The test fails on macOS and looks a bit wrong, see comments on the review.

Also revert follow-up r374686.

llvm-svn: 374688

llvm-svn: 374686

`make_optional<string>(4, 'X')` passes `4` (an `int`) as the first argument to `string`'s `(size_t, charT)` constructor, triggering a signed/unsigned mismatch warning when compiling with MSVC at `/W4`. The incredibly simple fix is to instead use an unsigned literal (`4u`).

llvm-svn: 374684

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374683

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374682

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374681

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374680

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374679

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374678

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374677

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374676

This series of patches still breaks a Windows bot.

llvm-svn: 374675

llvm-svn: 374674

llvm-svn: 374673

llvm-svn: 374672

Still trying to fix the same error as in r374666.

llvm-svn: 374671

llvm-svn: 374670

llvm-svn: 374669

llvm-svn: 374668

llvm-svn: 374667

On that decode, Windows bots fail with:

```
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 7-8: ordinal not in range(128)
```

That's the same error as before r374665 except it's now at the decode
before the write to stdout.

llvm-svn: 374666

I seem to have misread the bot logs on my last attempt.  When lit's
internal diff runs on Windows under Python 2.7, it's text diffs not
binary diffs that need decoding to avoid this error when writing the
diff to stdout:

```
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 7-8: ordinal not in range(128)
```

There is no `decode` attribute in this case under Python 3.6.8 under
Ubuntu, so this patch checks for the `decode` attribute before using
it here.  Hopefully nothing else is needed when `decode` isn't
available.

It might take a couple more attempts to figure out what error
handling, if any, is needed for this decoding.

llvm-svn: 374665

llvm-svn: 374664

Summary:
Related somewhat to {D29039}

On seeing a quote on twitter by @invalidop

> If it's not formatted with clang-format it's a build error.

This made me want to change the way I use clang-format into a tool that could optionally show me where my source code violates clang-format syle.

When I'm making a change to clang-format itself, one thing I like to do to test the change is to ensure I didn't cause a huge wave of changes, what I want to do is simply run this on a known formatted directory and see if any new differences arrive in a manner I'm used to.

This started me thinking that we should allow build systems to run clang-format on a whole tree and emit compiler style warnings about files that fail clang-format in a form that would make them as a warning in most build systems and because those build systems range in their construction I don't think its unreasonable to NOT expect them to have to do the directory searching or parsing the output replacements themselves, but simply transform that into an error code when there are changes required.

I am starting this by suggesing adding a -n or -dry-run command line argument which would emit a warning/error of the form

Support for various common compiler command line argumuments like '-Werror' and '-ferror-limit' could make this very flexible to be integrated into build systems and CI systems.

```
> $ /usr/bin/clang-format --dry-run ClangFormat.cpp -ferror-limit=3 -fcolor-diagnostics
> ClangFormat.cpp:54:29: warning: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
> static cl::list<std::string>
>                             ^
> ClangFormat.cpp:55:20: warning: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
> LineRanges("lines", cl::desc("<start line>:<end line> - format a range of\n"
>                    ^
> ClangFormat.cpp:55:77: warning: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
> LineRanges("lines", cl::desc("<start line>:<end line> - format a range of\n"
>                                                                             ^
```

Reviewers: mitchell-stellar, klimek, owenpan

Reviewed By: klimek

Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits

Tags: #clang-format, #clang-tools-extra, #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68554

llvm-svn: 374663

Summary:
This is a recommit, this originally landed in rL370454 but was
subsequently reverted in  rL370788 due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43206
The reduced testcase was added to bcmp-negative-tests.ll
as @pr43206_different_loops - we must ensure that the SCEV's
we got are both for the same loop we are currently investigating.

Original commit message:

@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.

In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.

libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ

libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)

