When there are multiple optimizations on one line, record the vectorization
factors, etc. correctly (instead of incorrectly substituting default values).
llvm-svn: 283443
How code is optimized sometimes, perhaps often, depends on the context into
which it was inlined. This change allows llvm-opt-report to track the
differences between the optimizations performed, or not, in different contexts,
and when these differ, display those differences.
For example, this code:
$ cat /tmp/q.cpp
void bar();
void foo(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
bar();
}
void quack() {
foo(4);
}
void quack2() {
foo(4);
}
will now produce this report:
< /home/hfinkel/src/llvm/test/tools/llvm-opt-report/Inputs/q.cpp
2 | void bar();
3 | void foo(int n) {
[[
> foo(int):
4 | for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
> quack(), quack2():
4 U4 | for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
]]
5 | bar();
6 | }
7 |
8 | void quack() {
9 I | foo(4);
10 | }
11 |
12 | void quack2() {
13 I | foo(4);
14 | }
15 |
Note that the tool has demangled the function names, and grouped the reports
associated with line 4. This shows that the loop on line 4 was unrolled by a
factor of 4 when inlined into the functions quack() and quack2(), but not in
the function foo(int) itself.
llvm-svn: 283402
LLVM now has the ability to record information from optimization remarks in a
machine-consumable YAML file for later analysis. This can be enabled in opt
(see r282539), and D25225 adds a Clang flag to do the same. This patch adds
llvm-opt-report, a tool to generate basic optimization "listing" files
(annotated sources with information about what optimizations were performed)
from one of these YAML inputs.
D19678 proposed to add this capability directly to Clang, but this more-general
YAML-based infrastructure was the direction we decided upon in that review
thread.
For this optimization report, I focused on making the output as succinct as
possible while providing information on inlining and loop transformations. The
goal here is that the source code should still be easily readable in the
report. My primary inspiration here is the reports generated by Cray's tools
(http://docs.cray.com/books/S-2496-4101/html-S-2496-4101/z1112823641oswald.html).
These reports are highly regarded within the HPC community. Intel's compiler,
for example, also has an optimization-report capability
(https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/55/b1/new-compiler-optimization-reports.pdf).
$ cat /tmp/v.c
void bar();
void foo() { bar(); }
void Test(int *res, int *c, int *d, int *p, int n) {
int i;
#pragma clang loop vectorize(assume_safety)
for (i = 0; i < 1600; i++) {
res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];
}
for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];
}
foo();
foo(); bar(); foo();
}
D25225 adds -fsave-optimization-record (and
-fsave-optimization-record=filename), and this would be used as follows:
$ clang -O3 -o /tmp/v.o -c /tmp/v.c -fsave-optimization-record
$ llvm-opt-report /tmp/v.yaml > /tmp/v.lst
$ cat /tmp/v.lst
< /tmp/v.c
2 | void bar();
3 | void foo() { bar(); }
4 |
5 | void Test(int *res, int *c, int *d, int *p, int n) {
6 | int i;
7 |
8 | #pragma clang loop vectorize(assume_safety)
9 V4,2 | for (i = 0; i < 1600; i++) {
10 | res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];
11 | }
12 |
13 U16 | for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
14 | res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];
15 | }
16 |
17 I | foo();
18 |
19 | foo(); bar(); foo();
I | ^
I | ^
20 | }
Each source line gets a prefix giving the line number, and a few columns for
important optimizations: inlining, loop unrolling and loop vectorization. An
'I' is printed next to a line where a function was inlined, a 'U' next to an
unrolled loop, and 'V' next to a vectorized loop. These are printed on the
relevant code line when that seems unambiguous, or on subsequent lines when
multiple potential options exist (messages, both positive and negative, from
the same optimization with different column numbers are taken to indicate
potential ambiguity). When on subsequent lines, a '^' is output in the relevant
column.
Annotated source for all relevant input files are put into the listing file
(each starting with '<' and then the file name).
You can disable having the unrolling/vectorization factors appear by using the
-s flag.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25262
llvm-svn: 283398
As per the PE COFF spec (section 8.3, Import Name Type)
Offset: 18 Size 2 bits Name: Type
Offset: 20 Size 3 bits Name: Name Type
Offset: 20 added based on 18+2
Partially commited as rL279069
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23540
llvm-svn: 283055
Summary:
Answering any meaningful questions about .sancov files requires
accessing symbol information from the corresponding binary.
This change introduces a separate intermediate data structure and
format: symbolized coverage. It contains all symbol information that
is required to answer common queries:
- merging
- coverd/uncovered files and functions
- line status.
Also removing the html report functionality from sancov: generated
HTML files are too huge, and a different approach is required.
Maintaining this half-working approach in the C++ is painful.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24947
llvm-svn: 282639
Summary:
As suggested in D24826, use different options for ThinLTO backend
parallelism from the option controlling regular LTO code gen
parallelism. They are already split in the LTO API, and this enables
controlling them with different clang options.
Reviewers: pcc, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: dexonsmith, llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24873
llvm-svn: 282290
... so that they don't show up in the index. This came up because polly
contains a .git directory and some other unmapped input in its source
dir.
llvm-svn: 282282
We used to append filenames into a vector of std::string, and then
append a reference to each string into a separate vector. This made it
easier to work with the getUniqueSourceFiles API. But it's buggy.
std::string has a small-string optimization, so you can't expect to
capture a reference to one if you're copying it into a growing vector.
