There was an alias between 'simplifycfg' and 'simplify-cfg' in the
PassRegistry. That was the original reason for this patch, which
effectively removes the alias.
This patch also replaces all occurrances of 'simplify-cfg'
by 'simplifycfg'. Reason for choosing that form for the name is
that it matches the DEBUG_TYPE for the pass, and the legacy PM name
and also how it is spelled out in other passes such as
'loop-simplifycfg', and in other options such as
'simplifycfg-merge-cond-stores'.
I for some reason the name should be changed to 'simplify-cfg' in
the future, then I think such a renaming should be more widely done
and not only impacting the PassRegistry.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105627
The profitability check is: we don't want to create more than a single PHI
per instruction sunk. We need to create the PHI unless we'll sink
all of it's would-be incoming values.
But there is a caveat there.
This profitability check doesn't converge on the first iteration!
If we first decide that we want to sink 10 instructions,
but then determine that 5'th one is unprofitable to sink,
that may result in us not sinking some instructions that
resulted in determining that some other instruction
we've determined to be profitable to sink becoming unprofitable.
So we need to iterate until we converge, as in determine
that all leftover instructions are profitable to sink.
But, the direct approach of just re-iterating seems dumb,
because in the worst case we'd find that the last instruction
is unprofitable, which would result in revisiting instructions
many many times.
Instead, i think we can get away with just two passes - forward and backward.
However then it isn't obvious what is the most performant way to update
InstructionsToSink.
While we have a known profitability issue for sinking in presence of
non-unconditional predecessors, there isn't any known issues
for having multiple such non-unconditional predecessors,
so said restriction appears to be artificial. Lift it.
There are post-commit notest for e4c61d5 that suggest
the test is failing on certain bots. It looks like
the code there isn't being moved, which suggests
cost-model involvement, which suggests that we need to
hardcode the target triple.
Hopefully this helps?
Bjorn Pettersson