2013-01-23 09:30:10 +01:00
|
|
|
//===- llvm/unittests/IR/DominatorTreeTest.cpp - Constants unit tests -----===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
2019-01-19 09:50:56 +01:00
|
|
|
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
|
|
|
|
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
|
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
|
2013-01-23 09:30:10 +01:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-15 00:24:15 +02:00
|
|
|
#include <random>
|
2013-12-02 15:08:27 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/PostDominators.h"
|
2018-05-12 03:44:32 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/IteratedDominanceFrontier.h"
|
2014-01-07 13:34:26 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/AsmParser/Parser.h"
|
2015-04-14 21:49:26 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
|
2017-05-27 06:05:50 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
|
2013-01-02 12:36:10 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h"
|
2017-05-27 06:05:50 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Module.h"
|
2012-03-30 18:46:21 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/SourceMgr.h"
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "CFGBuilder.h"
|
2012-03-30 18:46:21 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-14 20:26:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
/// Build the dominator tree for the function and run the Test.
|
2017-07-14 20:26:09 +02:00
|
|
|
static void runWithDomTree(
|
|
|
|
Module &M, StringRef FuncName,
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
function_ref<void(Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT)>
|
|
|
|
Test) {
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
auto *F = M.getFunction(FuncName);
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_NE(F, nullptr) << "Could not find " << FuncName;
|
|
|
|
// Compute the dominator tree for the function.
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*F);
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*F);
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
Test(*F, &DT, &PDT);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static std::unique_ptr<Module> makeLLVMModule(LLVMContext &Context,
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleStr) {
|
|
|
|
SMDiagnostic Err;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = parseAssemblyString(ModuleStr, Err, Context);
|
|
|
|
assert(M && "Bad assembly?");
|
|
|
|
return M;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-20 23:16:25 +01:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, PHIs) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString = R"(
|
|
|
|
define void @f() {
|
|
|
|
bb1:
|
|
|
|
br label %bb1
|
|
|
|
bb2:
|
|
|
|
%a = phi i32 [0, %bb1], [1, %bb2]
|
|
|
|
%b = phi i32 [2, %bb1], [%a, %bb2]
|
|
|
|
br label %bb2
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
)";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(*M, "f",
|
|
|
|
[&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
|
|
|
auto FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
++FI;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB2 = &*FI;
|
|
|
|
auto BI = BB2->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *PhiA = &*BI++;
|
|
|
|
Instruction *PhiB = &*BI;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Phis are thought to execute "instantly, together".
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(PhiA, PhiB));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(PhiB, PhiA));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, Unreachable) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
2017-05-27 06:05:50 +02:00
|
|
|
"declare i32 @g()\n"
|
|
|
|
"define void @f(i32 %x) personality i32 ()* @g {\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb0:\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y1 = add i32 %x, 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y2 = add i32 %x, 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y3 = invoke i32 @g() to label %bb1 unwind label %bb2\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb1:\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y4 = add i32 %x, 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %bb4\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb2:\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y5 = landingpad i32\n"
|
|
|
|
" cleanup\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %bb4\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb3:\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y6 = add i32 %x, 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y7 = add i32 %x, 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb4:\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y8 = phi i32 [0, %bb2], [%y4, %bb1]\n"
|
|
|
|
" %y9 = phi i32 [0, %bb2], [%y4, %bb1]\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
2017-05-27 06:05:50 +02:00
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB0 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock::iterator BBI = BB0->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y1 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y2 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y3 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB1 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BBI = BB1->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y4 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB2 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BBI = BB2->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y5 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB3 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BBI = BB3->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y6 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y7 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB4 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BBI = BB4->begin();
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y8 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Y9 = &*BBI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Reachability
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->isReachableFromEntry(BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->isReachableFromEntry(BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->isReachableFromEntry(BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->isReachableFromEntry(BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->isReachableFromEntry(BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// BB dominance
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB0, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB0, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB0, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB0, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB0, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB1, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB1, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB1, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB1, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB1, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB2, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB2, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB2, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB2, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB2, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB3, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB3, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB3, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(BB3, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(BB3, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// BB proper dominance
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB0, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->properlyDominates(BB0, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->properlyDominates(BB0, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->properlyDominates(BB0, BB3));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB1, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB1, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB1, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->properlyDominates(BB1, BB3));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB2, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB2, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB2, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->properlyDominates(BB2, BB3));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB3, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB3, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB3, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->properlyDominates(BB3, BB3));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Instruction dominance in the same reachable BB
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y1, Y1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, Y2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y2, Y1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y2, Y2));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Instruction dominance in the same unreachable BB
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y6, Y6));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y6, Y7));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y7, Y6));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y7, Y7));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Invoke
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y3, Y4));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y3, Y5));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Phi
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y2, Y9));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y3, Y9));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y8, Y9));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Anything dominates unreachable
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, Y6));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y3, Y6));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Unreachable doesn't dominate reachable
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y6, Y1));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Instruction, BB dominance
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y1, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y1, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y3, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y3, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y3, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y3, BB3));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Y3, BB4));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Y6, BB3));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Post dominance.
