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
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
extremely subtle miscompilations (such as a load getting replaced with
the value stored *below* the load within a basic block) related to
promoting an alloca to an SSA value, there is the dim possibility that
you hit this. Please let me know if you won this unfortunate lottery.
The first half of mem2reg's core logic (as it is used both in the
standalone mem2reg pass and in SROA) builds up a mapping from
'Instruction *' to the index of that instruction within its basic block.
This allows quickly establishing which store dominate a particular load
even for large basic blocks. We cache this information throughout the
run of mem2reg over a function in order to amortize the cost of
computing it.
This is not in and of itself a strange pattern in LLVM. However, it
introduces a very important constraint: absolutely no instruction can be
deleted from the program without updating the mapping. Otherwise a newly
allocated instruction might get the same pointer address, and then end
up with a wrong index. Yes, LLVM routinely suffers from a *single
threaded* variant of the ABA problem. Most places in LLVM don't find
avoiding this an imposition because they don't both delete and create
new instructions iteratively, but mem2reg *loves* to do this... All the
time. Fortunately, the mem2reg code was really careful about updating
this cache to handle this eventuallity... except when it comes to the
debug declare intrinsic. Oops. The fix is to invalidate that pointer in
the cache when we delete it, the same as we do when deleting alloca
instructions and other instructions.
I've also caused the same bug in new code while working on a fix to
PR16867, so this seems to be a really unfortunate pattern. Hopefully in
subsequent patches the deletion of dead instructions can be consolidated
sufficiently to make it less likely that we'll see future occurences of
this bug.
Sorry for not having a test case, but I have literally no idea how to
reliably trigger this kind of thing. It may be single-threaded, but it
remains an ABA problem. It would require a really amazing number of
stars to align.
llvm-svn: 188367
However, opt -O2 doesn't run mem2reg directly so nobody noticed until r188146
when SROA started sending more things directly down the PromoteMemToReg path.
In order to revert r187191, I also revert dependent revisions r187296, r187322
and r188146. Fixes PR16867. Does not add the testcases from that PR, but both
of them should get added for both mem2reg and sroa when this revert gets
unreverted.
llvm-svn: 188327
analysis of the alloca. We don't need to visit all the users twice for
this. We build up a kill list during the analysis and then just process
it afterward. This recovers the tiny bit of performance lost by moving
to the visitor based analysis system as it removes one entire use-list
walk from mem2reg. In some cases, this is now faster than mem2reg was
previously.
llvm-svn: 187296
robust. It now uses an InstVisitor and worklist to actually walk the
uses of the Alloca transitively and detect the pattern which we can
directly promote: loads & stores of the whole alloca and instructions we
can completely ignore.
Also, with this new implementation teach both the predicate for testing
whether we can promote and the promotion engine itself to use the same
code so we no longer have strange divergence between the two code paths.
I've added some silly test cases to demonstrate that we can handle
slightly more degenerate code patterns now. See the below for why this
is even interesting.
Performance impact: roughly 1% regression in the performance of SROA or
ScalarRepl on a large C++-ish test case where most of the allocas are
basically ready for promotion. The reason is because of silly redundant
work that I've left FIXMEs for and which I'll address in the next
commit. I wanted to separate this commit as it changes the behavior.
Once the redundant work in removing the dead uses of the alloca is
fixed, this code appears to be faster than the old version. =]
So why is this useful? Because the previous requirement for promotion
required a *specific* visit pattern of the uses of the alloca to verify:
we *had* to look for no more than 1 intervening use. The end goal is to
have SROA automatically detect when an alloca is already promotable and
directly hand it to the mem2reg machinery rather than trying to
partition and rewrite it. This is a 25% or more performance improvement
for SROA, and a significant chunk of the delta between it and
ScalarRepl. To get there, we need to make mem2reg actually capable of
promoting allocas which *look* promotable to SROA without have SROA do
tons of work to massage the code into just the right form.
This is actually the tip of the iceberg. There are tremendous potential
savings we can realize here by de-duplicating work between mem2reg and
SROA.
llvm-svn: 187191
helper function. This leaves both trivial cases handled entirely in
helper functions and merely manages the list of allocas to process in
the run method.
The next step will be to handle all of the trivial promotion work prior
to even creating the core class and the subsequent simplifications that
enables.
llvm-svn: 186784
a single block into the helper routine. This takes advantage of the fact
that we can directly replace uses prior to any store with undef to
simplify matters and unconditionally promote allocas only used within
one block.
I've removed the special handling for the case of no stores existing.
This has no semantic effect but might slow things down. I'll fix that in
a later patch when I refactor this entire thing to be easier to manage
the different cases.
llvm-svn: 186783
handles the general cases.
The hope is to refactor this so that we don't end up building the entire
class for the trivial cases. I also want to lift a lot of the early
pre-processing in the initial segment of run() into a separate routine,
and really none of it needs to happen inside the primary promotion
class.
These routines in particular used none of the actual state in the
promotion class, so they don't really make sense as members.
llvm-svn: 186781
This struct is nicely independent of everything else, and we already
needed a foward declaration here. It's simpler to just define it
immediately.
llvm-svn: 186780
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
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
deterministic, replace it with a DenseMap<std::pair<unsigned, unsigned>,
PHINode*> (we already have a map from BasicBlock to unsigned).
<rdar://problem/12541389>
llvm-svn: 166435
include/llvm/Analysis/DebugInfo.h to include/llvm/DebugInfo.h.
The reasoning is because the DebugInfo module is simply an interface to the
debug info MDNodes and has nothing to do with analysis.
llvm-svn: 159312
checks enabled:
1) Use '<' to compare integers in a comparison function rather than '<='.
2) Use the uniqued set DefBlocks rather than Info.DefiningBlocks to initialize
the priority queue.
The speedup of scalarrepl on test-suite + SPEC2000 + SPEC2006 is a bit less, at
just under 16% rather than 17%.
llvm-svn: 123662
eliminating a potentially quadratic data structure, this also gives a 17%
speedup when running -scalarrepl on test-suite + SPEC2000 + SPEC2006. My initial
experiment gave a greater speedup around 25%, but I moved the dominator tree
level computation from dominator tree construction to PromoteMemToReg.
Since this approach to computing IDFs has a much lower overhead than the old
code using precomputed DFs, it is worth looking at using this new code for the
second scalarrepl pass as well.
llvm-svn: 123609
isPodLike type trait. This is a generally useful type trait for
more than just DenseMap, and we really care about whether something
acts like a pod, not whether it really is a pod.
llvm-svn: 91421
instead of a bool argument, and to do the dominator check itself.
This makes it eaiser to use when DominatorTree information is
available.
llvm-svn: 80920
a Twine, e.g., for names).
- I am a little ambivalent about this; we don't want the string conversion of
utostr, but using overload '+' mixed with string and integer arguments is
sketchy. On the other hand, this particular usage is something of an idiom.
llvm-svn: 77579
