Cleanup includes: Transform/Scalar

Estimated impact on preprocessor output line:
before: 1062981579
after: 1062494547

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cl

Cleanup includes: Transform/Scalar

Estimated impact on preprocessor output line:
before: 1062981579
after: 1062494547

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cleanup
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120817

show more ...

[LoopRotate] Add PrepareForLTO stage, avoid rotating with inline cands.

D84108 exposed a bad interaction between inlining and loop-rotation
during regular LTO, which is causing notable regressions i

[LoopRotate] Add PrepareForLTO stage, avoid rotating with inline cands.

D84108 exposed a bad interaction between inlining and loop-rotation
during regular LTO, which is causing notable regressions in at least
CINT2006/473.astar.

The problem boils down to: we now rotate a loop just before the vectorizer
which requires duplicating a function call in the preheader when compiling
the individual files ('prepare for LTO'). But this then prevents further
inlining of the function during LTO.

This patch tries to resolve this issue by making LoopRotate more
conservative with respect to rotating loops that have inline-able calls
during the 'prepare for LTO' stage.

I think this change intuitively improves the current situation in
general. Loop-rotate tries hard to avoid creating headers that are 'too
big'. At the moment, it assumes all inlining already happened and the
cost of duplicating a call is equal to just doing the call. But with LTO,
inlining also happens during full LTO and it is possible that a previously
duplicated call is actually a huge function which gets inlined
during LTO.

From the perspective of LV, not much should change overall. Most loops
calling user-provided functions won't get vectorized to start with
(unless we can infer that the function does not touch memory, has no
other side effects). If we do not inline the 'inline-able' call during
the LTO stage, we merely delayed loop-rotation & vectorization. If we
inline during LTO, chances should be very high that the inlined code is
itself vectorizable or the user call was not vectorizable to start with.

There could of course be scenarios where we inline a sufficiently large
function with code not profitable to vectorize, which would have be
vectorized earlier (by scalarzing the call). But even in that case,
there probably is no big performance impact, because it should be mostly
down to the cost-model to reject vectorization in that case. And then
the version with scalarized calls should also not be beneficial. In a way,
LV should have strictly more information after inlining and make more
accurate decisions (barring cost-model issues).

There is of course plenty of room for things to go wrong unexpectedly,
so we need to keep a close look at actual performance and address any
follow-up issues.

I took a look at the impact on statistics for
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006. There are a few benchmarks with fewer
loops rotated, but no change to the number of loops vectorized.

Reviewed By: sanwou01

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94232

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

[PM] Separate the LoopAnalysisManager from the LoopPassManager and move
the latter to the Transforms library.

While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the

[PM] Separate the LoopAnalysisManager from the LoopPassManager and move
the latter to the Transforms library.

While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.

Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.

We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.

This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.

I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452

llvm-svn: 291662

show more ...

[PM] Rewrite the loop pass manager to use a worklist and augmented run
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.

This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
sup

[PM] Rewrite the loop pass manager to use a worklist and augmented run
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.

This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.

An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.

This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.

While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.

I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292

llvm-svn: 291651

show more ...

[PM] Introduce a reasonable port of the main per-module pass pipeline
from the old pass manager in the new one.

I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently availabl

[PM] Introduce a reasonable port of the main per-module pass pipeline
from the old pass manager in the new one.

I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.

I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.

Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.

One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.

I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.

I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042

llvm-svn: 290325

show more ...

Consistently use LoopAnalysisManager

One exception here is LoopInfo which must forward-declare it (because
the typedef is in LoopPassManager.h which depends on LoopInfo).

Also, some includes for Lo

Consistently use LoopAnalysisManager

One exception here is LoopInfo which must forward-declare it (because
the typedef is in LoopPassManager.h which depends on LoopInfo).

Also, some includes for LoopPassManager.h were needed since that file
provides the typedef.

Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.

Thanks to David for the suggestion.

llvm-svn: 278079

show more ...

LoopRotate: restructure code to simplify functions

We move the loop rotate functions in a separate class to avoid passing multiple
parameters to each function. This cleanup will help with further d

LoopRotate: restructure code to simplify functions

We move the loop rotate functions in a separate class to avoid passing multiple
parameters to each function. This cleanup will help with further development of
loop rotation. NFC.

Patch written by Aditya Kumar and Sebastian Pop.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21311

llvm-svn: 272672

show more ...

PM: Port LoopRotation to the new loop pass manager

llvm-svn: 268452