Summary:
The code for generating a name for loops for various reporting scenarios
created a name by serializing the loop into a string. This may result in
a very large name for a loop containing many blocks. Use the getName()
function on the loop instead.
Author: Jamie Schmeiser <schmeise@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed By: Whitney (Whitney Tsang), aeubanks (Arthur Eubanks)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133587
With profile data, non-trivial LoopUnswitch will only apply on non-cold loops, as unswitching cold loops may not gain much benefit but significantly increase the code size.
Reviewed By: aeubanks, asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129599
This is analogous to D86156 (which preserves "lossy" BFI in loop
passes). Lossy means that the analysis preserved may not be up to date
with regards to new blocks that are added in loop passes, but BPI will
not contain stale pointers to basic blocks that are deleted by the loop
passes.
This is achieved through BasicBlockCallbackVH in BPI, which calls
eraseBlock that updates the data structures in BPI whenever a basic
block is deleted.
This patch does not have any changes in the upstream pipeline, since
none of the loop passes in the pipeline use BPI currently.
However, since BPI wasn't previously preserved in loop passes, the loop
predication pass was invoking BPI *on the entire
function* every time it ran in an LPM. This caused massive compile time
in our downstream LPM invocation which contained loop predication.
See updated test with an invocation of a loop-pipeline containing loop
predication and -debug-pass turned ON.
Reviewed-By: asbirlea, modimo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110438
Precommit testcase for D110438. Since we do not preserve BPI in loop
pass manager, we are forced to compute BPI everytime Loop predication is
invoked.
The patch referenced changes that behaviour by preserving lossy BPI for
loop passes.
