Based on the original patch by Davide, but I've adjusted the API exposed
to just be different entry points rather than exposing more state
parameters. I've factored all the common logic out so that we don't have
any duplicate pipelines, we just stitch them together in different ways.
I think this makes the build easier to reason about and understand.
This adds a direct method for getting the module simplification pipeline
as well as a method to get the optimization pipeline. While not my
express goal, this seems nice and gives a good place comment about the
restrictions that are imposed on them.
I did make some minor changes to the way the pipelines are structured
here, but hopefully not ones that are significant or controversial:
1) I sunk the PGO indirect call promotion to only be run when we have
PGO enabled (or as part of the special ThinLTO pipeline).
2) I made the extra GlobalOpt run in ThinLTO just happen all the time
and at a slightly more powerful place (before we remove available
externaly functions). This seems like general goodness and not a big
compile time sink, so it didn't make sense to *only* use it in
ThinLTO. Fewer differences in the pipeline makes everything simpler
IMO.
3) I hoisted the ThinLTO stop point pre-link above the the RPO function
attr inference. The RPO inference won't infer anything terribly
meaningful pre-link (recursiveness?) so it didn't make a lot of
sense. But if the placement of RPO inference starts to matter, we
should move it to the canonicalization phase anyways which seems like
a better place for it (and there is a FIXME to this effect!). But
that seemed a bridge too far for this patch.
If we ever need to parameterize these pipelines more heavily, we can
always sink the logic to helper functions with parameters to keep those
parameters out of the public API. But the changes above seemed minor
that we could possible get away without the parameters entirely.
I added support for parsing 'thinlto' and 'thinlto-pre-link' names in
pass pipelines to make it easy to test these routines and play with them
in larger pipelines. I also added a really basic manifest of passes test
that will show exactly how the pipelines behave and work as well as
making updates to them clear.
Lastly, this factoring does introduce a nesting layer of module pass
managers in the default pipeline. I don't think this is a big deal and
the flexibility of decoupling the pipelines seems easily worth it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33540
llvm-svn: 304407
Summary: SamplePGO uses branch_weight annotation to represent callsite hotness. When ICP promotes an indirect call to direct call, we need to make sure the direct call is annotated with branch_weight in SamplePGO mode, so that downstream function inliner can use hot callsite heuristic.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman, xur
Reviewed By: davidxl, xur
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30282
llvm-svn: 296028
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
Pretty boring and lame as-is but necessary. This is definitely a place
we'll end up with extension hooks longer term. =]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28076
llvm-svn: 290449
from the old pass manager in the new one.
I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.
I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.
Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.
One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.
I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.
I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042
llvm-svn: 290325
reason about and less error prone.
The core idea is to fully parse the text without trying to identify
passes or structure. This is done with a single state machine. There
were various bugs in the logic around this previously that were repeated
and scattered across the code. Having a single routine makes it much
easier to fix and get correct. For example, this routine doesn't suffer
from PR28577.
Then the actual pass construction is handled using *much* easier to read
code and simple loops, with particular pass manager construction sunk to
live with other pass construction. This is especially nice as the pass
managers *are* in fact passes.
Finally, the "implicit" pass manager synthesis is done much more simply
by forming "pre-parsed" structures rather than having to duplicate tons
of logic.
One of the bugs fixed by this was evident in the tests where we accepted
a pipeline that wasn't really well formed. Another bug is PR28577 for
which I have added a test case.
The code is less efficient than the previous code but I'm really hoping
that's not a priority. ;]
Thanks to Sean for the review!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22724
llvm-svn: 277561
Removed some unused headers, replaced some headers with forward class declarations.
Found using simple scripts like this one:
clear && ack --cpp -l '#include "llvm/ADT/IndexedMap.h"' | xargs grep -L 'IndexedMap[<]' | xargs grep -n --color=auto 'IndexedMap'
Patch by Eugene Kosov <claprix@yandex.ru>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19219
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266595
in the PassBuilder.
These are really just stubs for now, but they give a nice API surface
that Clang or other tools can start learning about and enabling for
experimentation.
I've also wired up parsing various synthetic module pass names to
generate these set pipelines. This allows the pipelines to be combined
with other passes and have their order controlled, with clear separation
between the *kind* of canned pipeline, and the *level* of optimization
to be used within that canned pipeline.
The most interesting part of this patch is almost certainly the spec for
the different optimization levels. I don't think we can ever have hard
and fast rules that would make it easy to determine whether a particular
optimization makes sense at a particular level -- it will always be in
large part a judgement call. But hopefully this will outline the
expected rationale that should be used, and the direction that the
pipelines should be taken. Much of this was based on a long llvm-dev
discussion I started years ago to try and crystalize the intent behind
these pipelines, and now, at long long last I'm returning to the task of
actually writing it down somewhere that we can cite and try to be
consistent with.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12826
llvm-svn: 262196
This creates the new-style LoopPassManager and wires it up with dummy
and print passes.
This version doesn't support modifying the loop nest at all. It will
be far easier to discuss and evaluate the approaches to that with this
in place so that the boilerplate is out of the way.
llvm-svn: 261831
analysis passes, support pre-registering analyses, and use that to
implement parsing and pre-registering a custom alias analysis pipeline.
With this its possible to configure the particular alias analysis
pipeline used by the AAManager from the commandline of opt. I've updated
the test to show this effectively in use to build a pipeline including
basic-aa as part of it.
My big question for reviewers are around the APIs that are used to
expose this functionality. Are folks happy with pass-by-lambda to do
pass registration? Are folks happy with pre-registering analyses as
a way to inject customized instances of an analysis while still using
the registry for the general case?
Other thoughts of course welcome. The next round of patches will be to
add the rest of the alias analyses into the new pass manager and wire
them up here so that they can be used from opt. This will require
extending the (somewhate limited) functionality of AAManager w.r.t.
module passes.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17259
llvm-svn: 261197
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
This will provide the analogous replacements for the PassManagerBuilder
and other code long term. This code is extracted from the opt tool
currently, and I plan to extend it as I build up support for using the
new pass manager in Clang and other places.
Mailing this out for review in part to let folks comment on the terrible names
here. A brief word about why I chose the names I did.
The library is called "Passes" to try and make it clear that it is a high-level
utility and where *all* of the passes come together and are registered in
a common library. I didn't want it to be *limited* to a registry though, the
registry is just one component.
The class is a "PassBuilder" but this name I'm less happy with. It doesn't
build passes in any traditional sense and isn't a Builder-style API at all. The
class is a PassRegisterer or PassAdder, but neither of those really make a lot
of sense. This class is responsible for constructing passes for registry in an
analysis manager or for population of a pass pipeline. If anyone has a better
name, I would love to hear it. The other candidate I looked at was
PassRegistrar, but that doesn't really fit either. There is no register of all
the passes in use, and so I think continuing the "registry" analog outside of
the registry of pass *names* and *types* is a mistake. The objects themselves
are just objects with the new pass manager.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8054
llvm-svn: 231556
