LLVM's include tree and the use of using declarations to hide the
'legacy' namespace for the old pass manager.
This undoes the primary modules-hostile change I made to keep
out-of-tree targets building. I sent an email inquiring about whether
this would be reasonable to do at this phase and people seemed fine with
it, so making it a reality. This should allow us to start bootstrapping
with modules to a certain extent along with making it easier to mix and
match headers in general.
The updates to any code for users of LLVM are very mechanical. Switch
from including "llvm/PassManager.h" to "llvm/IR/LegacyPassManager.h".
Qualify the types which now produce compile errors with "legacy::". The
most common ones are "PassManager", "PassManagerBase", and
"FunctionPassManager".
llvm-svn: 229094
TargetIRAnalysis access path directly rather than implementing getTTI.
This even removes getTTI from the interface. It's more efficient for
each target to just register a precise callback that creates their
specific TTI.
As part of this, all of the targets which are building their subtargets
individually per-function now build their TTI instance with the function
and thus look up the correct subtarget and cache it. NVPTX, R600, and
XCore currently don't leverage this functionality, but its trivial for
them to add it now.
llvm-svn: 227735
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
llvm-svn: 227685
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
This is equivalent to the AMDGPUTargetMachine now, but it is the
starting point for separating R600 and GCN functionality into separate
targets.
It is recommened that users start using the gcn triple for GCN-based
GPUs, because using the r600 triple for these GPUs will be deprecated in
the future.
llvm-svn: 225277
Previously print+verify passes were added in a very unsystematic way, which is
annoying when debugging as you miss intermediate steps and allows bugs to stay
unnotice when no verification is performed.
To make this change practical I added the possibility to explicitely disable
verification. I used this option on all places where no verification was
performed previously (because alot of places actually don't pass the
MachineVerifier).
In the long term these problems should be fixed properly and verification
enabled after each pass. I'll enable some more verification in subsequent
commits.
This is the 2nd attempt at this after realizing that PassManager::add() may
actually delete the pass.
llvm-svn: 224059
Previously print+verify passes were added in a very unsystematic way, which is
annoying when debugging as you miss intermediate steps and allows bugs to stay
unnotice when no verification is performed.
To make this change practical I added the possibility to explicitely disable
verification. I used this option on all places where no verification was
performed previously (because alot of places actually don't pass the
MachineVerifier).
In the long term these problems should be fixed properly and verification
enabled after each pass. I'll enable some more verification in subsequent
commits.
llvm-svn: 224042
This should expose more of the actually used VALU
instructions to the machine optimization passes.
This also should help getting i1 handling into a better state.
For not entirly understood reasons, this fixes the split-scalar-i64-add.ll
test where a 64-bit add would only partially be moved to the VALU
resulting in use of undefined VCC.
llvm-svn: 222256
Currently this only functions to match simple cases
where ds_read2_* / ds_write2_* instructions can be used.
In the future it might match some of the other weird
load patterns, such as direct to LDS loads.
Currently enabled only with a subtarget feature to enable
easier testing.
llvm-svn: 219533
The previous implementation was extending the live range of SGPRs
by modifying the live intervals directly. This was causing a lot
of machine verification errors when the machine scheduler was enabled.
The new implementation adds pseudo instructions with implicit uses to
extend the live ranges of SGPRs, which works much better.
llvm-svn: 218351
SGPRs are written by instructions that sometimes will ignore control flow,
which means if you have code like:
if (VGPR0) {
SGPR0 = S_MOV_B32 0
} else {
SGPR0 = S_MOV_B32 1
}
The value of SGPR0 will 1 no matter what the condition is.
In order to deal with this situation correctly, we need to view the
program as if it were a single basic block when we calculate the
live ranges for the SGPRs. They way we actually update the live
range is by iterating over all of the segments in each LiveRange
object and setting the end of each segment equal to the start of
the next segment. So a live range like:
[3888r,9312r:0)[10032B,10384B:0) 0@3888r
will become:
[3888r,10032B:0)[10032B,10384B:0) 0@3888r
This change will allow us to use SALU instructions within branches.
llvm-svn: 212215
Use 4 since that's probably what it will be for spir.
Move ADDRESS_NONE to the end to keep the constant_buffer_* values
unchanged, since apparently a bunch of r600 tests use those directly.
llvm-svn: 209463
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
Different sized address spaces should theoretically work
most of the time now, and since 64-bit add is currently
disabled, using more 32-bit pointers fixes some cases.
llvm-svn: 197659
