This compiles with no changes to clang/lld/lldb with MSVC and includes
overloads to various functions which are used by those projects and llvm
which have OwningPtr's as parameters. This should allow out of tree
projects some time to move. There are also no changes to libs/Target,
which should help out of tree targets have time to move, if necessary.
llvm-svn: 203083
to ensure we don't mess up any of the overrides. Necessary for cleaning
up the Value use iterators and enabling range-based traversing of use
lists.
llvm-svn: 202958
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
business.
This header includes Function and BasicBlock and directly uses the
interfaces of both classes. It has to do with the IR, it even has that
in the name. =] Put it in the library it belongs to.
This is one step toward making LLVM's Support library survive a C++
modules bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 202814
operand_values. The first provides a range view over operand Use
objects, and the second provides a range view over the Value*s being
used by those operands.
The naming is "STL-style" rather than "LLVM-style" because we have
historically named iterator methods STL-style, and range methods seem to
have far more in common with their iterator counterparts than with
"normal" APIs. Feel free to bikeshed on this one if you want, I'm happy
to change these around if people feel strongly.
I've switched code in SROA and LCG to exercise these mostly to ensure
they work correctly -- we don't really have an easy way to unittest this
and they're trivial.
llvm-svn: 202687
Eventually DataLayoutPass should go away, but for now that is the only easy
way to get a DataLayout in some APIs. This patch only changes the ones that
have easy access to a Module.
One interesting issue with sometimes using DataLayoutPass and sometimes
fetching it from the Module is that we have to make sure they are equivalent.
We can get most of the way there by always constructing the pass with a Module.
In fact, the pass could be changed to point to an external DataLayout instead
of owning one to make this stricter.
Unfortunately, the C api passes a DataLayout, so it has to be up to the caller
to make sure the pass and the module are in sync.
llvm-svn: 202204
After this I will set the default back to F_None. The advantage is that
before this patch forgetting to set F_Binary would corrupt a file on windows.
Forgetting to set F_Text produces one that cannot be read in notepad, which
is a better failure mode :-)
llvm-svn: 202052
in the dependence test, we used to discard some information that the
delinearization provides: the size of the innermost dimension of an array,
i.e., the size of scalars stored in the array, and the remainder of the
delinearization that provides the offset from which the array reads start,
i.e., the base address of the array.
To avoid losing this data in the rest of the data dependence analysis, the fix
is to multiply the access function in the last delinearized dimension by its
size, effectively making the size of the last dimension to always be in bytes,
and then add the remainder of delinearization to the last subscript,
effectively making the last subscript start at the base address of the array.
llvm-svn: 201867
Because the delinearization is not a global analysis pass, it will compute the
delinearization independently of knowledge about the way the delinearization
happened for other data accesses to the same array: the dependence analysis will
only trigger the delinearization on a tuple of access functions, and thus
delinearization may compute different subscripts sizes for a same array. When
that happens the safest is to discard the delinearized information.
llvm-svn: 201866
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
During LSR of one loop we can run into a situation where we have to expand the
start of a recurrence of a loop induction variable in this loop. This start
value is a value derived of the induction variable of a preceeding loop. SCEV
has cannonicalized this value to a different recurrence than the recurrence of
the preceeding loop's induction variable (the type and/or step direction) has
changed). When we come to instantiate this SCEV we created a second induction
variable in this preceeding loop. This patch tries to base such derived
induction variables of the preceeding loop's induction variable.
This helps twolf on arm and seems to help scimark2 on x86.
Reapply with a fix for the case of a value derived from a pointer.
radar://15970709
llvm-svn: 201496
During LSR of one loop we can run into a situation where we have to expand the
start of a recurrence of a loop induction variable in this loop. This start
value is a value derived of the induction variable of a preceeding loop. SCEV
has cannonicalized this value to a different recurrence than the recurrence of
the preceeding loop's induction variable (the type and/or step direction) has
changed). When we come to instantiate this SCEV we created a second induction
variable in this preceeding loop. This patch tries to base such derived
induction variables of the preceeding loop's induction variable.
This helps twolf on arm and seems to help scimark2 on x86.
radar://15970709
llvm-svn: 201465
'OK_NonUniformConstValue' to identify operands which are constants but
not constant splats.
The cost model now allows returning 'OK_NonUniformConstValue'
for non splat operands that are instances of ConstantVector or
ConstantDataVector.
With this change, targets are now able to compute different costs
for instructions with non-uniform constant operands.
For example, On X86 the cost of a vector shift may vary depending on whether
the second operand is a uniform or non-uniform constant.
This patch applies the following changes:
- The cost model computation now takes into account non-uniform constants;
- The cost of vector shift instructions has been improved in
X86TargetTransformInfo analysis pass;
- BBVectorize, SLPVectorizer and LoopVectorize now know how to distinguish
between non-uniform and uniform constant operands.
Added a new test to verify that the output of opt
'-cost-model -analyze' is valid in the following configurations: SSE2,
SSE4.1, AVX, AVX2.
llvm-svn: 201272
build but spectacularly changed behavior of the C++98 build. =]
This shows my one problem with not having unittests -- basic API
expectations aren't well exercised by the integration tests because they
*happen* to not come up, even though they might later. I'll probably add
a basic unittest to complement the integration testing later, but
I wanted to revive the bots.
llvm-svn: 200905
Ahmed Charles