For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
There are two nontrivial details here:
* Loop structure update interface is quite different with new pass manager,
so the code to add new loops was factored out
* BranchProbabilityInfo is not a loop analysis, so it can not be just getResult'ed from
within the loop pass. It cant even be queried through getCachedResult as LoopCanonicalization
sequence (e.g. LoopSimplify) might invalidate BPI results.
Complete solution for BPI will likely take some time to discuss and figure out,
so for now this was partially solved by making BPI optional in IRCE
(skipping a couple of profitability checks if it is absent).
Most of the IRCE tests got their corresponding new-pass-manager variant enabled.
Only two of them depend on BPI, both marked with TODO, to be turned on when BPI
starts being available for loop passes.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mkazantsev, sanjoy, asbirlea
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43795
llvm-svn: 327619
When iterating through loop
for (int i = INT_MAX; i > 0; i--)
We fail to generate the pre-loop for it. It happens because we use the
overflown value in a comparison predicate when identifying whether or not
we need it.
In old logic, we used SLE predicate against Greatest value which exceeds all
seen values of the IV and might be overflown. Now we use the GreatestSeen
value of this IV with SLT predicate.
Also added a test that ensures that a pre-loop is generated for such loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35347
llvm-svn: 308001
Eli Friedman