definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
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
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
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
and expose it as a utility class rather than as free function wrappers.
The simple free-function interface works well for the bugpoint-specific
pass's uses of code extraction, but in an upcoming patch for more
advanced code extraction, they simply don't expose a rich enough
interface. I need to expose various stages of the process of doing the
code extraction and query information to decide whether or not to
actually complete the extraction or give up.
Rather than build up a new predicate model and pass that into these
functions, just take the class that was actually implementing the
functions and lift it up into a proper interface that can be used to
perform code extraction. The interface is cleaned up and re-documented
to work better in a header. It also is now setup to accept the blocks to
be extracted in the constructor rather than in a method.
In passing this essentially reverts my previous commit here exposing
a block-level query for eligibility of extraction. That is no longer
necessary with the more rich interface as clients can query the
extraction object for eligibility directly. This will reduce the number
of walks of the input basic block sequence by quite a bit which is
useful if this enters the normal optimization pipeline.
llvm-svn: 156163
must be called in the pass's constructor. This function uses static dependency declarations to recursively initialize
the pass's dependencies.
Clients that only create passes through the createFooPass() APIs will require no changes. Clients that want to use the
CommandLine options for passes will need to manually call the appropriate initialization functions in PassInitialization.h
before parsing commandline arguments.
I have tested this with all standard configurations of clang and llvm-gcc on Darwin. It is possible that there are problems
with the static dependencies that will only be visible with non-standard options. If you encounter any crash in pass
registration/creation, please send the testcase to me directly.
llvm-svn: 116820
fix: add a flag to MapValue and friends which indicates whether
any module-level mappings are being made. In the common case of
inlining, no module-level mappings are needed, so MapValue doesn't
need to examine non-function-local metadata, which can be very
expensive in the case of a large module with really deep metadata
(e.g. a large C++ program compiled with -g).
This flag is a little awkward; perhaps eventually it can be moved
into the ClonedCodeInfo class.
llvm-svn: 112190
arguments are handled with a new InlineFunctionInfo class. This
makes it easier to extend InlineFunction to return more info in the
future.
llvm-svn: 102137
is that, for functions whose bodies are entirely guarded by an if-statement, it
can be profitable to pull the test out of the callee and into the caller.
This code has had some cursory testing, but still has a number of known issues
on the LLVM test suite.
llvm-svn: 73338
