Remove the TUNIT__ENABLED blocks that I accidentally left in the test files.
ENABLED suffixes are no longer needed since the test file is in two parts now.

• Rebase
• Split the test file into two.
• Remove the unneeded utility function.

Interesting. Do we have near term plans for adding the Attributor to the default pass pipeline ?

The fix here only works if the run lines are ordered in a specific way.
I don't think there are any trivial solutions to this problem.

Split cb_range.ll into two files cb_range_enabled.ll and cb_range_disabled.ll.
This is needed because the combination of prefixes we use triggers a edge case with the
update script.

dict.keys() gives a dict_keys object which isn't a list. [:] doesn't work on it.

A real example that doesn't work.

Rebase. Changes in the test run lines.

In D86678#2241217, @okura wrote:

In D86678#2241129, @kuter wrote:

Thank you for creating this. I was thinking of something like this rather than having multiple flags.
In D86587 I iterate on functions multiple times and I delete AAs early after manifesting them.
(Manifest happens multiple times).
I think most of the state change should happen in the ::run function.

OK, I'll move state changes into ::run

Thank you for creating this. I was thinking of something like this rather than having multiple flags.
In D86587 I iterate on functions multiple times and I delete AAs early after manifesting them.
(Manifest happens multiple times).
I think most of the state change should happen in the ::run function.

Split unrelated changes to another patch
Handle attibutes that are created after function delete.

I think rather than creating a new api function, it would be more robust if we had a flag as member of the attributor.
It would be similar to SeedingPeriod flag that I have added.

In D86587#2238117, @sstefan1 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation. Since the patch is not small and it is a WIP, can you add some more information about the failing tests? Maybe some specific examples?

Merge checks are helpfull, but I guess if you give few specific examples with problems, it will be easier to focus. WDYT?

Thank you I will update the commit message.

I only updated the allow_list.ll. This brakes many tests and in some cases cause invalid IR (assertion gets trigered for a tail call).

Thank you, I was about to commit this.
did a git pull and it just finished compiling.

This is interesting, I thought you couldn't change the IR outside of the current SCC.
Was this intended to go on top of D86081 ?

• Add negative test.
• Fix clang-tidy error.
• Make seed allow list only enabled for debug builds (assertions turned on).

LGTM

I think the logic is correct, other people might want to check too.
Maybe we want to add more comments, it doesn't seem obvious what's happening here.

In D86018#2222956, @okura wrote:

In D86018#2221526, @kuter wrote:

Hi can you try this on top of D86081

As I mentioned above, I will move this propagation into updateImpl. Therefore, I think the problem that you are concerned about will not occur.

fix internalize.ll

Hi can you try this on top of D86081

fix style

Thank you.

In D84980#2185839, @jdoerfert wrote:

Really cool :) LGTM

In D84722#2181037, @jdoerfert wrote:

Can you, maybe as a separate patch, run the update script with the call site deduction enabled *before* this patch and *after* to get the difference on all tests we have?

add auto context injection.

Some Attributes that have CBContext doesn't seem to be querying the CB specific attributes.
I will update this once I have a solution.

remove unused header.

add unit test.
fix bug (😄)
fix typo.

Manually requesting review, since the Phabricator wasn't able to built this. From what I can see it was missing the parent revision with the last build.
Pre-merge checks should be ok now.

bug fix.
add range contents as test.

fix tests.

add missing code.
remove unneeded definies.
fix bug.

In D81929#2172319, @jdoerfert wrote:

LGTM with nits.

fix styling.

Add unittest.

Memory usage for this patch:
comand: $LLVM_BIN/opt -S -attributor-cgscc test-suit/CTMark/SPASS/clause.ll
before:

calls to allocation functions: 78794 (82506/s)
temporary memory allocations: 3942 (4127/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 2.58MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 355.73MB
total memory leaked: 140.33KB

after:

calls to allocation functions: 78802 (86977/s)
temporary memory allocations: 3942 (4350/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 2.59MB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 356.60MB
total memory leaked: 140.33KB

difference:

calls to allocation functions: 8 (-163/s)
temporary memory allocations: 0 (0/s)
peak heap memory consumption: 8.26KB
peak RSS (including heaptrack overhead): 0B
total memory leaked: 0B

Interesting, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference.

In D81929#2160764, @jdoerfert wrote:

All this is missing now is a test :). We can just check for the debug output.

fix wording. use pointer_iterator instead of for loop.
fix naming.

small improvements.

add missing documentation.
improve formating and readability.
fix typos.
rename command line option

fix run lines (there was a mistake in the earlier revision).

Add test combinations.

In D83744#2158768, @jdoerfert wrote:

Some minor comments below.

Upload diffs with full context please.

fix typo.
improve code readability.

add attributor-enable-call-site-specific=false as a test.
fix the run lines.

In D83744#2150057, @jdoerfert wrote:

Cool! As discussed, merge D83299 and add new call sites for test1.

merge with D83299
add positive and negative tests.

merged with D83744

In D83299#2140135, @jdoerfert wrote:

Can we include some code that triggers this so we can tests it?

D83744 uses this and has tests.

Fix typo

Hi @bbn when will commit this ?

In D82861#2146253, @okura wrote:

In D82861#2146246, @sstefan1 wrote:

In D82861#2146242, @okura wrote:

In D82861#2137685, @jdoerfert wrote:

Can you merge this?

Do I have a right to merge this by myself? I did arc patch and tried to git push https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git HEAD:master according to the document, but I failed to do that.

Did you get the commit access? If so, what problems did you have with git push?

I got the following message with git push

remote: Permission to llvm/llvm-project.git denied to okuraofvegetable.
fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git/': The requested URL returned error: 403

From this message, it seems to me that I don't have commit access.