If a PHI value happens to be live out from the layout predecessor of its
def block, the def slot index will be in the middle of the segment:
%vreg11 = [192r,240B:0)[352r,416B:2)[416B,496r:1) 0@192r 1@480B-phi %2@352r
A LiveRangeQuery for 480 should return NULL from valueIn() since the
PHI value is defined at the block entry, not live in to the block.
No test case, future code depends on this functionality.
llvm-svn: 163971
new one, and add support for running the new pass in that mode and in
that slot of the pass manager. With this the new pass can completely
replace the old one within the pipeline.
The strategy for enabling or disabling the SSAUpdater logic is to do it
by making the requirement of the domtree analysis optional. By default,
it is required and we get the standard mem2reg approach. This is usually
the desired strategy when run in stand-alone situations. Within the
CGSCC pass manager, we disable requiring of the domtree analysis and
consequentially trigger fallback to the SSAUpdater promotion.
In theory this would allow the pass to re-use a domtree if one happened
to be available even when run in a mode that doesn't require it. In
practice, it lets us have a single pass rather than two which was
simpler for me to wrap my head around.
There is a hidden flag to force the use of the SSAUpdater code path for
the purpose of testing. The primary testing strategy is just to run the
existing tests through that path. One notable difference is that it has
custom code to handle lifetime markers, and one of the tests has been
enhanced to exercise that code.
This has survived a bootstrap and the test suite without serious
correctness issues, however my run of the test suite produced *very*
alarming performance numbers. I don't entirely understand or trust them
though, so more investigation is on-going.
To aid my understanding of the performance impact of the new SROA now
that it runs throughout the optimization pipeline, I'm enabling it by
default in this commit, and will disable it again once the LNT bots have
picked up one iteration with it. I want to get those bots (which are
much more stable) to evaluate the impact of the change before I jump to
any conclusions.
NOTE: Several Clang tests will fail because they run -O3 and check the
result's order of output. They'll go back to passing once I disable it
again.
llvm-svn: 163965
- The current_pos function is supposed to return all the written bytes, not the
current position of the underlying stream.
- This caused tell() to be broken whenever the underlying stream had buffered
content.
llvm-svn: 163948
* wrap code blocks in \code ... \endcode;
* refer to parameter names in paragraphs correctly (\arg is not what most
people want -- it starts a new paragraph);
* use \param instead of \arg to document parameters in order to be consistent
with the rest of the codebase.
llvm-svn: 163902
This is essentially a ground up re-think of the SROA pass in LLVM. It
was initially inspired by a few problems with the existing pass:
- It is subject to the bane of my existence in optimizations: arbitrary
thresholds.
- It is overly conservative about which constructs can be split and
promoted.
- The vector value replacement aspect is separated from the splitting
logic, missing many opportunities where splitting and vector value
formation can work together.
- The splitting is entirely based around the underlying type of the
alloca, despite this type often having little to do with the reality
of how that memory is used. This is especially prevelant with unions
and base classes where we tail-pack derived members.
- When splitting fails (often due to the thresholds), the vector value
replacement (again because it is separate) can kick in for
preposterous cases where we simply should have split the value. This
results in forming i1024 and i2048 integer "bit vectors" that
tremendously slow down subsequnet IR optimizations (due to large
APInts) and impede the backend's lowering.
The new design takes an approach that fundamentally is not susceptible
to many of these problems. It is the result of a discusison between
myself and Duncan Sands over IRC about how to premptively avoid these
types of problems and how to do SROA in a more principled way. Since
then, it has evolved and grown, but this remains an important aspect: it
fixes real world problems with the SROA process today.
First, the transform of SROA actually has little to do with replacement.
It has more to do with splitting. The goal is to take an aggregate
alloca and form a composition of scalar allocas which can replace it and
will be most suitable to the eventual replacement by scalar SSA values.
The actual replacement is performed by mem2reg (and in the future
SSAUpdater).
The splitting is divided into four phases. The first phase is an
analysis of the uses of the alloca. This phase recursively walks uses,
building up a dense datastructure representing the ranges of the
alloca's memory actually used and checking for uses which inhibit any
aspects of the transform such as the escape of a pointer.