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->dominates(BB0, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(BB1, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(BB2, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(BB3, BB0));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->dominates(BB4, BB1));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Dominance descendants.
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 8> DominatedBBs, PostDominatedBBs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT->getDescendants(BB0, DominatedBBs);
|
|
|
|
PDT->getDescendants(BB0, PostDominatedBBs);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DominatedBBs.size(), 4UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PostDominatedBBs.size(), 1UL);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// BB3 is unreachable. It should have no dominators nor postdominators.
|
|
|
|
DominatedBBs.clear();
|
|
|
|
PostDominatedBBs.clear();
|
|
|
|
DT->getDescendants(BB3, DominatedBBs);
|
|
|
|
DT->getDescendants(BB3, PostDominatedBBs);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DominatedBBs.size(), 0UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PostDominatedBBs.size(), 0UL);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Check DFS Numbers before
|
2017-06-30 03:28:21 +02:00
|
|
|
DT->updateDFSNumbers();
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getDFSNumIn(), 0UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getDFSNumOut(), 7UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getDFSNumIn(), 1UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getDFSNumOut(), 2UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getDFSNumIn(), 5UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getDFSNumOut(), 6UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getDFSNumIn(), 3UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getDFSNumOut(), 4UL);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-01 02:23:01 +02:00
|
|
|
// Check levels before
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getLevel(), 0U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
// Reattach block 3 to block 1 and recalculate
|
|
|
|
BB1->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
|
|
|
|
BranchInst::Create(BB4, BB3, ConstantInt::getTrue(F.getContext()), BB1);
|
|
|
|
DT->recalculate(F);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Check DFS Numbers after
|
2017-06-30 03:28:21 +02:00
|
|
|
DT->updateDFSNumbers();
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getDFSNumIn(), 0UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getDFSNumOut(), 9UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getDFSNumIn(), 1UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getDFSNumOut(), 4UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getDFSNumIn(), 7UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getDFSNumOut(), 8UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB3)->getDFSNumIn(), 2UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB3)->getDFSNumOut(), 3UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getDFSNumIn(), 5UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getDFSNumOut(), 6UL);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-01 02:23:01 +02:00
|
|
|
// Check levels after
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB0)->getLevel(), 0U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB1)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB2)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB3)->getLevel(), 2U);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(BB4)->getLevel(), 1U);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
// Change root node
|
2018-02-28 12:00:08 +01:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *NewEntry =
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock::Create(F.getContext(), "new_entry", &F, BB0);
|
|
|
|
BranchInst::Create(BB0, NewEntry);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(F.begin()->getName(), NewEntry->getName());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(&F.getEntryBlock() == NewEntry);
|
|
|
|
DT->setNewRoot(NewEntry);
|
2018-02-28 12:00:08 +01:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
2017-05-27 06:05:52 +02:00
|
|
|
});
|
2012-03-30 18:46:21 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-06-05 18:27:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, NonUniqueEdges) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
|
|
|
"define i32 @f(i32 %i, i32 *%p) {\n"
|
|
|
|
"bb0:\n"
|
|
|
|
" store i32 %i, i32 *%p\n"
|
|
|
|
" switch i32 %i, label %bb2 [\n"
|
|
|
|
" i32 0, label %bb1\n"
|
|
|
|
" i32 1, label %bb1\n"
|
|
|
|
" ]\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb1:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret i32 1\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb2:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret i32 4\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2017-06-05 18:27:09 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB0 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB1 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB2 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-15 12:42:50 +02:00
|
|
|
const Instruction *TI = BB0->getTerminator();
|
2017-06-05 18:27:09 +02:00
