Skip to content
  1. Jan 05, 2013
    • Jakob Stoklund Olesen's avatar
      Don't call destructors on MachineInstr and MachineOperand. · dc5285f1
      Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
      The series of patches leading up to this one makes llc -O0 run 8% faster.
      
      When deallocating a MachineFunction, there is no need to visit all
      MachineInstr and MachineOperand objects to deallocate them. All their
      memory come from a BumpPtrAllocator that is about to be purged, and they
      have empty destructors anyway.
      
      This only applies when deallocating the MachineFunction.
      DeleteMachineInstr() should still be used to recycle MI memory during
      the codegen passes.
      
      Remove the LeakDetector support for MachineInstr. I've never seen it
      used before, and now it definitely doesn't work. With this patch, leaked
      MachineInstrs would be much less of a problem since all of their memory
      will be reclaimed by ~MachineFunction().
      
      llvm-svn: 171599
      dc5285f1
    • Jakob Stoklund Olesen's avatar
      Use ArrayRecycler for MachineInstr operand lists. · 1bfeecb4
      Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
      Instead of an std::vector<MachineOperand>, use MachineOperand arrays
      from an ArrayRecycler living in MachineFunction.
      
      This has several advantages:
      
      - MachineInstr now has a trivial destructor, making it possible to
        delete them in batches when destroying MachineFunction. This will be
        enabled in a later patch.
      
      - Bypassing malloc() and free() can be faster, depending on the system
        library.
      
      - MachineInstr objects and their operands are allocated from the same
        BumpPtrAllocator, so they will usually be next to each other in
        memory, providing better locality of reference.
      
      - Reduce MachineInstr footprint. A std::vector is 24 bytes, the new
        operand array representation only uses 8+4+1 bytes in MachineInstr.
      
      - Better control over operand array reallocations. In the old
        representation, the use-def chains would be reordered whenever a
        std::vector reached its capacity. The new implementation never changes
        the use-def chain order.
      
      Note that some decisions in the code generator depend on the use-def
      chain orders, so this patch may cause different assembly to be produced
      in a few cases.
      
      llvm-svn: 171598
      1bfeecb4
  2. Jan 02, 2013
    • Chandler Carruth's avatar
      Move all of the header files which are involved in modelling the LLVM IR · 9fb823bb
      Chandler Carruth authored
      into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
      directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
      of file layout clutter in LLVM.
      
      There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
      them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
      layer easier.
      
      The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
      tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
      
      I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
      tests think, but I may have missed something).
      
      I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
      committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
      
      llvm-svn: 171366
      9fb823bb
  3. Dec 30, 2012
  4. Dec 20, 2012
  5. Dec 19, 2012
  6. Dec 04, 2012
  7. Dec 03, 2012
    • Chandler Carruth's avatar
      Use the new script to sort the includes of every file under lib. · ed0881b2
      Chandler Carruth authored
      Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
      I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
      include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
      care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
      and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
      (I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
      may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
      API being implemented.
      
      Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
      files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
      module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
      
      llvm-svn: 169131
      ed0881b2
  8. Nov 01, 2012
    • Chandler Carruth's avatar
      Revert the majority of the next patch in the address space series: · 5da3f051
      Chandler Carruth authored
      r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
               support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.
      
      Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
      VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
      even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
      out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
      but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
      handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
      gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
      pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.
      
      However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
      Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
      apart, but they seem entirely good.
      
      In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
      multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
      I spotted them.
      
      In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
      solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
      In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
      dependent.
      
      This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
      code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
      finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
      like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
      changes.
      
      llvm-svn: 167222
      5da3f051
  9. Oct 15, 2012
  10. Oct 11, 2012
  11. Oct 09, 2012
  12. Oct 08, 2012
  13. Sep 26, 2012
  14. Sep 21, 2012
  15. Sep 20, 2012
  16. Sep 12, 2012
  17. Sep 06, 2012
  18. Aug 22, 2012
  19. Jun 28, 2012
  20. Jun 20, 2012
  21. Mar 31, 2012
  22. Mar 27, 2012
  23. Mar 04, 2012
  24. Feb 06, 2012
  25. Feb 05, 2012
  26. Feb 03, 2012
  27. Jan 27, 2012
  28. Jan 26, 2012
  29. Dec 23, 2011
  30. Dec 20, 2011
  31. Nov 15, 2011
Loading