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
Ideally only those transform passes that run at -O0 remain enabled,
in reality we get as close as we reasonably can.
Passes are responsible for disabling themselves, it's not the job of
the pass manager to do it for them.
llvm-svn: 200892
can be used by both the new pass manager and the old.
This removes it from any of the virtual mess of the pass interfaces and
lets it derive cleanly from the DominatorTreeBase<> template. In turn,
tons of boilerplate interface can be nuked and it turns into a very
straightforward extension of the base DominatorTree interface.
The old analysis pass is now a simple wrapper. The names and style of
this split should match the split between CallGraph and
CallGraphWrapperPass. All of the users of DominatorTree have been
updated to match using many of the same tricks as with CallGraph. The
goal is that the common type remains the resulting DominatorTree rather
than the pass. This will make subsequent work toward the new pass
manager significantly easier.
Also in numerous places things became cleaner because I switched from
re-running the pass (!!! mid way through some other passes run!!!) to
directly recomputing the domtree.
llvm-svn: 199104
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
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
The loop rerolling pass was failing with an assertion failure from a
failed cast on loops like this:
void foo(int *A, int *B, int m, int n) {
for (int i = m; i < n; i+=4) {
A[i+0] = B[i+0] * 4;
A[i+1] = B[i+1] * 4;
A[i+2] = B[i+2] * 4;
A[i+3] = B[i+3] * 4;
}
}
The code was casting the SCEV-expanded code for the new
induction variable to a phi-node. When the loop had a non-constant
lower bound, the SCEV expander would end the code expansion with an
add insted of a phi node and the cast would fail.
It looks like the cast to a phi node was only needed to get the
induction variable value coming from the backedge to compute the end
of loop condition. This patch changes the loop reroller to compare
the induction variable to the number of times the backedge is taken
instead of the iteration count of the loop. In other words, we stop
the loop when the current value of the induction variable ==
IterationCount-1. Previously, the comparison was comparing the
induction variable value from the next iteration == IterationCount.
This problem only seems to occur on 32-bit targets. For some reason,
the loop is not rerolled on 64-bit targets.
PR18290
llvm-svn: 198425
This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The
transformation aims to take loops like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) {
a[i] += alpha * b[i];
a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1];
a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2];
a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3];
a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4];
}
and turn them into this:
for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) {
a[i] += alpha * b[i];
}
and loops like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) {
x[3*i] = foo(0);
x[3*i+1] = foo(0);
x[3*i+2] = foo(0);
}
and turn them into this:
for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) {
x[i] = foo(0);
}
There are two motivations for this transformation:
1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for
code size).
2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to
choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop
vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when
choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that
choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized
for a machine different from the current target.
The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The
rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are
intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect
constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the
instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to
capture all current use cases.
This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level.
llvm-svn: 194939
