Make dependency between certain analysis passes transitive (reapply)

LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled requir

Make dependency between certain analysis passes transitive (reapply)

LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled required
analysis passes. One need to use addRequiredTransitive to describe
that the nestled passes can't be freed until those analysis passes
no longer are used themselves.

There is still a bit of a mess considering the getLazyBPIAnalysisUsage
and getLazyBFIAnalysisUsage functions. Those functions are used from
both Transform, CodeGen and Analysis passes. I figure it is OK to
use addRequiredTransitive also when being used from Transform and
CodeGen passes. On the other hand, I figure we must do it when
used from other Analysis passes. So using addRequiredTransitive should
be more correct here. An alternative solution would be to add a
bool option in those functions to let the user tell if it is a
analysis pass or not. Since those lazy passes will be obsolete when
new PM has conquered the world I figure we can leave it like this
right now.

Intention with the patch is to fix PR49950. It at least solves the
problem for the reproducer in PR49950. However, that reproducer
need five passes in a specific order, so there are lots of various
"solutions" that could avoid the crash without actually fixing the
root cause.

This is a reapply of commit 3655f0757f2b4b, that was reverted in
33ff3c20498ef5c2057 due to problems with assertions in the polly
lit tests. That problem is supposed to be solved by also adjusting
ScopPass to explicitly preserve LazyBlockFrequencyInfo and
LazyBranchProbabilityInfo (it already preserved
OptimizationRemarkEmitter which depends on those lazy passes).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100958

show more ...

Revert "Make dependency between certain analysis passes transitive"

This reverts commit 3655f0757f2b4b61419446b326410118658826ba.

It caused assertion failures related to setLastUser in polly builds.

Make dependency between certain analysis passes transitive

LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled required
analysi

Make dependency between certain analysis passes transitive

LazyBlockFrequenceInfoPass, LazyBranchProbabilityInfoPass and
LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis all cache pointers to their nestled required
analysis passes. One need to use addRequiredTransitive to describe
that the nestled passes can't be freed until those analysis passes
no longer are used themselves.

There is still a bit of a mess considering the getLazyBPIAnalysisUsage
and getLazyBFIAnalysisUsage functions. Those functions are used from
both Transform, CodeGen and Analysis passes. I figure it is OK to
use addRequiredTransitive also when being used from Transform and
CodeGen passes. On the other hand, I figure we must do it when
used from other Analysis passes. So using addRequiredTransitive should
be more correct here. An alternative solution would be to add a
bool option in those functions to let the user tell if it is a
analysis pass or not. Since those lazy passes will be obsolete when
new PM has conquered the world I figure we can leave it like this
right now.

Intention with the patch is to fix PR49950. It at least solves the
problem for the reproducer in PR49950. However, that reproducer
need five passes in a specific order, so there are lots of various
"solutions" that could avoid the crash without actually fixing the
root cause.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100958

show more ...

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of reco

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.

I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h

Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.

Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211

show more ...

Change TargetLibraryInfo analysis passes to always require Function

Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use

Change TargetLibraryInfo analysis passes to always require Function

Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use function attributes.
See discussion on D61634 for background. This is an enabler for fixing
handling of these options for LTO, for example.

This change should not affect behavior, as the provided function is not
yet used to build a specifically per-function TLI, but rather enables
that migration.

Most of the changes were very mechanical, e.g. passing a Function to the
legacy analysis pass's getTLI interface, or in Module level cases,
adding a callback. This is similar to the way the per-function TTI
analysis works.

There was one place where we were looking for builtins but not in the
context of a specific function. See FindCXAAtExit in
lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp. I'm somewhat concerned my workaround
could provide the wrong behavior in some corner cases. Suggestions
welcome.

Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel

Subscribers: arsenm, dschuff, jvesely, nhaehnle, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, jfb, asbirlea, gchatelet, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66428

llvm-svn: 371284

show more ...

[llvm] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of

[llvm] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.

llvm-svn: 369013

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 ...

Require DominatorTree when requiring/preserving LoopInfo in the old pass manager

Summary:
Require DominatorTree when requiring/preserving LoopInfo in the old pass manager

BreakCriticalEdges tries t

Require DominatorTree when requiring/preserving LoopInfo in the old pass manager

Summary:
Require DominatorTree when requiring/preserving LoopInfo in the old pass manager

BreakCriticalEdges tries to keep LoopInfo and DominatorTree updated if they
exist. However, since commit r321653 and r321805, to update LoopInfo we
must have a DominatorTree, or we will hit an assert.

To fix this we now make a couple of passes that only required/preserved
LoopInfo also require DominatorTree.

This solves PR37334.

Reviewers: eli.friedman, efriedma

Reviewed By: efriedma

Subscribers: efriedma, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46829

llvm-svn: 332583

show more ...

[BPI] Don't assume that strcmp returning >0 is more likely than <0

The zero heuristic assumes that integers are more likely positive than negative,
but this also has the effect of assuming that strc

[BPI] Don't assume that strcmp returning >0 is more likely than <0

The zero heuristic assumes that integers are more likely positive than negative,
but this also has the effect of assuming that strcmp return values are more
likely positive than negative. Given that for nonzero strcmp return values it's
the ordering of arguments that determines the sign of the result there's no
reason to assume that's true.

Fix this by inspecting the LHS of the compare and using TargetLibraryInfo to
decide if it's strcmp-like, and if so only assume that nonzero is more likely
than zero i.e. strings are more often different than the same. This causes a
slight code generation change in the spec2006 benchmark 403.gcc, but with no
noticeable performance impact. The intent of this patch is to allow better
optimisation of dhrystone on Cortex-M cpus, but currently it won't as there are
also some changes that need to be made to if-conversion.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33934

llvm-svn: 304970

show more ...

[BPI] Add new LazyBPI analysis

Summary:
The motivation is the same as in D22141: In order to add the hotness
attribute to optimization remarks we need BFI to be available in all
passes that emit opt

[BPI] Add new LazyBPI analysis

Summary:
The motivation is the same as in D22141: In order to add the hotness
attribute to optimization remarks we need BFI to be available in all
passes that emit optimization remarks. BFI depends on BPI so unless we
make this lazy as well we would still compute BPI unconditionally.

The solution is to use the new LazyBPI pass in LazyBFI and only compute
BPI when computation of BFI is requested by the client.

I extended the laziness test using a LoopDistribute test to also cover
BPI.

Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22835

llvm-svn: 277083

show more ...