Although I don't plan to bring over new assertions wholesale
into the current qualification branch, it's entirely possible
that various minor changes in main will use the new assertions;
having this basic support in the release branch will simplify that.
(This is why I'm adding the includes as a separate pass from
rewriting the individual assertions)
In C++20, the compiler will synthesize a version of the operator
with its arguments reversed to ease commutativity. This reversed
version is ambiguous with the hand-written operator when the
argument is const but `this` isn't.
`isSuccessorBlock` and `isPredecessorBlock` are dangerous because they can easily lead to quadratic behavior.
Fortunately they are not used anywhere (except in one place for verification, which I rewrote).
`getValue` -> `value`
`getValueOr` -> `value_or`
`hasValue` -> `has_value`
`map` -> `transform`
The old API will be deprecated in the rebranch.
To avoid merge conflicts, use the new API already in the main branch.
rdar://102362022
* Remove NewInsts from ARCSequenceOpts
* Remove more instances of InsertPts
* Address comments from #33504
* Make bottom up loop traversal simpler. Use better apis
* Update LoopRegion printer with more info
Changes:
* Terminate all namespaces with the correct closing comment.
* Make sure argument names in comments match the corresponding parameter name.
* Remove redundant get() calls on smart pointers.
* Prefer using "override" or "final" instead of "virtual". Remove "virtual" where appropriate.
This was already done for getSuccessorBlocks() to distinguish getting successor
blocks from getting the full list of SILSuccessors via getSuccessors(). This
commit just makes all of the successor/predecessor code follow that naming
convention.
Some examples:
getSingleSuccessor() => getSingleSuccessorBlock().
isSuccessor() => isSuccessorBlock().
getPreds() => getPredecessorBlocks().
Really, IMO, we should consider renaming SILSuccessor to a more verbose name so
that it is clear that it is more of an internal detail of SILBasicBlock's
implementation rather than something that one should consider as apart of one's
mental model of the IR when one really wants to be thinking about predecessor
and successor blocks. But that is not what this commit is trying to change, it
is just trying to eliminate a bit of technical debt by making the naming
conventions here consistent.
This adds the typedef and switches uses of NodeType * to NodeRef. This is in
preparation for the eventual NodeRef-ization of the GraphTraits in LLVM. NFC.
We already computed this information so this is just storing information
we were already computing.
One thing to note is that in code with canonicalized loops, we will
always only have one backedge. But we would like loop region to be
correct even in the case of non-canonicalized code so we support having
multiple back edges. But since the common case is 1 backedge, we
optimize for that case.
This commit contains updated tests and also updates to the loop region graph
viewer so that it draws backedges as green arrows from the loop to its backedge
subregions. The test updates were done by examining each test case by hand.
This reverts commit 81e7bdfe1b.
This is not true in non-loop canonicalized SIL. It is true in loop-canonicalized
SIL though. So I need to fix the test to avoid the assert.
I need this for loop-arc since I need to be able to analyze all "loop-exits"
when I just have the parent loop region. We are already computing this
information and throwing it away, so there should be no compile time impact.
This just runs a transform range on getSuccessor()'s ArrayRef<SILSuccessor> so
one does not need to always call Successor.getBB() when iterating over successor
blocks. Instead the transform range does that call for you.
I also updated some loops to use this new SILBasicBlock method to make sure that
the code is tested out by tests that are already in tree. All these places
should be functionally the same albeit a bit cleaner.
(libraries now)
It has been generally agreed that we need to do this reorg, and now
seems like the perfect time. Some major pass reorganization is in the
works.
This does not have to be the final word on the matter. The consensus
among those working on the code is that it's much better than what we
had and a better starting point for future bike shedding.
Note that the previous organization was designed to allow separate
analysis and optimization libraries. It turns out this is an
artificial distinction and not an important goal.
