DataLayout is no longer optional. It was initialized with or without
a DataLayout, and the DataLayout when supplied could have been the
one from the TargetMachine.
Summary:
This change is part of a series of commits dedicated to have a single
DataLayout during compilation by using always the one owned by the
module.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits, rafael, yaron.keren
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11021
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@241774 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
now that we have a correct and cached subtarget specific to the
function.
Also, finish providing a cached per-function subtarget in the core
LLVMTargetMachine -- that layer hadn't switched over yet.
The only use of the TargetMachine was to re-lookup a subtarget for
a particular function to work around the fact that TTI was immutable.
Now that it is per-function and we haved a cached subtarget, use it.
This still leaves a few interfaces with real warts on them where we were
passing Function objects through the TTI interface. I'll remove these
and clean their usage up in subsequent commits now that this isn't
necessary.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227738 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
intermediate TTI implementation template and instead query up to the
derived class for both the TargetMachine and the TargetLowering.
Most of the derived types had a TLI cached already and there is no need
to store a less precisely typed target machine pointer.
This will in turn make it much cleaner to look up the TLI via
a per-function subtarget instead of the generic subtarget, and it will
pave the way toward pulling the subtarget used for unroll preferences
into the same form once we are *always* using the function to look up
the correct subtarget.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227737 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
null.
For some reason some of the original TTI code supported a null target
machine. This seems to have been legacy, and I made matters worse when
refactoring this code by spreading that pattern further through the
various targets.
The TargetMachine can't actually be null, and it doesn't make sense to
support that use case. I've now consistently removed it and removed all
of the code trying to cope with that situation. This is probably good,
as several targets *didn't* cope with it being null despite the null
default argument in their constructors. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227734 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227685 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
