just "load". This helps avoid pointless de-duping with order-sensitive
numbers as we already have unique names from the original load. It also
makes the resulting IR quite a bit easier to read.
llvm-svn: 202140
the pointer adjustment code. This is the primary code path that creates
totally new instructions in SROA and being able to lump them based on
the pointer value's name for which they were created causes
*significantly* fewer name collisions and general noise in the debug
output. This is particularly significant because it is making it much
harder to track down instability in the output of SROA, as name
de-duplication is a totally harmless form of instability that gets in
the way of seeing real problems.
The new fancy naming scheme tries to dig out the root "pre-SROA" name
for pointer values and associate that all the way through the pointer
formation instructions. Digging out the root is important to prevent the
multiple iterative rounds of SROA from just layering too much cruft on
top of cruft here. We already track the layers of SROAs iteration in the
alloca name prefix. We don't need to duplicate it here.
Should have no functionality change, and shouldn't have any really
measurable impact on NDEBUG builds, as most of the complex logic is
debug-only.
llvm-svn: 202139
using OldPtr more heavily. Lots of this code was written before the
rewriter had an OldPtr member setup ahead of time. There are already
asserts in place that should ensure this doesn't change any
functionality.
llvm-svn: 202135
The __forceinline keyword's semantics are now recast as AlwaysInline and
the kw___forceinline token has its language mode set for KEYMS.
This preserves the semantics of the previous implementation but with
less duplication of code.
llvm-svn: 202131
the break statement, not just think it to yourself....
No idea how this worked at all, much less survived most bots, my
bootstrap, and some bot bootstraps!
The Polly one didn't survive, and this was filed as PR18959. I don't
have a reduced test case and honestly I'm not seeing the need. What we
probably need here are better asserts / debug-build behavior in
SmallPtrSet so that this madness doesn't make it so far.
llvm-svn: 202129
Add documentation for these attributes, it includes:
- Motivation for their existence.
- Examples on how to use them.
- Examples on how to misuse them.
llvm-svn: 202121
This allows the 'name' field to contain a path, like
{ 'type': 'directory',
'name': '/path/to/dir',
'contents': [ ... ] }
which not only simplifies reading and writing these files (for humans),
but makes it possible to easily modify locations via textual
replacement, which would not have worked in the old scheme.
E.g. sed s:<ROOT>:<NEW ROOT>
llvm-svn: 202109
sorting it. This helps uncover latent reliance on the original ordering
which aren't guaranteed to be preserved by std::sort (but often are),
and which are based on the use-def chain orderings which also aren't
(technically) guaranteed.
Only available in C++11 debug builds, and behind a flag to prevent noise
at the moment, but this is generally useful so figured I'd put it in the
tree rather than keeping it out-of-tree.
llvm-svn: 202106
the destination operand or source operand of a memmove.
It so happens that it was impossible for SROA to try to rewrite
self-memmove where the operands are *identical*, because either such
a think is volatile (and we don't rewrite) or it is non-volatile, and we
don't even register it as a use of the alloca.
However, making the 'IsDest' test *rely* on this subtle fact is... Very
confusing for the reader. We should use the direct and readily available
test of the Use* which gives us concrete information about which operand
is being rewritten.
No functionality changed, I hope! ;]
llvm-svn: 202103
These complement many of the existing accessors and make it
significantly easier to write code which needs to poke at the underlying
Use without hard coding the operand number at which it resides for
a particular instruction. No functionality changed of course.
llvm-svn: 202102
Take advantage of CharUnits::alignmentAtOffset instead of calculating it
by hand.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2862
llvm-svn: 202098
Previously the X86 backend would look for the sret attribute and handle
this for us. inalloca takes that all away, so we have to do the return
ourselves now.
llvm-svn: 202097
ordering.
The fundamental problem that we're hitting here is that the use-def
chain ordering is *itself* not a stable thing to be relying on in the
rewriting for SROA. Further, we use a non-stable sort over the slices to
arrange them based on the section of the alloca they're operating on.
With a debugging STL implementation (or different implementations in
stage2 and stage3) this can cause stage2 != stage3.
The specific aspect of this problem fixed in this commit deals with the
rewriting and load-speculation around PHIs and Selects. This, like many
other aspects of the use-rewriting in SROA, is really part of the
"strong SSA-formation" that is doen by SROA where it works very hard to
canonicalize loads and stores in *just* the right way to satisfy the
needs of mem2reg[1]. When we have a select (or a PHI) with 2 uses of the
same alloca, we test that loads downstream of the select are
speculatable around it twice. If only one of the operands to the select
needs to be rewritten, then if we get lucky we rewrite that one first
and the select is immediately speculatable. This can cause the order of
operand visitation, and thus the order of slices to be rewritten, to
change an alloca from promotable to non-promotable and vice versa.
The fix is to defer all of the speculation until *after* the rewrite
phase is done. Once we've rewritten everything, we can accurately test
for whether speculation will work (once, instead of twice!) and the
order ceases to matter.
This also happens to simplify the other subtlety of speculation -- we
need to *not* speculate anything unless the result of speculating will
make the alloca fully promotable by mem2reg. I had a previous attempt at
simplifying this, but it was still pretty horrible.
There is actually already a *really* nice test case for this in
basictest.ll, but on multiple STL implementations and inputs, we just
got "lucky". Fortunately, the test case is very small and we can
essentially build it in exactly the opposite way to get reasonable
coverage in both directions even from normal STL implementations.
llvm-svn: 202092
Chandler Carruth