Since `BlockMass` is an implementation detail and there are no current
users of this, delete `BlockMass::operator*=(BlockMass)`. I might need
this when I try to strip out `UnsignedFloat`, but I can pull it back in
at that point.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207546 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This calls emitOptimizationRemark from the loop unroller and vectorizer
at the point where they make a positive transformation. For the
vectorizer, it reports vectorization and interleave factors. For the
loop unroller, it reports all the different supported types of
unrolling.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3456
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207528 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
requiring full control over the various parameters to the std::iterator
concept / trait thing. This is a precursor for adjusting these things to
where you can write a bidirectional iterator wrapping a random access
iterator with custom increment and decrement logic.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207487 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts commit r207287, reapplying r207286.
I'm hoping that declaring an explicit struct and instantiating
`addBlockEdges()` directly works around the GCC crash from r207286.
This is a lot more boilerplate, though.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207438 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
API requirements much more obvious.
The key here is that there are two totally different use cases for
mutating the graph. Prior to doing any SCC formation, it is very easy to
mutate the graph. There may be users that want to do small tweaks here,
and then use the already-built graph for their SCC-based operations.
This method remains on the graph itself and is documented carefully as
being cheap but unavailable once SCCs are formed.
Once SCCs are formed, and there is some in-flight DFS building them, we
have to be much more careful in how we mutate the graph. These mutation
operations are sunk onto the SCCs themselves, which both simplifies
things (the code was already there!) and helps make it obvious that
these interfaces are only applicable within that context. The other
primary constraint is that the edge being mutated is actually related to
the SCC on which we call the method. This helps make it obvious that you
cannot arbitrarily mutate some other SCC.
I've tried to write much more complete documentation for the interesting
mutation API -- intra-SCC edge removal. Currently one aspect of this
documentation is a lie (the result list of SCCs) but we also don't even
have tests for that API. =[ I'm going to add tests and fix it to match
the documentation next.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207339 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
them, just skip over any DFS-numbered nodes when finding the next root
of a DFS. This allows the entry set to just be a vector as we populate
it from a uniqued source. It also removes the possibility for a linear
scan of the entry set to actually do the removal which can make things
go quadratic if we get unlucky.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207312 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
makes working through the worklist much cleaner, and makes it possible
to avoid the 'bool-to-continue-the-outer-loop' hack. Not a huge
difference, but I think this is approaching as polished as I can make
it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207310 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
processed in the DFS out of the stack completely. Keep it exclusively in
a variable. Re-shuffle some code structure to make this easier. This can
have a very dramatic effect in some cases because call graphs tend to
look like a high fan-out spanning tree. As a consequence, there are
a large number of leaf nodes in the graph, and this technique causes
leaf nodes to never even go into the stack. While this only reduces the
max depth by 1, it may cause the total number of round trips through the
stack to drop by a lot.
Now, most of this isn't really relevant for the incremental version. =]
But I wanted to prototype it first here as this variant is in ways more
complex. As long as I can get the code factored well here, I'll next
make the primary walk look the same. There are several refactorings this
exposes I think.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207306 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a helper function. Also factor the other two places where we did the
same thing into the helper function. =] Much cleaner this way. NFC.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207300 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Previously, irreducible backedges were ignored. With this commit,
irreducible SCCs are discovered on the fly, and modelled as loops with
multiple headers.
This approximation specifies the headers of irreducible sub-SCCs as its
entry blocks and all nodes that are targets of a backedge within it
(excluding backedges within true sub-loops). Block frequency
calculations act as if we insert a new block that intercepts all the
edges to the headers. All backedges and entries to the irreducible SCC
point to this imaginary block. This imaginary block has an edge (with
even probability) to each header block.
The result is now reasonable enough that I've added a number of
testcases for irreducible control flow. I've outlined in
`BlockFrequencyInfoImpl.h` ways to improve the approximation.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207286 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Move a lot of the loop-related logic that was sprinkled around the code
into `LoopData`.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207258 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Remove the concepts of "forward" and "general" mass distributions, which
was wrong. The split might have made sense in an early version of the
algorithm, but it's definitely wrong now.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207195 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Make `getPackagedNode()` a member function of
`BlockFrequencyInfoImplBase` so that it's available for templated code.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Continue refactoring to make `LoopData` first-class. Here I'm making
the `LoopData` hierarchy explicit, instead of bouncing back and forth
with `WorkingData`. This simplifies the logic and better matches the
`LoopInfo` design. (Eventually, `LoopInfo` should be restructured so
that it supports this pass, and `LoopData` can be removed.)
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207180 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As pointed out by David Blaikie in code review, a `std::list<T>` is
simpler than a `std::vector<std::unique_ptr<T>>`. Another option is a
`std::deque<T>` (which allocates in chunks), but I'd like to leave open
the option of inserting in the middle of the sequence for handling
irreducible control flow on the fly.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207177 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
algorithm here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=177301.