Once we have a mapping of the ranges of the alloca used by individual
operations, we compute a partitioning of the used ranges. Some uses are
inherently splittable (such as memcpy and memset), while scalar uses are
not splittable. The goal is to build a partitioning that has the minimum
number of splits while placing each unsplittable use in its own
partition. Overlapping unsplittable uses belong to the same partition.
This is the target split of the aggregate alloca, and it maximizes the
number of scalar accesses which become accesses to their own alloca and
candidates for promotion.
Third, we re-walk the uses of the alloca and assign each specific memory
access to all the partitions touched so that we have dense use-lists for
each partition.
Finally, we build a new, smaller alloca for each partition and rewrite
each use of that partition to use the new alloca. During this phase the
pass will also work very hard to transform uses of an alloca into a form
suitable for promotion, including forming vector operations, speculating
loads throguh PHI nodes and selects, etc.
After splitting is complete, each newly refined alloca that is
a candidate for promotion to a scalar SSA value is run through mem2reg.
There are lots of reasonably detailed comments in the source code about
the design and algorithms, and I'm going to be trying to improve them in
subsequent commits to ensure this is well documented, as the new pass is
in many ways more complex than the old one.
Some of this is still a WIP, but the current state is reasonbly stable.
It has passed bootstrap, the nightly test suite, and Duncan has run it
successfully through the ACATS and DragonEgg test suites. That said, it
remains behind a default-off flag until the last few pieces are in
place, and full testing can be done.
Specific areas I'm looking at next:
- Improved comments and some code cleanup from reviews.
- SSAUpdater and enabling this pass inside the CGSCC pass manager.
- Some datastructure tuning and compile-time measurements.
- More aggressive FCA splitting and vector formation.
Many thanks to Duncan Sands for the thorough final review, as well as
Benjamin Kramer for lots of review during the process of writing this
pass, and Daniel Berlin for reviewing the data structures and algorithms
and general theory of the pass. Also, several other people on IRC, over
lunch tables, etc for lots of feedback and advice.
llvm-svn: 163883
This is mostly documentation for the new machine model. It is designed
to be flexible, easy to incrementally refine for a subtarget, and
provide all the information that MachineScheduler will need.
If all goes well, I will follow up with an example of the new model in
use for ARM.
llvm-svn: 163877
* wrap code blocks in \code ... \endcode;
* refer to parameter names in paragraphs correctly (\arg is not what most
people want -- it starts a new paragraph).
llvm-svn: 163790
Add some support for dealing with an object pointer on arguments.
Part of rdar://9797999
which now supports adding the object pointer attribute to the
subprogram as it should.
llvm-svn: 163754
- BlockAddress has no support of BA + offset form and there is no way to
propagate that offset into machine operand;
- Add BA + offset support and a new interface 'getTargetBlockAddress' to
simplify target block address forming;
- All targets are modified to use new interface and X86 backend is enhanced to
support BA + offset addressing.
llvm-svn: 163743
The search for liveness is clipped to a specific number of instructions around the target MachineInstr, in order to avoid degenerating into an O(N^2) algorithm. It tries to use various clues about how instructions around (both before and after) a given MachineInstr use that register, to determine its state at the MachineInstr.
llvm-svn: 163695
Sub-register lane masks are bitmasks that can be used to determine if
two sub-registers of a virtual register will overlap. For example, ARM's
ssub0 and ssub1 sub-register indices don't overlap each other, but both
overlap dsub0 and qsub0.
The lane masks will be accurate on most targets, but on targets that use
sub-register indexes in an irregular way, the masks may conservatively
report that two sub-register indices overlap when the eventually
allocated physregs don't.
Irregular register banks also mean that the bits in a lane mask can't be
mapped onto register units, but the concept is similar.
llvm-svn: 163630
Apparently, NumSubRegIndices was completely unused before. Adjust it by
one to include the null subreg index, just like getNumRegs() includes
the null register.
llvm-svn: 163628
The Hexagon target decided to use a lot of functionality from the
target-independent scheduler. That's fine, and other targets should be
able to do the same. This reorg and API update makes that easy.
For the record, ScheduleDAGMI was not meant to be subclassed. Instead,
new scheduling algorithms should be able to implement
MachineSchedStrategy and be done. But if need be, it's nice to be
able to extend ScheduleDAGMI, so I also made that easier. The target
scheduler is somewhat more apt to break that way though.
llvm-svn: 163580
