just stubs for now, but they give a nice API surface
that Clang or other tools can start learning about and enabling for
experimentation.
I've also wired up parsing various synthetic module pass names to
generate these set pipelines. This allows the pipelines to be combined
with other passes and have their order controlled, with clear separation
between the *kind* of canned pipeline, and the *level* of optimization
to be used within that canned pipeline.
The most interesting part of this patch is almost certainly the spec for
the different optimization levels. I don't think we can ever have hard
and fast rules that would make it easy to determine whether a particular
optimization makes sense at a particular level -- it will always be in
large part a judgement call. But hopefully this will outline the
expected rationale that should be used, and the direction that the
pipelines should be taken. Much of this was based on a long llvm-dev
discussion I started years ago to try and crystalize the intent behind
these pipelines, and now, at long long last I'm returning to the task of
actually writing it down somewhere that we can cite and try to be
consistent with.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12826
llvm-svn: 262196
classes changed whether the decltype of these expressions was
a reference. I'm somewhat horrified why, and there may need to be
a deeper fix on MSVC, but this should at least get the bots a step
further.
llvm-svn: 262008
Sanjoy Das