This broke Chromium's PGO build, it seems because hot-cold-splitting got turned
on unintentionally. See comment on the code review for repro etc.
> This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
> the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
> `-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
> correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
>
> To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
> functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
> removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
> behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
>
> Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
> Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
> Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 273c299d5d.
This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
`-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
During extraction, stale llvm.assume handles may be retained in the
original function. The setup is:
1) CodeExtractor unregisters assumptions in the blocks that are to be
extracted.
2) Extraction happens. There are now two functions: f1 and f1.extracted.
3) Leftover assumptions in f1 (/not/ removed as they were not in the set of
blocks to be extracted) now have affected-value llvm.assume handles in
f1.extracted.
When assumptions for a value used in f1 are looked up, ValueTracking can assert
as some of the handles are in the wrong function. To fix this, simply erase the
llvm.assume calls in the extracted function.
Alternatives include flushing the assumption cache in the original function, or
walking all values used in the original function to prune stale affected-value
handles. Both seem more expensive.
Testing: check-llvm, LNT run with -mllvm -hot-cold-split enabled
rdar://58460728
Hans Wennborg