DomTreeUpdater depends on headers from Analysis, but is in IR.  This is a
layering violation since Analysis depends on IR.  Relocate this code from IR
to Analysis to fix the layering violation.

llvm-svn: 353265

to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

Summary:
This patch refines the logic of `recalculate()` in the `DomTreeUpdater` in the following two aspects:
1. Previously, `recalculate()` tests whether there are pending updates/BBs awaiting deletion and then do recalculation under Lazy UpdateStrategy; and do recalculation immediately under Eager UpdateStrategy. (The former behavior is inherited from the `DeferredDominance` class). This is an inconsistency between two strategies and there is no obvious reason to do this. So the behavior is changed to always recalculate available trees when calling `recalculate()`.
2. Fix the issue of when DTU under Lazy UpdateStrategy holds nothing but with BBs awaiting deletion, after calling `recalculate()`, BBs awaiting deletion aren't flushed. An additional unittest is added to cover this case.

Reviewers: kuhar, dmgreen, brzycki, grosser, davide

Reviewed By: kuhar

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50173

llvm-svn: 338822

Summary:
Previously, passes use
```
DomTreeUpdater DTU(DT, DomTreeUpdater::UpdateStrategy::Lazy);
DTU.deleteBB(DelBB);
```
to delete a BasicBlock.
But passes which don't have the ability to update DomTree (e.g. tailcallelim, simplifyCFG) cannot recognize a DelBB awaiting deletion and will continue to process this DelBB.
This is a simple approach to notify devs of passes which may use DTU in the future to deal with deleted BasicBlocks under Lazy Strategy correctly.

Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen

Reviewed By: kuhar

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49731

llvm-svn: 337891

llvm-svn: 337001

Summary:
Previously, when both DT and PDT are nullptrs and the UpdateStrategy is Lazy, DomTreeUpdater still pends updates inside.
After this patch, DomTreeUpdater will ignore all updates from(`applyUpdates()/insertEdge*()/deleteEdge*()`) in this case. (call `delBB()` still pends BasicBlock deletion until a flush event according to the doc).
The behavior of DomTreeUpdater previously documented won't change after the patch.

Reviewers: dmgreen, davide, kuhar, brzycki, grosser

Reviewed By: kuhar

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48974

llvm-svn: 336968

Summary:
This patch is the first in a series of patches related to the [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123883.html | RFC - A new dominator tree updater for LLVM ]].

This patch introduces the DomTreeUpdater class, which provides a cleaner API to perform updates on available dominator trees (none, only DomTree, only PostDomTree, both) using different update strategies (eagerly or lazily) to simplify the updating process.

—Prior to the patch—

   - Directly calling update functions of DominatorTree updates the data structure eagerly while DeferredDominance does updates lazily.
   - DeferredDominance class cannot be used when a PostDominatorTree also needs to be updated.
   - Functions receiving DT/DDT need to branch a lot which is currently necessary.
   - Functions using both DomTree and PostDomTree need to call the update function separately on both trees.
   - People need to construct an additional DeferredDominance class to use functions only receiving DDT.

—After the patch—

Patch by Chijun Sima <simachijun@gmail.com>.

Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser, davide

Reviewed By: kuhar, brzycki

Author: NutshellySima

Subscribers: vsk, mgorny, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48383

llvm-svn: 336163

Temporary revert because of a failing test on some buildbots.

This reverts commit r336114.

llvm-svn: 336117

Summary:
This patch is the first in a series of patches related to the [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-June/123883.html | RFC - A new dominator tree updater for LLVM ]].

This patch introduces the DomTreeUpdater class, which provides a cleaner API to perform updates on available dominator trees (none, only DomTree, only PostDomTree, both) using different update strategies (eagerly or lazily) to simplify the updating process.

—Prior to the patch—

   - Directly calling update functions of DominatorTree updates the data structure eagerly while DeferredDominance does updates lazily.
   - DeferredDominance class cannot be used when a PostDominatorTree also needs to be updated.
   - Functions receiving DT/DDT need to branch a lot which is currently necessary.
   - Functions using both DomTree and PostDomTree need to call the update function separately on both trees.
   - People need to construct an additional DeferredDominance class to use functions only receiving DDT.

—After the patch—

Patch by Chijun Sima <simachijun@gmail.com>.

Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, dmgreen, grosser, davide

Reviewed By: kuhar, brzycki

Subscribers: vsk, mgorny, llvm-commits

Author: NutshellySima

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48383

llvm-svn: 336114