|
|
|
assert(TI->getNumSuccessors() == 3 && "Switch has three successors");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge Edge_BB0_BB2(BB0, TI->getSuccessor(0));
|
|
|
|
assert(Edge_BB0_BB2.getEnd() == BB2 &&
|
|
|
|
"Default label is the 1st successor");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge Edge_BB0_BB1_a(BB0, TI->getSuccessor(1));
|
|
|
|
assert(Edge_BB0_BB1_a.getEnd() == BB1 && "BB1 is the 2nd successor");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge Edge_BB0_BB1_b(BB0, TI->getSuccessor(2));
|
|
|
|
assert(Edge_BB0_BB1_b.getEnd() == BB1 && "BB1 is the 3rd successor");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB2, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB2, BB1));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB1_a, BB1));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB1_b, BB1));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB1_a, BB2));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(Edge_BB0_BB1_b, BB2));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// Verify that the PDT is correctly updated in case an edge removal results
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// in a new unreachable CFG node. Also make sure that the updated PDT is the
|
|
|
|
// same as a freshly recalculated one.
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// For the following input code and initial PDT:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// CFG PDT
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
|
|
|
// | |
|
|
|
|
// _B D
|
|
|
|
// / | \ |
|
|
|
|
// ^ v \ B
|
|
|
|
// \ / D / \
|
|
|
|
// C \ C A
|
|
|
|
// v
|
|
|
|
// Exit
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// we verify that CFG' and PDT-updated is obtained after removal of edge C -> B.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// CFG' PDT-updated
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// | / | \
|
|
|
|
// B C B D
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// | \ |
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// v \ A
|
|
|
|
// / D
|
|
|
|
// C \
|
|
|
|
// | \
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// unreachable Exit
|
|
|
|
//
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// Both the blocks that end with ret and with unreachable become trivial
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
// PostDominatorTree roots, as they have no successors.
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, DeletingEdgesIntroducesUnreachables) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
|
|
|
"define void @f() {\n"
|
|
|
|
"A:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %B\n"
|
|
|
|
"B:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %D, label %C\n"
|
|
|
|
"C:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %B\n"
|
|
|
|
"D:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *B = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *C = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *D = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
ASSERT_TRUE(PDT->dominates(PDT->getNode(D), PDT->getNode(B)));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
|
|
|
|
new UnreachableInst(C->getContext(), C);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT->deleteEdge(C, B);
|
|
|
|
PDT->deleteEdge(C, B);
|
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(PDT->getNode(D), PDT->getNode(B)));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_NE(PDT->getNode(C), nullptr);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree NDT(F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->compare(NDT), 0);
|
|
|
|
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree NPDT(F);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PDT->compare(NPDT), 0);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Verify that the PDT is correctly updated in case an edge removal results
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// in an infinite loop. Also make sure that the updated PDT is the
|
|
|
|
// same as a freshly recalculated one.
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Test case:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// CFG PDT
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
|
|
|
// | |
|
|
|
|
// _B D
|
|
|
|
// / | \ |
|
|
|
|
// ^ v \ B
|
|
|
|
// \ / D / \
|
|
|
|
// C \ C A
|
|
|
|
// / \ v
|
|
|
|
// ^ v Exit
|
|
|
|
// \_/
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// After deleting the edge C->B, C is part of an infinite reverse-unreachable
|
|
|
|
// loop:
|
|
|
|
//
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// CFG' PDT'
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// | / | \
|
|
|
|
// B C B D
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// | \ |
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// v \ A
|
|
|
|
// / D
|
|
|
|
// C \
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// / \ v
|
|
|
|
// ^ v Exit
|
|
|
|
// \_/
|
|
|
|
//
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// As C now becomes reverse-unreachable, it forms a new non-trivial root and
|
|
|
|
// gets connected to the virtual exit.
|
|
|
|
// D does not postdominate B anymore, because there are two forward paths from
|
|
|
|
// B to the virtual exit:
|
|
|
|
// - B -> C -> VirtualExit
|
|
|
|
// - B -> D -> VirtualExit.
