…f weights" #95136
Reverts #95060, and relands #86609, with the unintended code generation
changes addressed.
This patch implements the changes to LLVM IR discussed in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-update-branch-weights-metadata-to-allow-tracking-branch-weight-origins/75032
In this patch, we add an optional field to MD_prof meatdata nodes for
branch weights, which can be used to distinguish weights added from
llvm.expect* intrinsics from those added via other methods, e.g. from
profiles or inserted by the compiler.
One of the major motivations, is for use with MisExpect diagnostics,
which need to know if branch_weight metadata originates from an
llvm.expect intrinsic. Without that information, we end up checking
branch weights multiple times in the case if ThinLTO + SampleProfiling,
leading to some inaccuracy in how we report MisExpect related
diagnostics to users.
Since we change the format of MD_prof metadata in a fundamental way, we
need to update code handling branch weights in a number of places.
We also update the lang ref for branch weights to reflect the change.
This patch implements the changes to LLVM IR discussed in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-update-branch-weights-metadata-to-allow-tracking-branch-weight-origins/75032
In this patch, we add an optional field to MD_prof metadata nodes for
branch weights, which can be used to distinguish weights added from
`llvm.expect*` intrinsics from those added via other methods, e.g.
from profiles or inserted by the compiler.
One of the major motivations, is for use with MisExpect diagnostics,
which need to know if branch_weight metadata originates from an
llvm.expect intrinsic. Without that information, we end up checking
branch weights multiple times in the case if ThinLTO + SampleProfiling,
leading to some inaccuracy in how we report MisExpect related
diagnostics to users.
Since we change the format of MD_prof metadata in a fundamental way, we
need to update code handling branch weights in a number of places.
We also update the lang ref for branch weights to reflect the change.
See discussion in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45073 / https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2334485
the implementation is known-broken for certain inputs,
the bugreport was up for a significant amount of timer,
and there has been no activity to address it.
Therefore, just completely rip out all of misexpect handling.
I suspect, fixing it requires redesigning the internals of MD_misexpect.
Should anyone commit to fixing the implementation problem,
starting from clean slate may be better anyways.
This reverts commit 7bdad08429411e7d0ecd58cd696b1efe3cff309e,
and some of it's follow-ups, that don't stand on their own.
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
Jeremy Morse discovered an issue with the lit test introduced in D88363. The
test gives different results for Sony's `-O1`.
The test needs to run at `-O1` otherwise the likelihood attribute will be
ignored. Instead of running all `-O1` passes it only runs the lower-expect pass
which is needed to lower `__builtin_expect`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89204
Bruno De Fraine discovered some issues with D85091. The branch weights
generated for `logical not` and `ternary conditional` were wrong. The
`logical and` and `logical or` differed from the code generated of
`__builtin_predict`.
Adjusted the generated code for the likelihood to match
`__builtin_predict`. The patch is based on Bruno's suggestions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88363
