-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[AMDGPU] Do not preserve UniformityInfo #76696
Merged
ssahasra
merged 3 commits into
llvm:main
from
ssahasra:ssahasra/dont-preserve-uniformity
Jan 2, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -109,9 +109,6 @@ void AMDGPUUnifyDivergentExitNodes::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { | |
// FIXME: preserve PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass | ||
} | ||
|
||
// No divergent values are changed, only blocks and branch edges. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ditto |
||
AU.addPreserved<UniformityInfoWrapperPass>(); | ||
|
||
// We preserve the non-critical-edgeness property | ||
AU.addPreservedID(BreakCriticalEdgesID); | ||
|
||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably should add an explanatory comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What would be the value of such a comment tucked away in some pass? Why only these specific passes? Why not others? We are just returning to the original state that we don't really know how to preserve UniformityAnalysis in general.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mostly I'm worried about someone getting the idea again that this could be preserved. Feels like it should be documented somewhere, but there isn't a good place. Will anything break in a future change if this is re-added?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately we have never had a good way to diagnose this problem (preserving an analysis but not one of its transitive dependencies). I did once look at adding something to the legacy pass manager to detect it early (when adding passes instead of when running them) but never finished it.