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, DeletingEdgesIntroducesInfiniteLoop) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
|
|
|
"define void @f() {\n"
|
|
|
|
"A:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %B\n"
|
|
|
|
"B:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %D, label %C\n"
|
|
|
|
"C:\n"
|
|
|
|
" switch i32 undef, label %C [\n"
|
|
|
|
" i32 0, label %B\n"
|
|
|
|
" ]\n"
|
|
|
|
"D:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *B = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *C = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *D = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
ASSERT_TRUE(PDT->dominates(PDT->getNode(D), PDT->getNode(B)));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto SwitchC = cast<SwitchInst>(C->getTerminator());
|
|
|
|
SwitchC->removeCase(SwitchC->case_begin());
|
|
|
|
DT->deleteEdge(C, B);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
PDT->deleteEdge(C, B);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(PDT->getNode(D), PDT->getNode(B)));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_NE(PDT->getNode(C), nullptr);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
DominatorTree NDT(F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->compare(NDT), 0);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree NPDT(F);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PDT->compare(NPDT), 0);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Verify that the PDT is correctly updated in case an edge removal results
|
|
|
|
// in an infinite loop.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Test case:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// CFG PDT
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
|
|
|
// | / | \
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// B-- C2 B D
|
|
|
|
// | \ / |
|
|
|
|
// v \ C A
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// / D
|
|
|
|
// C--C2 \
|
|
|
|
// / \ \ v
|
|
|
|
// ^ v --Exit
|
|
|
|
// \_/
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// After deleting the edge C->E, C is part of an infinite reverse-unreachable
|
|
|
|
// loop:
|
|
|
|
//
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// CFG' PDT'
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A Exit
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// | / | \
|
|
|
|
// B C B D
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// | \ |
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// v \ A
|
|
|
|
// / D
|
|
|
|
// C \
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
// / \ v
|
|
|
|
// ^ v Exit
|
|
|
|
// \_/
|
|
|
|
//
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
// In PDT, D does not post-dominate B. After the edge C -> C2 is removed,
|
|
|
|
// C becomes a new nontrivial PDT root.
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, DeletingEdgesIntroducesInfiniteLoop2) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
|
|
|
"define void @f() {\n"
|
|
|
|
"A:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %B\n"
|
|
|
|
"B:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %D, label %C\n"
|
|
|
|
"C:\n"
|
|
|
|
" switch i32 undef, label %C [\n"
|
|
|
|
" i32 0, label %C2\n"
|
|
|
|
" ]\n"
|
|
|
|
"C2:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"D:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *B = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *C = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *C2 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *D = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
auto SwitchC = cast<SwitchInst>(C->getTerminator());
|
|
|
|
SwitchC->removeCase(SwitchC->case_begin());
|
|
|
|
DT->deleteEdge(C, C2);
|
|
|
|
PDT->deleteEdge(C, C2);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
C2->removeFromParent();
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(C2), nullptr);
|
|
|
|
PDT->eraseNode(C2);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
delete C2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT->verify());
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(PDT->dominates(PDT->getNode(D), PDT->getNode(B)));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_NE(PDT->getNode(C), nullptr);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
DominatorTree NDT(F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->compare(NDT), 0);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree NPDT(F);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PDT->compare(NPDT), 0);
|
2017-08-01 16:40:55 +02:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-05-12 03:44:32 +02:00
|
|
|
// Verify that the IDF returns blocks in a deterministic way.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Test case:
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// CFG
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// (A)
|
|
|
|
// / \
|
|
|
|
// / \
|
|
|
|
// (B) (C)
|
|
|
|
// |\ /|
|
|
|
|
// | X |
|
|
|
|
// |/ \|
|
|
|
|
// (D) (E)
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// IDF for block B is {D, E}, and the order of blocks in this list is defined by
|
|
|
|
// their 1) level in dom-tree and 2) DFSIn number if the level is the same.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, IDFDeterminismTest) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString =
|
|
|
|
"define void @f() {\n"
|
|
|
|
"A:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %B, label %C\n"
|
|
|
|
"B:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %D, label %E\n"
|
|
|
|
"C:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 undef, label %D, label %E\n"
|
|
|
|
"D:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"E:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret void\n"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
*M, "f", [&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
2018-05-12 03:44:32 +02:00
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *A = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *B = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *C = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *D = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *E = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
