Generate tables in the .xdata section representing what actions to take
when an exception is thrown. This currently fills in state for
cleanups, catch handlers are still unfinished.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@233636 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This makes it more obvious that the enum definition and the
"StandardName" array is in sync. Mechanically refactored w/ a
python script.
Test Plan: still compiles
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7845
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@231172 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
manager to support the actual uses of it. =]
When I ported instcombine to the new pass manager I discover that it
didn't work because TLI wasn't available in the right places. This is
a somewhat surprising and/or subtle aspect of the new pass manager
design that came up before but I think is useful to be reminded of:
While the new pass manager *allows* a function pass to query a module
analysis, it requires that the module analysis is already run and cached
prior to the function pass manager starting up, possibly with
a 'require<foo>' style utility in the pass pipeline. This is an
intentional hurdle because using a module analysis from a function pass
*requires* that the module analysis is run prior to entering the
function pass manager. Otherwise the other functions in the module could
be in who-knows-what state, etc.
A somewhat surprising consequence of this design decision (at least to
me) is that you have to design a function pass that leverages
a module analysis to do so as an optional feature. Even if that means
your function pass does no work in the absence of the module analysis,
you have to handle that possibility and remain conservatively correct.
This is a natural consequence of things being able to invalidate the
module analysis and us being unable to re-run it. And it's a generally
good thing because it lets us reorder passes arbitrarily without
breaking correctness, etc.
This ends up causing problems in one case. What if we have a module
analysis that is *definitionally* impossible to invalidate. In the
places this might come up, the analysis is usually also definitionally
trivial to run even while other transformation passes run on the module,
regardless of the state of anything. And so, it follows that it is
natural to have a hard requirement on such analyses from a function
pass.
It turns out, that TargetLibraryInfo is just such an analysis, and
InstCombine has a hard requirement on it.
The approach I've taken here is to produce an analysis that models this
flexibility by making it both a module and a function analysis. This
exposes the fact that it is in fact safe to compute at any point. We can
even make it a valid CGSCC analysis at some point if that is useful.
However, we don't want to have a copy of the actual target library info
state for each function! This state is specific to the triple. The
somewhat direct and blunt approach here is to turn TLI into a pimpl,
with the state and mutators in the implementation class and the query
routines primarily in the wrapper. Then the analysis can lazily
construct and cache the implementations, keyed on the triple, and
on-demand produce wrappers of them for each function.
One minor annoyance is that we will end up with a wrapper for each
function in the module. While this is a bit wasteful (one pointer per
function) it seems tolerable. And it has the advantage of ensuring that
we pay the absolute minimum synchronization cost to access this
information should we end up with a nice parallel function pass manager
in the future. We could look into trying to mark when analysis results
are especially cheap to recompute and more eagerly GC-ing the cached
results, or we could look at supporting a variant of analyses whose
results are specifically *not* cached and expected to just be used and
discarded by the consumer. Either way, these seem like incremental
enhancements that should happen when we start profiling the memory and
CPU usage of the new pass manager and not before.
The other minor annoyance is that if we end up using the TLI in both
a module pass and a function pass, those will be produced by two
separate analyses, and thus will point to separate copies of the
implementation state. While a minor issue, I dislike this and would like
to find a way to cleanly allow a single analysis instance to be used
across multiple IR unit managers. But I don't have a good solution to
this today, and I don't want to hold up all of the work waiting to come
up with one. This too seems like a reasonable thing to incrementally
improve later.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@226981 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
TargetLibraryAnalysis pass.
There are actually no direct tests of this already in the tree. I've
added the most basic test that the pass manager bits themselves work,
and the TLI object produced will be tested by an upcoming patches as
they port passes which rely on TLI.
This is starting to point out the awkwardness of the invalidate API --
it seems poorly fitting on the *result* object. I suspect I will change
it to live on the analysis instead, but that's not for this change, and
I'd rather have a few more passes ported in order to have more
experience with how this plays out.
I believe there is only one more analysis required in order to start
porting instcombine. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@226160 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The pass is really just a means of accessing a cached instance of the
TargetLibraryInfo object, and this way we can re-use that object for the
new pass manager as its result.
Lots of delta, but nothing interesting happening here. This is the
common pattern that is developing to allow analyses to live in both the
old and new pass manager -- a wrapper pass in the old pass manager
emulates the separation intrinsic to the new pass manager between the
result and pass for analyses.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@226157 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
While the term "Target" is in the name, it doesn't really have to do
with the LLVM Target library -- this isn't an abstraction which LLVM
targets generally need to implement or extend. It has much more to do
with modeling the various runtime libraries on different OSes and with
different runtime environments. The "target" in this sense is the more
general sense of a target of cross compilation.
This is in preparation for porting this analysis to the new pass
manager.
No functionality changed, and updates inbound for Clang and Polly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@226078 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
