Thanks for this!

Thanks for this!

Thanks!

LGTM; thanks again.

LGTM modulo a naming nit. If you're happy with the suggestion, feel free to submit. Thanks!

Thanks!

This LGTM at a high level; just a handful of nits for you, and I think this should be good to submit

Thanks for this!

Thanks for this! I like it when patches are small and split up like this one :)

MemorySSA changes LGTM, modulo one comment. Thanks!

Chrome OS developed a dependency (perf, not functional) on things in .text.hot coming before things in .text. Namely, they have code that maps the first N MB of Chrome's .text section to hugepages, under the assumption that the code near the beginning of the binary will be hotter than the code near the end of the binary.

(Also thanks for the reminder that I still need to update this with commentary for the purely-cmake-based approach. :) )

Thanks again! :)

Thanks for the feedback!

Addressed feedback

It may make sense to iterate, as you say, but that can/should be a different patch.

I notice that you're using LLVM_BUILD_INSTRUMENTED=IR, which corresponds to -fprofile-generate (IR-level profiling), instead of -fprofile-instr-generate (clang-level profiling). Did you play around with both and observe that IR-level profiling gave you better results?

Thanks for pointing that out!

And numbers for building ${large_project}, as promised:

Rebase, and only run this in the non-prelink full-LTO pipeline

You mentioned a 1.9% degradation with the current placement. Did you happen to try any other locations in the pipeline?

Ping :)

LGTM assuming the _run_benchmark changes are undone.

Thanks again!

Thank you!

Address feedback

Landed these a while back; closing.

Thanks again! :)

Thanks!

Woo! Thank you very much for the review (and for bearing with me in your repeated requests to minimize this patch :) ).

Address feedback

LGTM too.

Thanks for this! LGTM after erichkeane's comments are resolved.

Shrunk the diff as requested; the few pre-commit patches required to make this build are available as one patch in https://reviews.llvm.org/D52245 .

This looks good to me, but like said, I don't have sufficient context to stamp it with great confidence.

LGTM, modulo one nit. Thanks!

Thanks for this!

LGTM. Thanks for this!

Thanks!

I have zero context on the various ways we can/do add instructions to a BB, so I can't immediately be helpful with the tricky part of this review. :) I've no complaints about the general direction of this patch, though.

LGTM after the requested nit. Thanks again!

LGTM. Thanks again!

Thanks for this!

Thanks for this!

Lots of nits, and a few functional concerns. For the functional concerns that revolve around dubious edge additions, I'm happy with fixes or "it's impossible for that to actually happen; added a comment explaining that."

Looks fine to me, though I'd prefer if someone familiar with this code had a look, as well.

LGTM with a few comments. Thanks!

I'm not entirely through this patch (I hope to make more progress in the coming few days), but this is what I have for now. Logic's looking solid so far; I'm just nitpicky. :)

George, let me know if you agree with using the generic one and I'll abandon this revision. Thanks!

Never touched this code, so all I can offer is a style nit. Thanks for the patch!

Workaround committed as r339411

(FWIW, I plan to commit a workaround like this tomorrow with said big scary comment, assuming no complaints appear before then. Like said, I'm more than happy to discuss the ideal path to take here even after that lands. But this is a known miscompile with a trivial workaround that should presumably also find its way into the release branch, so...)

Currently, MSSA treats lifetime intrinsics as clobbers, even though they're technically not. This patch would further solidify that behavior, which might not be a good thing (e.g. there's a good argument that we shouldn't be treating lifetime intrinsics as clobbers in the first place). I'm happy to rip out what few lifetime-related pieces MSSA has, but before doing so:

ping :)

Thanks for this! In addition to Hal's comments...

Thanks!

Ping :)

Thanks for this!

Thanks for this!

Looks straightforward enough to me, but spatel authored this pass (and I've never touched it), so I'm going to defer to them :)

Thanks again!

Ping :)

As a result, I also reverted the changes to make CounterDesc part of CounterInfo.

Running ninja check-llvm after applying this on top of r337631, I see many test failures in CodeGen/AMDGPU. Are you seeing these, as well?

This LGTM; thanks again for the patch. Will land it for you once davide's happy

LGTM after one nit is addressed. Thanks again!

Thanks for this!

As all the PhiOps are collected we call tryRemoveTrivialPhi which might have replaced the Phi with another MemoryAccess. Then we try to cache that MemoryAccess with the same BB key (line 110), which should return false

Thanks for this!

I don't really like adding arbitrary flags to existing passes; better to have a separate pass, I think.

Switch to having a pass to do this, as requested.

LGTM. Thanks again!

Thanks again!

It also adds and additional overhead

Ping :)

LGTM with a few comments; thanks again!

I'm still in favor of just replacing SmallVector<MemoryPhi *, 8> InsertedPHIs with SmallVector<WeakVH, 8> InsertedPHIs, since:

• I think it meets all of our needs here,
• it's a very straightforward change (no need to deal with removal, new containers, etc.), and
• I don't see how we can ever get a duplicate in InsertedPHIs to start with.

(I'll go ahead and commit assuming my interpretation of arsenm's message was correct. Happy to revert or land follow-ups if not)

Thanks for the patch!

Nit fixes LGTM. Please wait for an official stamp from Eli before committing, since I can’t tell if he got the second look he wanted. (I’m inclined to believe he did, but don’t want to jump the gun)