directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@199082 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
operand into the Value interface just like the core print method is.
That gives a more conistent organization to the IR printing interfaces
-- they are all attached to the IR objects themselves. Also, update all
the users.
This removes the 'Writer.h' header which contained only a single function
declaration.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@198836 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
AKA: Recompile *ALL* the source code!
This one went much better. No manual edits here. I spot-checked for
silliness and grep-checked for really broken edits and everything seemed
good. It all still compiles. Yell if you see something that looks goofy.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@169133 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The primary advantage is that loop optimizations will be applied in a
stable order. This helps debugging and unit test creation. It is also
a better overall implementation without pathologically bad performance
on deep functions.
On large functions (llvm-stress --size=200000 | opt -loops)
Before: 0.1263s
After: 0.0225s
On deep functions (after tweaking llvm-stress, thanks Nadav):
Before: 0.2281s
After: 0.0227s
See r158790 for more comments.
The loop tree is now consistently generated in forward order, but loop
passes are applied in reverse order over the program. If we have a
loop optimization that prefers forward order, that can easily be
achieved by adding a different type of LoopPassManager.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@159183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
-stable-loops enables a new algorithm for generating the Loop
forest. It differs from the original algorithm in a few respects:
- Not determined by use-list order.
- Initially guarantees RPO order of block and subloops.
- Linear in the number of CFG edges.
- Nonrecursive.
I didn't want to change the LoopInfo API yet, so the block lists are
still inclusive. This seems strange to me, and it means that building
LoopInfo is not strictly linear, but it may not be a problem in
practice. At least the block lists start out in RPO order now. In the
future we may add an attribute or wrapper analysis that allows other
passes to assume RPO order.
The primary motivation of this work was not to optimize LoopInfo, but
to allow reproducing performance issues by decomposing the compilation
stages. I'm often unable to do this with the current LoopInfo, because
the loop tree order determines Loop pass order. Serializing the IR
tends to invert the order, which reverses the optimization order. This
makes it nearly impossible to debug interdependent loop optimizations
such as LSR.
I also believe this will provide more stable performance results across time.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@158790 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The implementation only needs inclusion from LoopInfo.cpp and
MachineLoopInfo.cpp. Clients of the interface should only include the
interface. This makes the interface readable and speeds up rebuilds
after modifying the implementation.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@158787 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
