1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-22 20:43:44 +02:00
Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Stephen Lin
cf082ae903 Update Transforms tests to use CHECK-LABEL for easier debugging. No functionality change.
This update was done with the following bash script:

  find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
  while read NAME; do
    echo "$NAME"
    if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
      TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
      cp $NAME $TEMP
      sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
      while read FUNC; do
        sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
      done
      mv $TEMP $NAME
    fi
  done

llvm-svn: 186268
2013-07-14 01:42:54 +00:00
Dmitri Gribenko
e3769d450b Tests: rewrite 'opt ... %s' to 'opt ... < %s' so that opt does not emit a ModuleID
This is done to avoid odd test failures, like the one fixed in r171243.

llvm-svn: 171246
2012-12-30 01:28:40 +00:00
Chandler Carruth
8cacff57bf Initial commit for the rewrite of the inline cost analysis to operate
on a per-callsite walk of the called function's instructions, in
breadth-first order over the potentially reachable set of basic blocks.

This is a major shift in how inline cost analysis works to improve the
accuracy and rationality of inlining decisions. A brief outline of the
algorithm this moves to:

- Build a simplification mapping based on the callsite arguments to the
  function arguments.
- Push the entry block onto a worklist of potentially-live basic blocks.
- Pop the first block off of the *front* of the worklist (for
  breadth-first ordering) and walk its instructions using a custom
  InstVisitor.
- For each instruction's operands, re-map them based on the
  simplification mappings available for the given callsite.
- Compute any simplification possible of the instruction after
  re-mapping, and store that back int othe simplification mapping.
- Compute any bonuses, costs, or other impacts of the instruction on the
  cost metric.
- When the terminator is reached, replace any conditional value in the
  terminator with any simplifications from the mapping we have, and add
  any successors which are not proven to be dead from these
  simplifications to the worklist.
- Pop the next block off of the front of the worklist, and repeat.
- As soon as the cost of inlining exceeds the threshold for the
  callsite, stop analyzing the function in order to bound cost.

The primary goal of this algorithm is to perfectly handle dead code
paths. We do not want any code in trivially dead code paths to impact
inlining decisions. The previous metric was *extremely* flawed here, and
would always subtract the average cost of two successors of
a conditional branch when it was proven to become an unconditional
branch at the callsite. There was no handling of wildly different costs
between the two successors, which would cause inlining when the path
actually taken was too large, and no inlining when the path actually
taken was trivially simple. There was also no handling of the code
*path*, only the immediate successors. These problems vanish completely
now. See the added regression tests for the shiny new features -- we
skip recursive function calls, SROA-killing instructions, and high cost
complex CFG structures when dead at the callsite being analyzed.

Switching to this algorithm required refactoring the inline cost
interface to accept the actual threshold rather than simply returning
a single cost. The resulting interface is pretty bad, and I'm planning
to do lots of interface cleanup after this patch.

Several other refactorings fell out of this, but I've tried to minimize
them for this patch. =/ There is still more cleanup that can be done
here. Please point out anything that you see in review.

I've worked really hard to try to mirror at least the spirit of all of
the previous heuristics in the new model. It's not clear that they are
all correct any more, but I wanted to minimize the change in this single
patch, it's already a bit ridiculous. One heuristic that is *not* yet
mirrored is to allow inlining of functions with a dynamic alloca *if*
the caller has a dynamic alloca. I will add this back, but I think the
most reasonable way requires changes to the inliner itself rather than
just the cost metric, and so I've deferred this for a subsequent patch.
The test case is XFAIL-ed until then.

As mentioned in the review mail, this seems to make Clang run about 1%
to 2% faster in -O0, but makes its binary size grow by just under 4%.
I've looked into the 4% growth, and it can be fixed, but requires
changes to other parts of the inliner.

llvm-svn: 153812
2012-03-31 12:42:41 +00:00
Chris Lattner
9d1e8420ff Upgrade syntax of tests using volatile instructions to use 'load volatile' instead of 'volatile load', which is archaic.
llvm-svn: 145171
2011-11-27 06:54:59 +00:00
Chris Lattner
b893cedad2 The inliner has traditionally not considered call sites
that appear due to inlining a callee as candidates for
futher inlining, but a recent patch made it do this if
those call sites were indirect and became direct.

Unfortunately, in bizarre cases (see testcase) doing this
can cause us to infinitely inline mutually recursive
functions into callers not in the cycle.  Fix this by
keeping track of the inline history from which callsite
inline candidates got inlined from.

This shouldn't affect any "real world" code, but is required
for a follow on patch that is coming up next.

llvm-svn: 102822
2010-05-01 01:05:10 +00:00
Chris Lattner
3eb6a9f076 Dan recently disabled recursive inlining within a function, but we
were still inlining self-recursive functions into other functions.

Inlining a recursive function into itself has the potential to
reduce recursion depth by a factor of 2, inlining a recursive
function into something else reduces recursion depth by exactly 
1.  Since inlining a recursive function into something else is a
weird form of loop peeling, turn this off.

The deleted testcase was added by Dale in r62107, since then
we're leaning towards not inlining recursive stuff ever.  In any
case, if we like inlining recursive stuff, it should be done 
within the recursive function itself to get the algorithm 
recursion depth win.

llvm-svn: 102798
2010-04-30 22:37:22 +00:00