Add a test that triggers this invalid reference to std::string scenario,
and kill the issue with fire by just using ArrayRef<std::string>
everywhere.
llvm-svn: 282281
We've supported restricting coverage reports to a set of files for a
long time. Add support for being able to restrict by entire directories.
I suppose this supersedes D20803.
llvm-svn: 282202
With the new LTO API in r278338, we stopped emitting the individual
index files and imports files for some modules in the distributed backend
case (thinlto-index-only plugin option).
Specifically, this is when the linker decides not to include a module in the
link, because it was in an archive library and did not have a strong
reference to it. Not creating the expected output files makes the
distributed build system implementation more difficult, in terms of
checking for the expected outputs of the thin link, and scheduling the
backend jobs. To address this, the gold-plugin will write dummy empty
.thinlto.bc and .imports files for modules not included in the link
(which LTO never sees).
Augmented a gold v1.12+ test, since that version of gold has the handling
for notifying on modules not being included in the link.
llvm-svn: 282100
Summary:
Emit an empty summary section, instead of no summary section, when
there are no global variables in the index. This ensures that LTO
will treat these files as ThinLTO inputs, instead of as regular
LTO inputs.
In addition to not being what the user likely intended when
compiling with -flto=thin, the current behavior is problematic for
distributed build systems that expect to get ThinLTO index and imports
files back for each input compiled with -flto=thin. Combining into
a single regular LTO module also reduces the backend parallelism.
And in the case where the index was suppressed due to uses in
inline assembly, combining into a single LTO module could provoke
renaming of duplicates that we were trying to prevent by suppressing
the index.
This change required a couple of fixes to handle the empty summary
section.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits, pcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24779
llvm-svn: 282037
These are distinct statistics which are useful to look at separately.
Example: say you have a template function "foo" with 5 instantiations
and only 3 of them are covered. Then this contributes (1/1) to the total
function coverage and (3/5) to the total instantiation coverage. I.e,
the old "Function Coverage" column has been renamed to "Instantiation
Coverage", and the new "Function Coverage" aggregates information from
the various instantiations of a function.
One benefit of making this switch is that the Line and Region coverage
columns will start making sense. Let's continue the example and assume
that the 5 instantiations of "foo" cover {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} out of 10
lines respectively. The new line coverage for "foo" is (10/10), not
(30/50). The old scenario got confusing because we'd report that there
were more lines in a file than what was actually possible.
llvm-svn: 281875
Summary:
In runThinLTO we start the task numbering for ThinLTO backend
tasks depending on whether there was also a regular LTO object
(CombinedModule). However, the CombinedModule is moved at
the end of runRegularLTO, so we need to save this information and
pass it into runThinLTO. Otherwise the AddOutput callback to the client
will use the same task number for both the regular LTO object
and the first ThinLTO object, which in gold-plugin caused only
one to be end up in the output filename array and therefore passed
back to gold for the final native link.
Reviewers: pcc, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, kromanova
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24643
llvm-svn: 281725
Copying in the full text of the function doesn't help at all when we
already know that it's never executed. Just say that it's unexecuted --
the relevant source text has already been printed.
llvm-svn: 281589
Previously the prevailing information was not honored, and commons
symbols could override a strong definition. This patch fixes it and
propose the following semantic for commons: the client should mark
as prevailing the commons that it expects the LTO implementation to
merge (i.e. take the maximum size and alignment).
It implies that commons are allowed to have multiple prevailing
definitions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24545
llvm-svn: 281538
The llvm-cov version information will be useful to the user when comparing the code coverage across different versions of llvm-cov. This patch provides the llvm-cov version information in the generated coverage report.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24457
llvm-svn: 281321
This patch reverses the edge from DIGlobalVariable to GlobalVariable.
This will allow us to more easily preserve debug info metadata when
manipulating global variables.
Fixes PR30362. A program for upgrading test cases is attached to that
bug.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20147
llvm-svn: 281284
I had this test sitting around for a while but always forgot to
commit. Rafael reviewed it a while ago.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19207
llvm-svn: 281109
It's still breaking this bot (though, it looks like it always had been):
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86-windows-msvc2015
This time, add quotes around llvm-{cov,config} so that lit won't expand
them.
Thanks to Reid for suggesting the patch!
llvm-svn: 281072
llvm-cov writes out an index file in '-output-dir' mode, albeit not a
very informative one. Try to fix that by using the CoverageReport API to
include some basic summary information in the index file.
llvm-svn: 281011
This test should have broken after r280896. Fix up the test case
speculatively, since I don't have a way to test it.
I wonder why I didn't get any angry bot emails about this. Maybe none of
the win32 bots test llvm-cov? That could explain it, since the test says
it 'REQUIRES: system-windows', which is restricted to win32 hosts.
Also: why is 'system-windows' not defined for non-win32 Windows bots?
llvm-svn: 281008
The text and html coverage views take different approaches to emitting
highlighted regions. That's because this problem is easier in the text
view: there's no need to worry about escaping text or adding tooltip
content to a highlighted snippet.
Unfortunately, the html view didn't get region highlighting quite right.
This patch fixes the situation, bringing parity between the two views.
llvm-svn: 280981
In r279628, we made SourceCoverageView list the binary associated with a
view and started adding labels (e.g "Source: foo" or "Function: bar") to
everything. Condense this information a bit to unclutter reports.
llvm-svn: 280896
Hal Finkel