This patch adds parallel processing of chunks. When reducing very large
inputs, e.g. functions with 500k basic blocks, processing chunks in
parallel can significantly speed up the reduction.
To allow modifying clones of the original module in parallel, each clone
needs their own LLVMContext object. To achieve this, each job parses the
input module with their own LLVMContext. In case a job successfully
reduced the input, it serializes the result module as bitcode into a
result array.
To ensure parallel reduction produces the same results as serial
reduction, only the first successfully reduced result is used, and
results of other successful jobs are dropped. Processing resumes after
the chunk that was successfully reduced.
The number of threads to use can be configured using the -j option.
It defaults to 1, which means serial processing.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113857
Add a new "operands-skip" pass whose goal is to remove instructions in the middle of dependency chains. For instance:
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr i32, i32* %baseptr, i32 %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %arrayidx
```
might be reducible to
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr ... ; now dead, together with the computation of %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %baseptr
```
Other passes would either replace `%baseptr` with undef (operands, instructions) or move it to become a function argument (operands-to-args), both of which might fail the interestingness check.
In principle the implementation allows operand replacement with any value or instruction in the function that passes the filter constraints (same type, dominance, "more reduced"), but is limited in this patch to values that are directly or indirectly used to compute the current operand value, motivated by the example above. Additionally, function arguments are added to the candidate set which helps reducing the number of relevant arguments mitigating a concern of too many arguments mentioned in https://reviews.llvm.org/D110274#3025013.
Possible future extensions:
* Instead of requiring the same type, bitcast/trunc/zext could be automatically inserted for some more flexibility.
* If undef is added to the candidate set, "operands-skip"is able to produce any reduction that "operands" can do. Additional candidates might be zero and one, where the "reductive power" classification can prefer one over the other. If undefined behaviour should not be introduced, undef can be removed from the candidate set.
Recommit after resolving conflict with D112651 and reusing
shouldReduceOperand from D113532.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111818
Add a new "operands-skip" pass whose goal is to remove instructions in the middle of dependency chains. For instance:
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr i32, i32* %baseptr, i32 %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %arrayidx
```
might be reducible to
```
%baseptr = alloca i32
%arrayidx = getelementptr ... ; now dead, together with the computation of %idxprom
store i32 42, i32* %baseptr
```
Other passes would either replace `%baseptr` with undef (operands, instructions) or move it to become a function argument (operands-to-args), both of which might fail the interestingness check.
In principle the implementation allows operand replacement with any value or instruction in the function that passes the filter constraints (same type, dominance, "more reduced"), but is limited in this patch to values that are directly or indirectly used to compute the current operand value, motivated by the example above. Additionally, function arguments are added to the candidate set which helps reducing the number of relevant arguments mitigating a concern of too many arguments mentioned in https://reviews.llvm.org/D110274#3025013.
Possible future extensions:
* Instead of requiring the same type, bitcast/trunc/zext could be automatically inserted for some more flexibility.
* If undef is added to the candidate set, "operands-skip"is able to produce any reduction that "operands" can do. Additional candidates might be zero and one, where the "reductive power" classification can prefer one over the other. If undefined behaviour should not be introduced, undef can be removed from the candidate set.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111818
Arthur Eubanks