(void)C;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT->updateDFSNumbers();
|
|
|
|
ForwardIDFCalculator IDF(*DT);
|
|
|
|
SmallPtrSet<BasicBlock *, 1> DefBlocks;
|
|
|
|
DefBlocks.insert(B);
|
|
|
|
IDF.setDefiningBlocks(DefBlocks);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 32> IDFBlocks;
|
|
|
|
SmallPtrSet<BasicBlock *, 32> LiveInBlocks;
|
|
|
|
IDF.resetLiveInBlocks();
|
|
|
|
IDF.calculate(IDFBlocks);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(IDFBlocks.size(), 2UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(DT->getNode(A)->getDFSNumIn(), 0UL);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(IDFBlocks[0], D);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(IDFBlocks[1], E);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->getNode(IDFBlocks[0])->getDFSNumIn() <
|
|
|
|
DT->getNode(IDFBlocks[1])->getDFSNumIn());
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
const auto Insert = CFGBuilder::ActionKind::Insert;
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
const auto Delete = CFGBuilder::ActionKind::Delete;
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool CompUpdates(const CFGBuilder::Update &A, const CFGBuilder::Update &B) {
|
|
|
|
return std::tie(A.Action, A.Edge.From, A.Edge.To) <
|
|
|
|
std::tie(B.Action, B.Edge.From, B.Edge.To);
|
2017-07-15 00:24:15 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertReachable) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"3", "8"}, {"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Insert, {"12", "10"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"7", "6"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"7", "5"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-15 03:27:16 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertReachable2) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"7", "5"}, {"2", "8"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}, {"12", "10"},
|
|
|
|
{"10", "9"}, {"9", "10"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Insert, {"10", "7"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-15 03:27:16 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate();
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(LastUpdate);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertUnreachable) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"},
|
|
|
|
{"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"}, {"3", "8"},
|
|
|
|
{"9", "10"}, {"11", "12"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Insert, {"4", "5"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"8", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "12"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "11"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertFromUnreachable) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Insert, {"3", "5"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate();
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(LastUpdate);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
2020-07-06 23:49:21 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(PDT.root_size(), 2UL);
|
2018-06-16 16:47:05 +02:00
|
|
|
// Make sure we can use a const pointer with getNode.
|
|
|
|
const BasicBlock *BB5 = B.getOrAddBlock("5");
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_NE(PDT.getNode(BB5), nullptr);
|
[Dominators] Include infinite loops in PostDominatorTree
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
2017-08-15 20:14:57 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertMixed) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}, {"7", "3"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"4", "5"}}, {Insert, {"2", "5"}}, {Insert, {"10", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"12", "10"}}, {Insert, {"12", "10"}}, {Insert, {"7", "8"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"7", "5"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertPermut) {
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}, {"7", "3"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Insert, {"4", "5"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"2", "5"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"12", "10"}}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (std::next_permutation(Updates.begin(), Updates.end(), CompUpdates)) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Insert);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, DeleteReachable) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"2", "4"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"},
|
|
|
|
{"5", "7"}, {"7", "8"}, {"3", "8"}, {"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"10", "2"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {
|
|
|
|
{Delete, {"2", "4"}}, {Delete, {"7", "8"}}, {Delete, {"10", "2"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Delete);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, DeleteUnreachable) {
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"7", "8"}, {"3", "8"}, {"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"10", "2"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {
|
|
|
|
{Delete, {"8", "9"}}, {Delete, {"7", "8"}}, {Delete, {"3", "4"}}};
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(LastUpdate->Action, Delete);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
DT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
PDT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertDelete) {
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"3", "8"}, {"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"2", "4"}}, {Insert, {"12", "10"}}, {Insert, {"10", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"7", "6"}}, {Insert, {"7", "5"}}, {Delete, {"3", "8"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "7"}}, {Insert, {"2", "8"}}, {Delete, {"3", "4"}},
|
|
|
|
{Delete, {"8", "9"}}, {Delete, {"11", "12"}}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
if (LastUpdate->Action == Insert) {
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
DT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
