The 'getSlot' function and its ilk allow introspection into the AttributeSet
class. However, that class should be opaque. Allow access through accessor
methods instead.
llvm-svn: 173522
Only for integers, pointers, and vectors of those. No floats.
Instrumentation seems very heavy, and may need to be replaced
with some approximation in the future.
llvm-svn: 173452
loops over instructions in the basic block or the use-def list of the
value, neither of which are really efficient when repeatedly querying
about values in the same basic block.
What's more, we already know that the CondBB is small, and so we can do
a much more efficient test by counting the uses in CondBB, and seeing if
those account for all of the uses.
Finally, we shouldn't blanket fail on any such instruction, instead we
should conservatively assume that those instructions are part of the
cost.
Note that this actually fixes a bug in the pass because
isUsedInBasicBlock has a really terrible bug in it. I'll fix that in my
next commit, but the fix for it would make this code suddenly take the
compile time hit I thought it already was taking, so I wanted to go
ahead and migrate this code to a faster & better pattern.
The bug in isUsedInBasicBlock was also causing other tests to test the
wrong thing entirely: for example we weren't actually disabling
speculation for floating point operations as intended (and tested), but
the test passed because we failed to speculate them due to the
isUsedInBasicBlock failure.
llvm-svn: 173417
Original commit message:
Plug TTI into the speculation logic, giving it a real cost interface
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173357
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173342
a cost fuction that seems both a bit ad-hoc and also poorly suited to
evaluating constant expressions.
Notably, it is missing any support for trivial expressions such as
'inttoptr'. I could fix this routine, but it isn't clear to me all of
the constraints its other users are operating under.
The core protection that seems relevant here is avoiding the formation
of a select instruction wich a further chain of select operations in
a constant expression operand. Just explicitly encode that constraint.
Also, update the comments and organization here to make it clear where
this needs to go -- this should be driven off of real cost measurements
which take into account the number of constants expressions and the
depth of the constant expression tree.
llvm-svn: 173340
terms of cost rather than hoisting a single instruction.
This does *not* change the cost model! We still set the cost threshold
at 1 here, it's just that we track it by accumulating cost rather than
by storing an instruction.
The primary advantage is that we no longer leave no-op intrinsics in the
basic block. For example, this will now move both debug info intrinsics
and a single instruction, instead of only moving the instruction and
leaving a basic block with nothing bug debug info intrinsics in it, and
those intrinsics now no longer ordered correctly with the hoisted value.
Instead, we now splice the entire conditional basic block's instruction
sequence.
This also places the code for checking the safety of hoisting next to
the code computing the cost.
Currently, the only observable side-effect of this change is that debug
info intrinsics are no longer abandoned. I'm not sure how to craft
a test case for this, and my real goal was the refactoring, but I'll
talk to Dave or Eric about how to add a test case for this.
llvm-svn: 173339
Previously, the code would scan the PHI nodes and build up a small
setvector of candidate value pairs in phi nodes to go and rewrite. Once
certain the rewrite could be performed, the code walks the set, and for
each one re-scans the entire PHI node list looking for nodes to rewrite
operands.
Instead, scan the PHI nodes once to check for hazards, and then scan it
a second time to rewrite the operands to selects. No set vector, and
a max of two scans.
The only downside is that we might form identical selects, but
instcombine or anything else should fold those easily, and it seems
unlikely to happen often.
llvm-svn: 173337
pretty in doxygen, adding some of the details actually present in
a classic example where this matters (a loop from gzip and many other
compression algorithms), and a cautionary note about the risks inherent
in the transform. This has come up on the mailing lists recently, and
I suspect folks reading this code could benefit from going and looking
at the MI pass that can really deal with these issues.
llvm-svn: 173329
used uninitialized, since it fails to understand that Array is only used when
SingleValue is not, and outputs a warning. It also seems generally safer given
that the constructor is non-trivial and has plenty of early exits.
llvm-svn: 173242
SSPStrong applies a heuristic to insert stack protectors in these situations:
* A Protector is required for functions which contain an array, regardless of
type or length.
* A Protector is required for functions which contain a structure/union which
contains an array, regardless of type or length. Note, there is no limit to
the depth of nesting.
* A protector is required when the address of a local variable (i.e., stack
based variable) is exposed. (E.g., such as through a local whose address is
taken as part of the RHS of an assignment or a local whose address is taken as
part of a function argument.)
This patch implements the SSPString attribute to be equivalent to
SSPRequired. This will change in a subsequent patch.
llvm-svn: 173230
Collections of attributes are handled via the AttributeSet class now. This
finally frees us up to make significant changes to how attributes are structured.
llvm-svn: 173228
The method PerformCodePlacement was doing too much (i.e. 3x loops, lots of
different checking). This refactoring separates the analysis section of the
method into a separate function while leaving the actual code placement and
analysis preparation in PerformCodePlacement.
*NOTE* Really this part of ObjCARC should be refactored out of the main pass
class into its own seperate class/struct. But, it is not time to make that
change yet though (don't want to make such an invasive change without fixing all
of the bugs first).
llvm-svn: 173201
Use the AttributeSet when we're talking about more than one attribute. Add a
function that adds a single attribute. No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 173196
generic function calls and intrinsics. This is somewhat overlapping with
an existing intrinsic cost method, but that one seems targetted at
vector intrinsics. I'll merge them or separate their names and use cases
in a separate commit.
This sinks the test of 'callIsSmall' down into TTI where targets can
control it. The whole thing feels very hack-ish to me though. I've left
a FIXME comment about the fundamental design problem this presents. It
isn't yet clear to me what the users of this function *really* care
about. I'll have to do more analysis to figure that out. Putting this
here at least provides it access to proper analysis pass tools and other
such. It also allows us to more cleanly implement the baseline cost
interfaces in TTI.
With this commit, it is now theoretically possible to simplify much of
the inline cost analysis's handling of calls by calling through to this
interface. That conversion will have to happen in subsequent commits as
it requires more extensive restructuring of the inline cost analysis.
The CodeMetrics class is now really only in the business of running over
a block of code and aggregating the metrics on that block of code, with
the actual cost evaluation done entirely in terms of TTI.
llvm-svn: 173148
This is more code to isolate the use of the Attribute class to that of just
holding one attribute instead of a collection of attributes.
llvm-svn: 173094
is free. The whole CodeMetrics API should probably be reworked more, but
this is enough to allow deleting the duplicate code there for computing
whether an instruction is free.
All of the passes using this have been updated to pull in TTI and hand
it to the CodeMetrics stuff. Further, a dead CodeMetrics API
(analyzeFunction) is nuked for lack of users.
llvm-svn: 173036
a dynamic analysis done on each call to the routine. However, now it can
use the standard pass infrastructure to reference other analyses,
instead of a silly setter method. This will become more interesting as
I teach it about more analysis passes.
This updates the two inliner passes to use the inline cost analysis.
Doing so highlights how utterly redundant these two passes are. Either
we should find a cheaper way to do always inlining, or we should merge
the two and just fiddle with the thresholds to get the desired behavior.
I'm leaning increasingly toward the latter as it would also remove the
Inliner sub-class split.
llvm-svn: 173030
