Commit Graph

19 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Reid Kleckner
05da2fe521 Sink all InitializePasses.h includes
This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.

I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
  recompiles    touches affected_files  header
  342380        95      3604    llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
  314730        234     1345    llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
  307036        118     2602    llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
  213049        59      3611    llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
  170422        47      3626    llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
  162225        45      3605    llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
  158319        63      2513    llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
  140322        39      3598    llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
  137647        59      2333    llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
  131619        73      1803    llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h

Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.

Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211
2019-11-13 16:34:37 -08:00
Michael Kruse
031bb16556 Apply include-what-you-use #include removal suggestions. NFC.
This removes unused includes (and forward declarations) as
suggested by include-what-you-use. If a transitive include of a removed
include is required to compile a file, I added the required header (or
forward declaration if suggested by include-what-you-use).

This should reduce compilation time and reduce the number of iterative
recompilations when a header was changed.

llvm-svn: 357209
2019-03-28 20:19:49 +00:00
Chandler Carruth
2946cd7010 Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636
2019-01-19 08:50:56 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
3867bae74b [MaximalStaticExpansion] Replace isl foreach calls with for loops
llvm-svn: 337243
2018-07-17 06:33:34 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
6a6d9df78e getDependences to new C++ interface
Reviewers: Meinersbur, grosser, bollu, cs15btech11044, jdoerfert

Reviewed By: grosser

Subscribers: pollydev, llvm-commits

Tags: #polly

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47786

llvm-svn: 334092
2018-06-06 13:10:32 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
d3d3d6b75d Remove the last uses of isl::give and isl::take
llvm-svn: 331126
2018-04-29 00:28:26 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
da3e8c4ba7 [DeLICM] Remove uses of isl::give
llvm-svn: 331122
2018-04-28 22:11:55 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
77e871aaf5 [MaximalStaticExpansion] Replace copied function with version from ISLTools
llvm-svn: 331118
2018-04-28 20:42:35 +00:00
Tobias Grosser
3a99893618 Adjust to clang-format changes
llvm-svn: 328005
2018-03-20 17:16:32 +00:00
Davide Italiano
b0c7dee0b6 [MaximalStaticExpansion] Simplify this code a bit. NFCI.
llvm-svn: 318988
2017-11-25 23:01:31 +00:00
Michael Kruse
58166b13e0 Run polly-update-format. NFC.
polly-check-format has been failing since at least r318517,
due to more than one cause.

llvm-svn: 318795
2017-11-21 19:25:26 +00:00
Adam Nemet
e0f1541f41 Rename OptimizationDiagnosticInfo.h to OptimizationRemarkEmitter.h
Polly version of r315249 on LLVM trunk.

llvm-svn: 315253
2017-10-09 23:49:08 +00:00
Reid Kleckner
b79e7a6897 Fix some unused warnings in polly
llvm-svn: 312755
2017-09-07 22:46:51 +00:00
Mandeep Singh Grang
c2774a549b [polly] Fix non-deterministic output due to iteration of unordered ScopArrayInfo
Summary:
This fixes the following failures in the reverse iteration builder:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/reverse-iteration/builds/25

    Polly :: MaximalStaticExpansion/working_deps_between_inners.ll
    Polly :: MaximalStaticExpansion/working_expansion_multiple_dependences_per_statement.ll
    Polly :: MaximalStaticExpansion/working_expansion_multiple_instruction_per_statement.ll
    Polly :: MaximalStaticExpansion/working_phi_expansion.ll

Reviewers: simbuerg, Eugene.Zelenko, grosser, zinob, bollu

Reviewed By: grosser

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37349

llvm-svn: 312273
2017-08-31 20:10:30 +00:00
Eugene Zelenko
a32707d5b1 [Polly] Fix some Clang-tidy modernize and Include What You Use warnings; other minor fixes (NFC).
llvm-svn: 311802
2017-08-25 21:35:27 +00:00
Andreas Simbuerger
e478e2de83 [Polly][WIP] Scalar fully indexed expansion
Summary:
This patch comes directly after https://reviews.llvm.org/D34982 which allows fully indexed expansion of MemoryKind::Array. This patch allows expansion for MemoryKind::Value and MemoryKind::PHI.

MemoryKind::Value seems to be working with no majors modifications of D34982. A test case has been added. Unfortunatly, no "run time" checks can be done for now because as @Meinersbur explains in a comment on D34982, DependenceInfo need to be cleared and reset to take expansion into account in the remaining part of the Polly pipeline. There is no way to do that in Polly for now.

