similar to: [PM] I think that the new PM needs to learn about inter-analysis dependencies...

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:40 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID* >> >> On Jul 25, 2016 6:16 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >

The more closely I look at this, the more it seems like there may be a useful incremental step in the transition to the new PM: use the new PM analysis machinery in the old PM. If this is possible, it will simplify the old PM and (hopefully) allow an incremental transition to the new PM instead of a flag day transition for the switch. I.e., AFAICT, the new PM transition is essentially about 2

I have the unified analysis manager implemented now and passing all tests at: https://github.com/chisophugis/llvm/commits/analysis-manager One caveat: It would be a layering violation for the analysis manager to know about Loop and SCC since those live in libAnalysis. So currently I have some stuff commented out for imitating the proxy downward invalidation for them. (and generally the proxy

Okay, did the big renaming and de-templating today (and removing the proxies). check-llvm worked fine, except that this test caught a bug (yay!): unittests/IR/PassManagerTest.cpp:326 After removing the proxies, the module pass is not invalidating the function passes (since the invalidation is on the module IRUnit). we now don't have a method for delegating the invalidation from outer

I'm not quite sure what post to respond to for a status update, but I guess this one will do (and you can check my log for more info of course). My current working branch for the analysis manager stuff is at https://github.com/chisophugis/llvm/commits/analysis-manager (4ecf6115890bd01caa52c0b99424974e3469291e) I described in my log a bit more my thought process and how to do this without

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com>, "Xinliang David Li" > <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide > Italiano" <dccitaliano at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide Italiano" > <dccitaliano at gmail.com>, "Tim Amini Golling" >

Hi Sean, Thanks for writing all of this up. I'll go back to my previous position: we need a general dependency graph built as the analysis cache is used. It should have the following properties: 1. When we call getResult or getCachedResult on an analysis manager, we record a dependency of the current pass on the returned result. 2. This dependency needs to be stored such that it can be

We need better terminology to talk about this. I propose: analysis-dependencies: analysis A uses result of analysis B when *running* an analysis and not used by the result query-dependencies: result of analysis A uses result of analysis B when evaluating a query data-structure-depnedencies: result of analysis A uses data structures from the result of analysis B inside its own data structures I

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Skimming the thread, this post is the clearest path forward I've seen. > Minor comments inline, but I generally like this framing. > > On 07/14/2016 08:04 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > > We need better terminology to talk about this. I propose: > >

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide Italiano" > <dccitaliano at gmail.com>, "Tim Amini Golling" >

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like there is really no sane fix within the current > infrastructure. I've had to essentially trigger invalidation (except in the > PreservedAnalyses::all() case) in the function pass manager and function to > loop adapters. > invalidation of *everything* I mean. -- Sean Silva

With D21921 and a couple other pending patches, we now have the full LTO pipeline converted to the new PM. I was trying it out on test-suite and SPEC2006. Yay! This email is about one issue that I ran into testing the pipeline on test-suite. The issue arose in the wild as an interaction between lcssa and gvn. But the issue is extremely general. What happened is that BasicAA uses

On 3/14/19 2:04 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >> >> - Add a new proxy ModuleAnalysisManagerLoopProxy for a loop pass >> to be able to get to the ModuleAnalysisManager in one step and >> PSI through it. >

Overall seems fine to me. On 3/11/19 8:12 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > Here's a revised approach based on the discussion: > > - Cache PSI right after the profile summary in the IR is written in > the pass pipeline. This would avoid the need to insert > RequireAnalysisPass for PSI before each non-module pass that needs it. > PSI can be technically invalidated but unlikely

Hi, mustPreserveAnalysisID(LCSSAID) cannot be used with the new pass manager, so what is the right way for querying it? FunctionAnalysisManager::getCachedResult<LCSSAPass>(F) will not work, since LCSSAPass does not have a result. Moreover, it is not an analysis :) Thanks, Slava -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>

Here's a sketch of the proposed approach for just one pass (but imagine more) https://reviews.llvm.org/D58845 On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2/28/19 12:47 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi all, > > To implement more profile-guided optimizations, we’d like to use > ProfileSummaryInfo

Hi Chandler, This is a high-level review of the new WIP `PassManager` infrastructure. For those that haven't dug into Chandler's commits, here's a very high-level overview (assuming IIUC): - The driver supports simple declarative syntax for specifying passes to run. E.g., `module(a,b,function(c,d),e)` runs module passes `a` and `b`, then function passes `c` and `d` for