[AMDGPU][SplitModule] Keep looking for more dependencies after finding an indirect call #93480
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…g an indirect call This is just something I noticed while going over this pass logic one more time and didn't cause issues (yet). If we find an indirect call, we stop looking assuming we added all functions to the list, but if not all functions in the module were indirectly callable, some may still be missing. Just to be safe, keep looking until we did everything we could to find dependencies, so we don't accidentally miss one.
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-amdgpu Author: Pierre van Houtryve (Pierre-vh) ChangesThis is just something I noticed while going over this pass logic one more time and didn't cause issues (yet). If we find an indirect call, we stop looking assuming we added all functions to the list, but if not all functions in the module were indirectly callable, some may still be missing. Just to be safe, keep looking until we did everything we could to find dependencies, so we don't accidentally miss one. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93480.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUSplitModule.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUSplitModule.cpp
index dab773f28752d..2449fa581842a 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUSplitModule.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPUSplitModule.cpp
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static void addAllDependencies(SplitModuleLogger &SML, const CallGraph &CG,
// TODO: Print an ORE as well ?
addAllIndirectCallDependencies(M, Fns);
HadIndirectCall = true;
- return;
+ continue;
}
if (Callee->isDeclaration())
|
searlmc1
pushed a commit
to ROCm/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2024
…g an indirect call (llvm#93480) This is just something I noticed while going over this pass logic one more time and didn't cause issues (yet). If we find an indirect call, we stop looking assuming we added all functions to the list, but if not all functions in the module were indirectly callable, some may still be missing. Just to be safe, keep looking until we did everything we could to find dependencies, so we don't accidentally miss one. Change-Id: I03cef564103e389d4f76d162bda10a0da0e1bff2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is just something I noticed while going over this pass logic one more time and didn't cause issues (yet). If we find an indirect call, we stop looking assuming we added all functions to the list, but if not all functions in the module were indirectly callable, some may still be missing.
Just to be safe, keep looking until we did everything we could to find dependencies, so we don't accidentally miss one.