This caused non-determinism in the compiler, see command on the Phabricator
code review.
> This patch addresses a performance problem reported in PR43855, and
> present in the reapplication in in 001574938e5. It turns out that
> MachineSink will (often) move instructions to the first block that
> post-dominates the current block, and then try to sink further. This
> means if we have a lot of conditionals, we can needlessly create large
> numbers of DBG_VALUEs, one in each block the sunk instruction passes
> through.
>
> To fix this, rather than immediately sinking DBG_VALUEs, record them in
> a pass structure. When sinking is complete and instructions won't be
> sunk any further, new DBG_VALUEs are added, avoiding lots of
> intermediate DBG_VALUE $noregs being created.
>
> Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70676
This patch addresses a performance problem reported in PR43855, and
present in the reapplication in in 001574938e5. It turns out that
MachineSink will (often) move instructions to the first block that
post-dominates the current block, and then try to sink further. This
means if we have a lot of conditionals, we can needlessly create large
numbers of DBG_VALUEs, one in each block the sunk instruction passes
through.
To fix this, rather than immediately sinking DBG_VALUEs, record them in
a pass structure. When sinking is complete and instructions won't be
sunk any further, new DBG_VALUEs are added, avoiding lots of
intermediate DBG_VALUE $noregs being created.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70676
Fix part of PR43855, resolving a problem that comes from the reapplication
in 001574938e5. If we have two DBG_VALUE insts in a block that specify
the location of the same variable, for example:
%0 = someinst
DBG_VALUE %0, !123, !DIExpression()
%1 = anotherinst
DBG_VALUE %1, !123, !DIExpression()
if %0 were to sink, the corresponding DBG_VALUE would sink too, past the
next DBG_VALUE, effectively re-ordering assignments. To fix this, I've
added a SeenDbgVars set recording what variable locations have been seen in
a block already (working bottom up), and now flag DBG_VALUEs that would
pass a later DBG_VALUE for the same variable.
NB, this only works for repeated DBG_VALUEs in the same basic block, the
general case involving control flow is much harder, which I've written
up in PR44117.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70672
These were:
* D58386 / f5e1b718a6 / reverted in d382a8a768
* D58238 / ee50590e16 / reverted in a8db456b53
Of which the latter has a performance regression tracked in PR43855,
fixed by D70672 / D70676, which will be committed atomically with this
reapplication.
Contains a minor difference to account for a change in the IsCopyInstr
signature.
This reverts commit f5e1b718a6.
PR43855 reports a performance regression with commit ee50590e. This commit
depends on the faulty one, so has to come out too.
In the Pre-RA machine sinker, previously we were relying on all DBG_VALUEs
being immediately after the instruction that defined their operands. This
isn't a valid assumption, as a variable location change doesn't
necessarily correspond to where the value is computed. In this patch, we
collect DBG_VALUEs that might need sinking as we walk through a block,
and sink all of them if their defining instruction is sunk.
This patch adds some copy propagation too, so that if we sink a copy inst,
the now non-dominated paths can use the copy source for the variable
location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58386
Hans Wennborg