PDT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-15 03:27:16 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertDeleteExhaustive) {
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"3", "8"}, {"8", "9"}, {"9", "10"}, {"8", "11"}, {"11", "12"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"2", "4"}}, {Insert, {"12", "10"}}, {Insert, {"10", "9"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"7", "6"}}, {Insert, {"7", "5"}}, {Delete, {"3", "8"}},
|
|
|
|
{Insert, {"10", "7"}}, {Insert, {"2", "8"}}, {Delete, {"3", "4"}},
|
|
|
|
{Delete, {"8", "9"}}, {Delete, {"11", "12"}}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::mt19937 Generator(0);
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 16; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
std::shuffle(Updates.begin(), Updates.end(), Generator);
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
2018-05-23 19:29:21 +02:00
|
|
|
PostDominatorTree PDT(*Holder.F);
|
2017-07-14 23:58:53 +02:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
|
|
|
|
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate())) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.From);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock(LastUpdate->Edge.To);
|
|
|
|
if (LastUpdate->Action == Insert) {
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
PDT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
DT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
PDT.deleteEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(PDT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-01-19 22:27:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertIntoIrreducible) {
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
|
|
|
|
{"0", "1"},
|
|
|
|
{"1", "27"}, {"1", "7"},
|
|
|
|
{"10", "18"},
|
|
|
|
{"13", "10"},
|
|
|
|
{"18", "13"}, {"18", "23"},
|
|
|
|
{"23", "13"}, {"23", "24"},
|
|
|
|
{"24", "1"}, {"24", "18"},
|
|
|
|
{"27", "24"}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFGHolder Holder;
|
|
|
|
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, {{Insert, {"7", "23"}}});
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.applyUpdate();
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *From = B.getOrAddBlock("7");
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *To = B.getOrAddBlock("23");
|
|
|
|
DT.insertEdge(From, To);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-17 11:02:57 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, EdgeDomination) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString = "define i32 @f(i1 %cond) {\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb0:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br i1 %cond, label %bb1, label %bb2\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb1:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %bb3\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb2:\n"
|
|
|
|
" br label %bb3\n"
|
|
|
|
" bb3:\n"
|
|
|
|
" ret i32 4"
|
|
|
|
"}\n";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Parse the module.
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(*M, "f",
|
|
|
|
[&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
|
|
|
Function::iterator FI = F.begin();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB0 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB1 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB2 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB3 = &*FI++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge E01(BB0, BB1);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge E02(BB0, BB2);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge E13(BB1, BB3);
|
|
|
|
BasicBlockEdge E23(BB2, BB3);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E01, E01));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E01, E02));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E01, E13));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E01, E23));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E02, E01));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E02, E02));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E02, E13));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E02, E23));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E13, E01));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E13, E02));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E13, E13));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E13, E23));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E23, E01));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E23, E02));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_FALSE(DT->dominates(E23, E13));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(E23, E23));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-10-17 20:54:53 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(DominatorTree, ValueDomination) {
|
|
|
|
StringRef ModuleString = R"(
|
|
|
|
@foo = global i8 0
|
|
|
|
define i8 @f(i8 %arg) {
|
|
|
|
ret i8 %arg
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
)";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LLVMContext Context;
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Module> M = makeLLVMModule(Context, ModuleString);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
runWithDomTree(*M, "f",
|
|
|
|
[&](Function &F, DominatorTree *DT, PostDominatorTree *PDT) {
|
|
|
|
Argument *A = F.getArg(0);
|
|
|
|
GlobalValue *G = M->getNamedValue("foo");
|
|
|
|
Constant *C = ConstantInt::getNullValue(Type::getInt8Ty(Context));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruction *I = F.getEntryBlock().getTerminator();
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(A, I));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(G, I));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(C, I));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const Use &U = I->getOperandUse(0);
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(A, U));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(G, U));
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(DT->dominates(C, U));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|