Implement Pass::releaseMemory() in BlockFrequencyInfo and
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo. Just delete the private implementation when
not in use. Switch to a std::unique_ptr to make the logic more clear.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 204741
If we have a loop of the form
for (unsigned n = 0; n != (k & -32); n += 32) {}
then we know that n is always divisible by 32 and the loop must
terminate. Even if we have a condition where the loop counter will
overflow it'll always hold this invariant.
PR19183. Our loop vectorizer creates this pattern and it's also
occasionally formed by loop counters derived from pointers.
llvm-svn: 204728
Extend the target hook to take also the operand index into account when
calculating the cost of the constant materialization.
Related to <rdar://problem/16381500>
llvm-svn: 204435
This commit extends the coverage of the constant hoisting pass, adds additonal
debug output and updates the function names according to the style guide.
Related to <rdar://problem/16381500>
llvm-svn: 204389
The "noduplicate" attribute of call instructions is sometimes queried directly
and sometimes through the cannotDuplicate() predicate. This patch streamlines
all queries to use the cannotDuplicate() predicate. It also adds this predicate
to InvokeInst, to mirror what CallInst has.
llvm-svn: 204049
The syntax for "cmpxchg" should now look something like:
cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 3 acquire monotonic
where the second ordering argument gives the required semantics in the case
that no exchange takes place. It should be no stronger than the first ordering
constraint and cannot be either "release" or "acq_rel" (since no store will
have taken place).
rdar://problem/15996804
llvm-svn: 203559
the stack of the analysis group because they are all immutable passes.
This is made clear by Craig's recent work to use override
systematically -- we weren't overriding anything for 'finalizePass'
because there is no such thing.
This is kind of a lame restriction on the API -- we can no longer push
and pop things, we just set up the stack and run. However, I'm not
invested in building some better solution on top of the existing
(terrifying) immutable pass and legacy pass manager.
llvm-svn: 203437
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
This compiles with no changes to clang/lld/lldb with MSVC and includes
overloads to various functions which are used by those projects and llvm
which have OwningPtr's as parameters. This should allow out of tree
projects some time to move. There are also no changes to libs/Target,
which should help out of tree targets have time to move, if necessary.
llvm-svn: 203083
to ensure we don't mess up any of the overrides. Necessary for cleaning
up the Value use iterators and enabling range-based traversing of use
lists.
llvm-svn: 202958
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
business.
This header includes Function and BasicBlock and directly uses the
interfaces of both classes. It has to do with the IR, it even has that
in the name. =] Put it in the library it belongs to.
This is one step toward making LLVM's Support library survive a C++
modules bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 202814
operand_values. The first provides a range view over operand Use
objects, and the second provides a range view over the Value*s being
used by those operands.
The naming is "STL-style" rather than "LLVM-style" because we have
historically named iterator methods STL-style, and range methods seem to
have far more in common with their iterator counterparts than with
"normal" APIs. Feel free to bikeshed on this one if you want, I'm happy
to change these around if people feel strongly.
I've switched code in SROA and LCG to exercise these mostly to ensure
they work correctly -- we don't really have an easy way to unittest this
and they're trivial.
llvm-svn: 202687