The idea of isolating the roots has even more relevance when using the
stack not just to implement the DFS but also to implement the recursive
step. Because we use it for the recursive step, to isolate the roots we
need to maintain two stacks: one for our recursive DFS walk, and another
of the nodes that have been walked. The nice thing is that the latter
will be half the size. It also fixes a complete hack where we scanned
backwards over the stack to find the next potential-root to continue
processing. Now that is always the top of the DFS stack.
While this is a really nice improvement already (IMO) it further opens
the door for two important simplifications:
1) De-duplicating some of the code across the two different walks. I've
actually made the duplication a bit worse in some senses with this
patch because the two are starting to converge.
2) Dramatically simplifying the loop structures of both walks.
I wanted to do those separately as they'll be essentially *just* CFG
restructuring. This patch on the other hand actually uses different
datastructures to implement the algorithm itself.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207098 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a SmallPtrSet. Currently, there is no need for stable iteration in this
dimension, and I now thing there won't need to be going forward.
If this is ever re-introduced in any form, it needs to not be
a SetVector based solution because removal cannot be linear. There will
be many SCCs with large numbers of parents. When encountering these, the
incremental SCC update for intra-SCC edge removal was quadratic due to
linear removal (kind of).
I'm really hoping we can avoid having an ordering property here at all
though...
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207091 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
than functions. So far, this access pattern is *much* more common. It
seems likely that any user of this interface is going to have nodes at
the point that they are querying the SCCs.
No functionality changed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@207045 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This implements the core functionality necessary to remove an edge from
the call graph and correctly update both the basic graph and the SCC
structure. As part of that it has to run a tiny (in number of nodes)
Tarjan-style DFS walk of an SCC being mutated to compute newly formed
SCCs, etc.
This is *very rough* and a WIP. I have a bunch of FIXMEs for code
cleanup that will reduce the boilerplate in this change substantially.
I also have a bunch of simplifications to various parts of both
algorithms that I want to make, but first I'd like to have a more
holistic picture. Ideally, I'd also like more testing. I'll probably add
quite a few more unit tests as I go here to cover the various different
aspects and corner cases of removing edges from the graph.
Still, this is, so far, successfully updating the SCC graph in-place
without disrupting the identity established for the existing SCCs even
when we do challenging things like delete the critical edge that made an
SCC cycle at all and have to reform things as a tree of smaller SCCs.
Getting this to work is really critical for the new pass manager as it
is going to associate significant state with the SCC instance and needs
it to be stable. That is also the motivation behind the return of the
newly formed SCCs. Eventually, I'll wire this all the way up to the
public API so that the pass manager can use it to correctly re-enqueue
newly formed SCCs into a fresh postorder traversal.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206968 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
up the stack finishing the exploration of each entries children before
we're finished in addition to accounting for their low-links. Added
a unittest that really hammers home the need for this with interlocking
cycles that would each appear distinct otherwise and crash or compute
the wrong result. As part of this, nuke a stale fixme and bring the rest
of the implementation still more closely in line with the original
algorithm.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206966 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
parents of an SCC, and add a lookup method for finding the SCC for
a given function. These aren't used yet, but will be used shortly in
some unit tests I'm adding and are really part of the broader intended
interface for the analysis.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206959 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
resisted this for too long. Just with the basic testing here I was able
to exercise the analysis in more detail and sift out both type signature
bugs in the API and a bug in the DFS numbering. All of these are fixed
here as well.
The unittests will be much more important for the mutation support where
it is necessary to craft minimal mutations and then inspect the state of
the graph. There is just no way to do that with a standard FileCheck
test. However, unittesting these kinds of analyses is really quite easy,
especially as they're designed with the new pass manager where there is
essentially no infrastructure required to rig up the core logic and
exercise it at an API level.
As a minor aside about the DFS numbering bug, the DFS numbering used in
LCG is a bit unusual. Rather than numbering from 0, we number from 1,
and use 0 as the sentinel "unvisited" state. Other implementations often
use '-1' for this, but I find it easier to deal with 0 and it shouldn't
make any real difference provided someone doesn't write silly bugs like
forgetting to actually initialize the DFS numbering. Oops. ;]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206954 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
into a helper function. I plan to re-use it for doing incremental
DFS-based updates to the SCCs when we mutate the call graph.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206948 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the Callee list. This is going to be quite important to prevent removal
from going quadratic. No functionality changed at this point, this is
one of the refactoring patches I've broken out of my initial work toward
mutation updates of the call graph.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206938 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Store pointers directly to loops inside the nodes. This could have been
done without changing the type stored in `std::vector<>`. However,
rather than computing the number of loops before constructing them
(which `LoopInfo` doesn't provide directly), I've switched to a
`vector<unique_ptr<LoopData>>`.
This adds some heap overhead, but the number of loops is typically
small.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@206857 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
