|
Revision tags: llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1 |
|
| #
7fc87159 |
| 25-Jan-2023 |
Paul Robinson <paul.robinson@sony.com> |
[unittests] Use GTEST_SKIP() instead of return when appropriate
Basically NFC: A TEST/TEST_F/etc that bails out early (usually because
setup failed or some other runtime condition wasn't met) genera
[unittests] Use GTEST_SKIP() instead of return when appropriate
Basically NFC: A TEST/TEST_F/etc that bails out early (usually because
setup failed or some other runtime condition wasn't met) generally
should use GTEST_SKIP() to report its status correctly, unless it
takes steps to report another status (e.g., FAIL()).
I did see a handful of tests show up as SKIPPED after this change,
which is not unexpected. The status seemed appropriate in all the new
cases.
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, working, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init, llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1 |
|
| #
989f1c72 |
| 15-Mar-2022 |
serge-sans-paille <sguelton@redhat.com> |
Cleanup codegen includes
This is a (fixed) recommit of https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169
after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844
Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-in
Cleanup codegen includes
This is a (fixed) recommit of https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169
after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844
Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cleanup
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121681
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3 |
|
| #
a278250b |
| 10-Mar-2022 |
Nico Weber <thakis@chromium.org> |
Revert "Cleanup codegen includes"
This reverts commit 7f230feeeac8a67b335f52bd2e900a05c6098f20.
Breaks CodeGenCUDA/link-device-bitcode.cu in check-clang,
and many LLVM tests, see comments on https:/
Revert "Cleanup codegen includes"
This reverts commit 7f230feeeac8a67b335f52bd2e900a05c6098f20.
Breaks CodeGenCUDA/link-device-bitcode.cu in check-clang,
and many LLVM tests, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169
show more ...
|
| #
7f230fee |
| 07-Mar-2022 |
serge-sans-paille <sguelton@redhat.com> |
Cleanup codegen includes
after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1 |
|
| #
dc84770d |
| 15-Nov-2021 |
Amara Emerson <amara@apple.com> |
[GlobalISel] Add a store-merging optimization pass and enable for AArch64.
This is a first attempt at a constant value consecutive store merging pass,
a counterpart to the DAGCombiner's store mergin
[GlobalISel] Add a store-merging optimization pass and enable for AArch64.
This is a first attempt at a constant value consecutive store merging pass,
a counterpart to the DAGCombiner's store merging optimization.
The high level goals of this pass:
* Have a simple and efficient algorithm. As close to linear time as we can get.
Thus, prioritizing scalability of the algorithm over merging every corner case
we can find. The DAGCombiner's store merging code has been the source of
compile time and complexity issues in the past and I wanted to avoid that.
* Don't introduce any new data structures for ordering memory operations. In MIR,
we don't have the concept of chains like we do in the DAG, and the instruction
order is stricter than enforcing ordering with graph edges. Although I
considered adding something similar, I couldn't justify the overhead.
The pass is current split into 3 main parts. The main store merging code focuses
on identifying candidate stores and managing the candidate group that's under
consideration for merging. Analyzing addressing of stores is a potentially
complex part and for now there's just a basic implementation to identify easy
cases. Finally, the other main bit of complexity is the alias analysis, which
tries to follow the same logic as the DAG's AA.
Currently this implementation only supports merging of constant stores. Stores
of arbitrary variables are technically possible with a very small change, but
the DAG chooses not to do this. Doing so here makes most code worse since
there's extra overhead in merging values into wider registers.
On AArch64 -Os, this optimization results in very minor savings on CTMark.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109131
show more ...
|