While working on another change, I noticed that the naming in this function was mildly deceptive. While fixing that, I took the oppurtunity to modernize some of the code. NFC intended.
llvm-svn: 238252
Summary:
This is a pass for speculative execution of instructions for simple if-then (triangle) control flow. It's aimed at GPUs, but could perhaps be used in other contexts. Enabling this pass gives us a 1.0% geomean improvement on Google benchmark suites, with one benchmark improving 33%.
Credit goes to Jingyue Wu for writing an earlier version of this pass.
Patched by Bjarke Roune.
Test Plan:
This patch adds a set of tests in test/Transforms/SpeculativeExecution/spec.ll
The pass is controlled by a flag which defaults to having the pass not run.
Reviewers: eliben, dberlin, meheff, jingyue, hfinkel
Reviewed By: jingyue, hfinkel
Subscribers: majnemer, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9360
llvm-svn: 237459
Summary:
Same as the last patch, but for BasicBlock
(Requires same code movement)
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8801
llvm-svn: 233992
Summary:
This does not conceptually belongs here. Instead provide a shortcut
getModule() that provides access to the DataLayout.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo
Reviewed By: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8027
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231147
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
No functional change. To be used in future commits that need to look
for such instructions.
Reviewed By: rafael
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4504
llvm-svn: 215413
Although unlinked `BasicBlock`s can be created, there's currently no way
to insert them into `Function`s after the fact. In particular,
`moveAfter()` and `moveBefore()` require that the basic block is already
linked.
Extract the logic for initially linking a `BasicBlock` out of the
constructor and into a member function that can be used for lazy
insertion.
- Asserts that the basic block is currently unlinked.
- Matches the logic of the constructor.
- Changed the constructor to use it since the logic matches.
This is needed in a follow-up commit for PR5680.
llvm-svn: 214563
Summary: This patch introduces two new iterator ranges and updates existing code to use it. No functional change intended.
Test Plan: All tests (make check-all) still pass.
Reviewers: dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4481
llvm-svn: 213474
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
source file had already been moved. Also move the unittest into the IR
unittest library.
This may seem an odd thing to put in the IR library but we only really
use this with instructions and it needs the LLVM context to work, so it
is intrinsically tied to the IR library.
llvm-svn: 202842
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
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Aside from moving the actual files, this patch only updates the build
system and the source file comments under lib/... that are relevant.
I'll be updating other docs and other files in smaller subsequnet
commits.
While I've tried to test this, but it is entirely possible that there
will still be some build system fallout.
Also, note that I've not changed the library name itself: libLLVMCore.a
is still the library name. I'd be interested in others' opinions about
whether we should rename this as well (I think we should, just not sure
what it might break)
llvm-svn: 171359
Philip Reames