The whole point of the GenericDomTree.h vs
GenericDomTreeConstruction.h distinction is that the latter only
needs to be included in the source file and not the header.
Similar to D156016 for MapVector.
This brings back commit fae7b98c221b5b28797f7b56b656b6b819d99f27 with a
fix to llvm/unittests/Support/ThreadPool.cpp's `_WIN32` code path.
This is failing on Windows MSVC builds:
llvm\unittests\Support\ThreadPool.cpp(380): error C2440: 'return': cannot convert from 'Vector' to 'std::vector<llvm::BitVector,std::allocator<llvm::BitVector>>'
with
[
Vector=llvm::SmallVector<llvm::BitVector,0>
]
We randomly use outs() or errs(), which makes test logs confusing.
We also randomly add/don't add a line afterward.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136130
Add a new "operands-skip" pass whose goal is to remove instructions in the middle of dependency chains. For instance:
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr i32, i32* %baseptr, i32 %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %arrayidx
```
might be reducible to
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr ... ; now dead, together with the computation of %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %baseptr
```
Other passes would either replace `%baseptr` with undef (operands, instructions) or move it to become a function argument (operands-to-args), both of which might fail the interestingness check.
In principle the implementation allows operand replacement with any value or instruction in the function that passes the filter constraints (same type, dominance, "more reduced"), but is limited in this patch to values that are directly or indirectly used to compute the current operand value, motivated by the example above. Additionally, function arguments are added to the candidate set which helps reducing the number of relevant arguments mitigating a concern of too many arguments mentioned in https://reviews.llvm.org/D110274#3025013.
Possible future extensions:
* Instead of requiring the same type, bitcast/trunc/zext could be automatically inserted for some more flexibility.
* If undef is added to the candidate set, "operands-skip"is able to produce any reduction that "operands" can do. Additional candidates might be zero and one, where the "reductive power" classification can prefer one over the other. If undefined behaviour should not be introduced, undef can be removed from the candidate set.
Recommit after resolving conflict with D112651 and reusing
shouldReduceOperand from D113532.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111818
This reverts commit fa4210a9a0729eba04593b7df7b701e2b243de39.
It causes compile failures, presumably because conflicting with another
patch landed after I checked locally.
Add a new "operands-skip" pass whose goal is to remove instructions in the middle of dependency chains. For instance:
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr i32, i32* %baseptr, i32 %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %arrayidx
```
might be reducible to
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr ... ; now dead, together with the computation of %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %baseptr
```
Other passes would either replace `%baseptr` with undef (operands, instructions) or move it to become a function argument (operands-to-args), both of which might fail the interestingness check.
In principle the implementation allows operand replacement with any value or instruction in the function that passes the filter constraints (same type, dominance, "more reduced"), but is limited in this patch to values that are directly or indirectly used to compute the current operand value, motivated by the example above. Additionally, function arguments are added to the candidate set which helps reducing the number of relevant arguments mitigating a concern of too many arguments mentioned in https://reviews.llvm.org/D110274#3025013.
Possible future extensions:
* Instead of requiring the same type, bitcast/trunc/zext could be automatically inserted for some more flexibility.
* If undef is added to the candidate set, "operands-skip"is able to produce any reduction that "operands" can do. Additional candidates might be zero and one, where the "reductive power" classification can prefer one over the other. If undefined behaviour should not be introduced, undef can be removed from the candidate set.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111818