MemoryKind::PHI is not working. Test case is in place, but not working. To expand MemoryKind::Array, we expand first the write and then after the reads. For MemoryKind::PHI, the idea of the current implementation is to exchange the "roles" of the read and write and expand first the read according to its domain and after the writes.
But with this strategy, I still encounter the problem of union_map in new access map.
For example with the following source code (source code of the test case) :

```
void mse(double A[Ni], double B[Nj]) {
  int i,j;
  double tmp = 6;
  for (i = 0; i < Ni; i++) {
    for (int j = 0; j<Nj; j++) {
      tmp = tmp + 2;
    }
    B[i] = tmp;
  }
}
```

Polly gives us the following statements and memory accesses :

```
    Statements {
    	Stmt_for_body
            Domain :=
                { Stmt_for_body[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 };
            Schedule :=
                { Stmt_for_body[i0] -> [i0, 0, 0] };
            ReadAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_body[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_04__phi[] };
            MustWriteAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_body[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
            Instructions {
                  %tmp.04 = phi double [ 6.000000e+00, %entry.split ], [ %add.lcssa, %for.end ]
            }
    	Stmt_for_inc
            Domain :=
                { Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9999 };
            Schedule :=
                { Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> [i0, 1, i1] };
            MustWriteAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
            ReadAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
            MustWriteAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_add_lcssa__phi[] };
            Instructions {
                  %tmp.11 = phi double [ %tmp.04, %for.body ], [ %add, %for.inc ]
                  %add = fadd double %tmp.11, 2.000000e+00
                  %exitcond = icmp ne i32 %inc, 10000
            }
    	Stmt_for_end
            Domain :=
                { Stmt_for_end[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 };
            Schedule :=
                { Stmt_for_end[i0] -> [i0, 2, 0] };
            MustWriteAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_04__phi[] };
            ReadAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
                { Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_add_lcssa__phi[] };
            MustWriteAccess :=	[Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 0]
                { Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_B[i0] };
            Instructions {
                  %add.lcssa = phi double [ %add, %for.inc ]
                  store double %add.lcssa, double* %arrayidx, align 8
                  %exitcond5 = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next, 10000
            }
    }

```

and the following dependences :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, 9999] -> Stmt_for_end[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999;
Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> Stmt_for_inc[i0, 1 + i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9998;
Stmt_for_body[i0] -> Stmt_for_inc[i0, 0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999;
Stmt_for_end[i0] -> Stmt_for_body[1 + i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9998 }
```

When trying to expand this memory access :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
```

The new access map would look like this :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, 9999] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi_exp[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999; Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] ->MemRef_tmp_11__phi_exp[i0, 1 + i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9998 }
```

The idea to implement the expansion for PHI access is an idea from @Meinersbur and I don't understand why my implementation does not work. I should have miss something in the understanding of the idea.

Contributed by: Nicolas Bonfante <nicolas.bonfante@gmail.com>

Reviewers: Meinersbur, simbuerg, bollu

Reviewed By: Meinersbur

Subscribers: llvm-commits, pollydev, Meinersbur

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36647

llvm-svn: 311619
2017-08-24 00:04:45 +00:00
Michael Kruse
a1579aab46 [MaximumStaticExpansion] Avoid warning in release builds.
Conditionally compile function only used in an assert().

llvm-svn: 311549
2017-08-23 12:50:02 +00:00
Andreas Simbuerger
8d5b257d02 [Polly][Bug fix] Wrong dependences filtering during Fully Indexed expansion
Summary:
When trying to expand memory accesses, the current version of Polly uses statement Level dependences. The actual implementation is not working in case of multiple dependences per statement. For example in the following source code :
```
void mse(double A[Ni], double B[Nj], double C[Nj], double D[Nj]) {
  int i,j;
  for (j = 0; j < Ni; j++) {
    for (int i = 0; i<Nj; i++)
S:    B[i] = i;
    for (int i = 0; i<Nj; i++)
T:    D[i] = i;

U:  A[j] = B[j];
      C[j] = D[j];
  }
}
```
The statement U has two dependences with S and T. The current version of polly fails during expansion.

This patch aims to fix this bug. For that, we use Reference Level dependences to be able to filter dependences according to statement and memory ref. The principle of expansion remains the same as before.

We also noticed that we need to bail out if load come after store (at the same position) in same statement. So a check was added to isExpandable.

Contributed by: Nicholas Bonfante <nicolas.bonfante@insa-lyon.fr>

Reviewers: Meinersbur, simbuerg, bollu

Reviewed By: Meinersbur, simbuerg

Subscribers: pollydev, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36791

llvm-svn: 311165
2017-08-18 15:01:18 +00:00
Andreas Simbuerger
81fb6b3e40 [Polly] Fully-Indexed static expansion
This commit implements the initial version of fully-indexed static
expansion.

```
 for(int i = 0; i<Ni; i++)
   for(int j = 0; j<Ni; j++)
S:     B[j] = j;
T: A[i] = B[i]
```

After the pass, we want this :
```
 for(int i = 0; i<Ni; i++)
   for(int j = 0; j<Ni; j++)
S:     B[i][j] = j;
T: A[i] = B[i][i]
```

For now we bail (fail) in the following cases:
  - Scalar access
  - Multiple writes per SAI
  - MayWrite Access
  - Expansion that leads to an access to the original array

Furthermore: We still miss checks for escaping references to the array
base pointers. A future commit will add the missing escape-checks to
stay correct in those cases. The expansion is still locked behind a
CLI-Option and should not yet be used.

Patch contributed by: Nicholas Bonfante <bonfante.nicolas@gmail.com>

Reviewers: simbuerg, Meinersbur, bollu

Reviewed By: Meinersbur

Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, pollydev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34982

llvm-svn: 310304
2017-08-07 20:54:20 +00:00