mirror of
https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git
synced 2024-11-23 11:13:28 +01:00
33f6c8a3f1
And clarify in the "writing a pass" docs that both the legacy and new PMs are being used for the codegen/optimization pipelines. Reviewed By: ychen, asbirlea Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97515
169 lines
6.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
169 lines
6.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
==========================
|
|
Using the New Pass Manager
|
|
==========================
|
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
:local:
|
|
|
|
Adding Passes to a Pass Manager
|
|
===============================
|
|
|
|
For how to write a new PM pass, see :doc:`this page <WritingAnLLVMNewPMPass>`.
|
|
|
|
To add a pass to a new PM pass manager, the important thing is to match the
|
|
pass type and the pass manager type. For example, a ``FunctionPassManager``
|
|
can only contain function passes:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
FunctionPassManager FPM;
|
|
// InstSimplifyPass is a function pass
|
|
FPM.addPass(InstSimplifyPass());
|
|
|
|
If you want add a loop pass that runs on all loops in a function to a
|
|
``FunctionPassManager``, the loop pass must be wrapped in a function pass
|
|
adaptor that goes through all the loops in the function and runs the loop
|
|
pass on each one.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
FunctionPassManager FPM;
|
|
// LoopRotatePass is a loop pass
|
|
FPM.addPass(createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor(LoopRotatePass()));
|
|
|
|
The IR hierarchy in terms of the new PM is Module -> (CGSCC ->) Function ->
|
|
Loop, where going through a CGSCC is optional.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
FunctionPassManager FPM;
|
|
// loop -> function
|
|
FPM.addPass(createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor(LoopFooPass()));
|
|
|
|
CGSCCPassManager CGPM;
|
|
// loop -> function -> cgscc
|
|
CGPM.addPass(createCGSCCToFunctionPassAdaptor(createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor(LoopFooPass())));
|
|
// function -> cgscc
|
|
CGPM.addPass(createCGSCCToFunctionPassAdaptor(FunctionFooPass()));
|
|
|
|
ModulePassManager MPM;
|
|
// loop -> function -> module
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor(LoopFooPass())));
|
|
// function -> module
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(FunctionFooPass()));
|
|
|
|
// loop -> function -> cgscc -> module
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToCGSCCPassAdaptor(createCGSCCToFunctionPassAdaptor(createFunctionToLoopPassAdaptor(LoopFooPass()))));
|
|
// function -> cgscc -> module
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToCGSCCPassAdaptor(createCGSCCToFunctionPassAdaptor(FunctionFooPass())));
|
|
|
|
|
|
A pass manager of a specific IR unit is also a pass of that kind. For
|
|
example, a ``FunctionPassManager`` is a function pass, meaning it can be
|
|
added to a ``ModulePassManager``:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
ModulePassManager MPM;
|
|
|
|
FunctionPassManager FPM;
|
|
// InstSimplifyPass is a function pass
|
|
FPM.addPass(InstSimplifyPass());
|
|
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(std::move(FPM)));
|
|
|
|
Generally you want to group CGSCC/function/loop passes together in a pass
|
|
manager, as opposed to adding adaptors for each pass to the containing upper
|
|
level pass manager. For example,
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
ModulePassManager MPM;
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(FunctionPass1()));
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(FunctionPass2()));
|
|
MPM.run();
|
|
|
|
will run ``FunctionPass1`` on each function in a module, then run
|
|
``FunctionPass2`` on each function in the module. In contrast,
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
ModulePassManager MPM;
|
|
|
|
FunctionPassManager FPM;
|
|
FPM.addPass(FunctionPass1());
|
|
FPM.addPass(FunctionPass2());
|
|
|
|
MPM.addPass(createModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor(std::move(FPM)));
|
|
|
|
will run ``FunctionPass1`` and ``FunctionPass2`` on the first function in a
|
|
module, then run both passes on the second function in the module, and so on.
|
|
This is better for cache locality around LLVM data structures. This similarly
|
|
applies for the other IR types, and in some cases can even affect the quality
|
|
of optimization. For example, running all loop passes on a loop may cause a
|
|
later loop to be able to be optimized more than if each loop pass were run
|
|
separately.
|
|
|
|
Inserting Passes into Default Pipelines
|
|
=======================================
|
|
|
|
Rather than manually adding passes to a pass manager, the typical way of
|
|
creating a pass manager is to use a ``PassBuilder`` and call something like
|
|
``PassBuilder::buildPerModuleDefaultPipeline()`` which creates a typical
|
|
pipeline for a given optimization level.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes either frontends or backends will want to inject passes into the
|
|
pipeline. For example, frontends may want to add instrumentation, and target
|
|
backends may want to add passes that lower custom intrinsics. For these
|
|
cases, ``PassBuilder`` exposes callbacks that allow injecting passes into
|
|
certain parts of the pipeline. For example,
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c++
|
|
|
|
PassBuilder PB;
|
|
PB.registerPipelineStartEPCallback([&](ModulePassManager &MPM,
|
|
PassBuilder::OptimizationLevel Level) {
|
|
MPM.addPass(FooPass());
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
will add ``FooPass`` near the very beginning of the pipeline for pass
|
|
managers created by that ``PassBuilder``. See the documentation for
|
|
``PassBuilder`` for the various places that passes can be added.
|
|
|
|
If a ``PassBuilder`` has a corresponding ``TargetMachine`` for a backend, it
|
|
will call ``TargetMachine::registerPassBuilderCallbacks()`` to allow the
|
|
backend to inject passes into the pipeline. This is equivalent to the legacy
|
|
PM's ``TargetMachine::adjustPassManager()``.
|
|
|
|
Clang's ``BackendUtil.cpp`` shows examples of a frontend adding (mostly
|
|
sanitizer) passes to various parts of the pipeline.
|
|
``AMDGPUTargetMachine::registerPassBuilderCallbacks()`` is an example of a
|
|
backend adding passes to various parts of the pipeline.
|
|
|
|
Status of the New and Legacy Pass Managers
|
|
==========================================
|
|
|
|
LLVM currently contains two pass managers, the legacy PM and the new PM. The
|
|
optimization pipeline (aka the middle-end) works with both the legacy PM and
|
|
the new PM, whereas the backend target-dependent code generation only works
|
|
with the legacy PM.
|
|
|
|
For the optimization pipeline, the new PM is the default PM. The legacy PM is
|
|
available for the optimization pipeline either by setting the CMake flag
|
|
``-DENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER=OFF`` when building LLVM, or by
|
|
various compiler/linker flags, e.g. ``-flegacy-pass-manager`` for ``clang``.
|
|
|
|
There will be efforts to deprecate and remove the legacy PM for the
|
|
optimization pipeline in the future.
|
|
|
|
Some IR passes are considered part of the backend codegen pipeline even if
|
|
they are LLVM IR passes (whereas all MIR passes are codegen passes). This
|
|
includes anything added via ``TargetPassConfig`` hooks, e.g.
|
|
``TargetPassConfig::addCodeGenPrepare()``. As mentioned before, passes added
|
|
in ``TargetMachine::adjustPassManager()`` are part of the optimization
|
|
pipeline, and should have a corresponding line in
|
|
``TargetMachine::registerPassBuilderCallbacks()``.
|
|
|
|
Currently there are efforts to make the codegen pipeline work with the new
|
|
PM.
|