Currently, the code extractor functionality deletes a debug intrinsic if
its "Location" argument is not part of the extracted function. The
location is the first argument (or the first few arguments in case of a
DIArgList) of all debug intrinsics.
However, according to the docs, the signature of dbg.assign is:
```
void @llvm.dbg.assign(Value *Value,
DIExpression *ValueExpression,
DILocalVariable *Variable,
DIAssignID *ID,
Value *Address,
DIExpression *AddressExpression)
```
That is, there are two `Value` arguments to it: the usual location
argument and an "Address" argument. This Address argument should also
receive the same treatment.
The builtin_expect(), and C++20's likely, unlikely attributes assign branch_weights to annotated branches.
This patch adds the the ability to query branch !prof metadata and improve static analysis based on that.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64998
Reviewers: tejohnson, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D159336
This is a follow-up to b71edfaa4ec3c998aadb35255ce2f60bba2940b0
since I forgot the lit.local.cfg files in that one.
Reformatting is done with `black`.
If you end up having problems merging this commit because you
have made changes to a python file, the best way to handle that
is to run git checkout --ours <yourfile> and then reformat it
with black.
If you run into any problems, post to discourse about it and
we will try to help.
RFC Thread below:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-document-and-standardize-python-code-style
Reviewed By: barannikov88, kwk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150762
When a dbg.label is moved into a new function, its corresponding scope
should be preserved, with the exception of the subprogram at the end of
the scope chain, which should now be the subprogram of the destination
function. See D139671.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139849
When a dbg.value is moved into a new function, the corresponding
variable should have its entire scope chain reparented with the new
function. The current implementation drops the scope chain and replaces
it with a subprogram for the new function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139671
When a dbg.value instruction for a variable V is extracted into a new
function, the scope of the underlying variable should be set to the new
function iff V was in the scope of the old function (i.e. it hadn't been
inlined). Prior to this patch, the code extractor would always update
the scope of V.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139669
When a new function "NewF" is created with instructions extracted from
another function "OldF", the CodeExtractor only preserves debug
line/column of the extracted instructions. However:
1. Any inlinedAt nodes are dropped.
2. The scope chain is replaced with a single node, the Subprogram of NewF.
Both of these are incorrect: most of the debug metadata from the
original instructions should be preserved. We only need to update the
Subprogram found at the scope of the last node of the inline chain; this
Subprogram used to be OldF but now should be NewF.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139217
This enabled opaque pointers by default in LLVM. The effect of this
is twofold:
* If IR that contains *neither* explicit ptr nor %T* types is passed
to tools, we will now use opaque pointer mode, unless
-opaque-pointers=0 has been explicitly passed.
* Users of LLVM as a library will now default to opaque pointers.
It is possible to opt-out by calling setOpaquePointers(false) on
LLVMContext.
A cmake option to toggle this default will not be provided. Frontends
or other tools that want to (temporarily) keep using typed pointers
should disable opaque pointers via LLVMContext.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689
Make the penalty for splitting a region more accurately reflect the cost
of materializing all of the inputs/outputs to/from the region.
This almost entirely eliminates code growth within functions which
undergo splitting in key internal frameworks, and reduces the size of
those frameworks between 2.6% to 3%.
rdar://49167240
Patch by: Vedant Kumar(@vsk)
Reviewers: hiraditya,rjf,t.p.northover
Reviewed By: hiraditya,rjf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59715
Text section prefix is created in CodeGenPrepare, it's file format independent implementation, text section name is written into object file in TargetLoweringObjectFile, it's file format dependent implementation, port code of adding text section prefix to text section name from ELF to COFF.
Different with ELF that use '.' as concatenation character, COFF use '$' as concatenation character. That is, concatenation character is variable, so split concatenation character from text section prefix.
Text section prefix is existing feature of ELF, it can help to reduce icache and itlb misses, it's also make possible aggregate other compilers e.g. v8 created same prefix sections. Furthermore, the recent feature Machine Function Splitter (basic block level text prefix section) is based on text section prefix.
Reviewed By: pengfei, rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92073
This reverts commit 26ee8aff2b85ee28a2b2d0b1860d878b512fbdef.
It's necessary to insert bitcast the pointer operand of a lifetime
marker if it has an opaque pointer type.
rdar://70560161
This broke Chromium's PGO build, it seems because hot-cold-splitting got turned
on unintentionally. See comment on the code review for repro etc.
> This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
> the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
> `-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
> correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
>
> To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
> functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
> removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
> behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
>
> Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
> Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
> Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 273c299d5d649a0222fbde03c9a41e41913751b4.
This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
`-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 20797989ea190f2ef22d13c5a7a0535fe9afa58b.
This patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D69257) cannot complete a stage2
build due to the change:
```
CI->getCalledFunction()->getName().contains("longjmp")
```
There are several concrete issues here:
- The callee may not be a function, so `getCalledFunction` can assert.
