clang w/ old-pm currently would simply crash
when -mllvm -enable-knowledge-retention=true is specified.
Clearly, these two passes had no Old-PM test coverage,
which would have shown the problem - not requiring AssumptionCacheTracker,
but then trying to always get it.
Also, why try to get domtree only if it's cached,
but at the same time marking it as required?
Summary:
this reduces significantly the number of assumes generated without aftecting too much
the information that is preserved. this improves the compile-time cost
of enable-knowledge-retention significantly.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79650
Summary:
this reduces significantly the number of assumes generated without aftecting too much
the information that is preserved. this improves the compile-time cost
of enable-knowledge-retention significantly.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79650
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
The "null-pointer-is-valid" attribute needs to be checked by many
pointer-related combines. To make the check more efficient, convert
it from a string into an enum attribute.
In the future, this attribute may be replaced with data layout
properties.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Summary:
this patch fixe crash/asserts found in the test-suite.
the AssumeptionCache cannot be assumed to have all assumes contrary to what i tought.
prevent generation of information for terminators, because this can create broken IR in transfromation where we insert the new terminator before removing the old one.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79458
don't span their entire scope.
The previous commit (6d1c40c171e) is an older version of the test.
Reviewed By: aprantl, vsk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79573
Summary:
The assume builder was non-deterministic when working on unamed values.
this patch fixes this.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, mgrang, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78616
Summary: with this patch the assume salvageKnowledge will not generate assume if all knowledge is already available in an assume with valid context. assume bulider can also in some cases update an existing assume with better information.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78014
Summary:
refactor assume bulider for the next patch.
the assume builder now generate only one assume per attribute kind and per value they are on. to do this it takes the highest. this is desirable because currently, for all attributes the higest value is the most valuable.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78013
Summary:
Splitting Knowledge retention into Queries in Analysis and Builder into Transform/Utils
allows Queries and Transform/Utils to use Analysis.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77171
Summary:
Assume bundles need to be usable by Analysis and Transforms/Utils isn't.
so this commit moves utilities to deal with asusme bundles to IR.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75618
Fix attempt
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
Summary:
this is part of the implementation of http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
this patch gives the basis of building an assume to preserve all information from an instruction and add support for building an assume that preserve the information from a call.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: mgrang, fhahn, mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475