- The called value may not have a name, so `getName` can assert.
- There's no distinction made between "my_longjmp_test_helper" and the
actual longjmp libcall.
At a higher level, there's a serious layering problem here. The
splitting pass makes policy decisions in a general way (e.g. based on
attributes or profile data). Special-casing certain names breaks the
layering. It subverts the work of library maintainers (who may now need
to opt-out of unexpected optimization behavior for any affected
functions) and can lead to inconsistent optimization behavior (as not
all llvm passes special-case ".*longjmp.*" in the same way).
The patch may need significant revision to address these issues.
But the immediate issue is that this crashes while compiling llvm's unit
tests in a stage2 build (due to the `getName` problem).
Add support for (if enabled) splitting cold functions into a separate section
in order to further boost locality of hot code.
Authored by: rjf (Ruijie Fang)
Reviewed by: hiraditya,rcorcs,vsk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85331
This reverts commit aa1f905890fbbfedf396530f1e14409875ece13c.
The flag -codegenprepare maybe causing failures. Reverting this
to investigate the root cause.
During extraction, stale llvm.assume handles may be retained in the
original function. The setup is:
1) CodeExtractor unregisters assumptions in the blocks that are to be
extracted.
2) Extraction happens. There are now two functions: f1 and f1.extracted.
3) Leftover assumptions in f1 (/not/ removed as they were not in the set of
blocks to be extracted) now have affected-value llvm.assume handles in
f1.extracted.
When assumptions for a value used in f1 are looked up, ValueTracking can assert
as some of the handles are in the wrong function. To fix this, simply erase the
llvm.assume calls in the extracted function.
Alternatives include flushing the assumption cache in the original function, or
walking all values used in the original function to prune stale affected-value
handles. Both seem more expensive.
Testing: check-llvm, LNT run with -mllvm -hot-cold-split enabled
rdar://58460728
After extracting, fix up debug info in both the old and new functions by
1) Pointing line locations and debug intrinsics to the new subprogram
scope, and
2) Deleting intrinsics which point to values outside of the new
function.
Depends on https://reviews.llvm.org/D72795.
Testing: check-llvm, check-clang, a build of LNT in the `-Os -g` config
with "-mllvm -hot-cold-split=1" set, and end-to-end debugging of a toy
program which undergoes splitting to verify that lldb can find
variables, single step, etc. in extracted code.
rdar://45507940
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72801
A function marked `noreturn` may contain unreachable terminators: these
should not be considered cold, as the function may be a trampoline.
rdar://58068594
Summary:
This cropped up in the Linux kernel where cold code was placed in an
incompatible section.
Reviewers: compnerd, vsk, tejohnson
Reviewed By: vsk
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70925
When a cold path is outlined, the value tracking in the assumption cache may be
invalidated due to the code motion. We would previously trip an assertion in
subsequent passes (but required the passes to happen in a single run as the
assumption cache is shared across the passes). Invalidating the cache ensures
that we get the correct information when needed with the legacy pass manager as
well.
llvm-svn: 372667
An alloca which can be sunk into the extraction region may have more
than one bitcast use. Move these uses along with the alloca to prevent
use-before-def.
Testing: check-llvm, stage2 build of clang
Fixes llvm.org/PR42451.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64463
llvm-svn: 365660
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Splitting can make sanitizer errors harder to understand, as the
trapping instruction may not be in the function where the bug was
detected.
rdar://48142697
llvm-svn: 354931
If a lifetime.end marker occurs along one path through the extraction
region, but not another, then it's still incorrect to lift the marker,
because there is some path through the extracted function which would
ordinarily not reach the marker. If the call to the extracted function
is in a loop, unrolling can cause inputs to the function to become
optimized out as undef after the first iteration.
To prevent incorrect stack slot merging in the calling function, it
should be sufficient to lift lifetime.start markers for region inputs.
I've tested this theory out by doing a stage2 check-all with randomized
splitting enabled.
This is a follow-up to r353973, and there's additional context for this
change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834.
rdar://47896986
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58253
llvm-svn: 354159
When CodeExtractor finds liftime markers referencing inputs to the
extraction region, it lifts these markers out of the region and inserts
them around the call to the extracted function (see r350420, PR39671).
However, it should *only* lift lifetime markers that are actually
present in the extraction region. I.e., if a start marker is present in
the extraction region but a corresponding end marker isn't (or vice
versa), only the start marker (or end marker, resp.) should be lifted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834
llvm-svn: 353973
Summary:
When compiling with profile data, ensure the split cold function gets
cold function_entry_count metadata (just use 0 since it should be cold).
Otherwise with function sections it will not be placed in the unlikely
text section with other cold code.
Reviewers: vsk
Subscribers: sebpop, hiraditya, davidxl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57900
llvm-svn: 353434
Resumes that are not reachable from a cleanup landing pad are considered
to be unreachable. It’s not safe to split them out.
rdar://47808235
llvm-svn: 353242