So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}

```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>

#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"

template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
  for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
    if (*a != *b) return false;
  }
  return true;
}

template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
  std::random_device rd;
  std::mt19937 gen(rd());
  std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
                                       std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
  std::vector<T> v;
  v.reserve(count);
  std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
                  [&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
  assert(v.size() == count);
  return v;
}

struct Identical {
  template <typename T>
  static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
    auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
    return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
  }
};

struct InequalHalfway {
  template <typename T>
  static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
    auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
    auto V1 = V0;
    V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++;  // just change the value.
    return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
  }
};

template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
  const size_t Length = state.range(0);

  const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
      Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
  const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
  const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
  assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());

  benchmark::ClobberMemory();
  benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
  benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
  benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
  benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());

  for (auto _ : state) {
    const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
    benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
  }
  state.SetComplexityN(Length);
  state.counters["eltcnt"] =
      benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
  state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
      benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
  const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
  state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
      benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
                         benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
  state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
      BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
      benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}

template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
  const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
    for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
         benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
      if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
    }
    return 0;
  }();
  // What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
  const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
                        /*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
  b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}

BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);

BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
    ->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
  L1 Data 16K (x8)
  L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
  L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
  L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                                         Time             CPU   Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000           432131 ns       432101 ns         1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO               0.86 N          0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS                   8 %             8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000          161408 ns       161409 ns         4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO              0.67 N          0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS                 25 %            25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000           81497 ns        81488 ns         8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO              0.71 N          0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS                 42 %            42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000            50138 ns        50138 ns        10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO              0.84 N          0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS                 27 %            27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000      192405 ns       192392 ns         3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO          0.38 N          0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS              3 %             3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000     127858 ns       127860 ns         5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.50 N          0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS             0 %             0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000      49140 ns        49140 ns        14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.40 N          0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS            18 %            18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000       32101 ns        32099 ns        21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.50 N          0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS             1 %             1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
  L1 Data 16K (x8)
  L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
  L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
  L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                                         Time             CPU   Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000            18593 ns        18590 ns        37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO               0.04 N          0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS                  37 %            37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000           18950 ns        18948 ns        37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO              0.08 N          0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS                 34 %            34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000           18627 ns        18627 ns        37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO              0.16 N          0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS                 35 %            35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000            18855 ns        18855 ns        37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO              0.32 N          0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS                 33 %            33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000        9570 ns         9569 ns        73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO          0.02 N          0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS             29 %            29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000       9547 ns         9547 ns        74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.04 N          0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS            29 %            29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000       9396 ns         9394 ns        73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.08 N          0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS            30 %            30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000        9499 ns         9498 ns        73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO         0.16 N          0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS            28 %            28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark                                                  Time             CPU      Time Old      Time New       CPU Old       CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000                      -0.9570         -0.9570        432131         18593        432101         18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000                     -0.8826         -0.8826        161408         18950        161409         18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000                     -0.7714         -0.7714         81497         18627         81488         18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000                      -0.6239         -0.6239         50138         18855         50138         18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000                 -0.9503         -0.9503        192405          9570        192392          9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000                -0.9253         -0.9253        127858          9547        127860          9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000                -0.8088         -0.8088         49140          9396         49140          9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000                 -0.7041         -0.7041         32101          9499         32099          9498
```

What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
  maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
  for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
  bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
  naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
  eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
  linearly decreases with element size.
  For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
  As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
  universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
  element count is less than 8.

So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.

Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp

Program                                         result-new

MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark    79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser         3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla                      2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg              1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod     1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon            1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet            1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs     1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc     1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator     1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text

Program                                        result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test   753.00     833.00     10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test   1001697.00 966657.00  -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test   32369.00   32321.00   -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test   89585.00   89505.00   -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test   40817.00   40785.00   -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test   47281.00   47249.00   -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test   250065.00  250113.00   0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test   149889.00  149873.00  -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test   769585.00  769569.00  -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test   770049.00  770049.00   0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128    NaN        NaN        nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256    NaN        NaN        nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64    NaN        NaN        nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32    NaN        NaN        nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4    NaN        NaN        nan%
Geomean difference                                                   nan%
         result-old    result-new       diff
count  1.000000e+01  10.00000      10.000000
mean   3.152090e+05  311695.40000  0.006749
std    3.790398e+05  372091.42232  0.036605
min    7.530000e+02  833.00000    -0.034981
25%    4.243300e+04  42401.00000  -0.000866
50%    1.197370e+05  119689.00000 -0.000392
75%    6.397050e+05  639705.00000 -0.000005
max    1.001697e+06  966657.00000  0.106242
```

I don't have timings though.

And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.

Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???

Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet

Reviewed By: courbet

Subscribers: miyuki, hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144

llvm-svn: 374662

The transform forgot to check SCEV loop scopes.

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43206

llvm-svn: 374661

llvm-svn: 374660

llvm-svn: 374659

This should go away once D66004 has landed and we can simplify shuffle chains using demanded elts.

llvm-svn: 374658

Based on the bot logs, when lit's internal diff runs on Windows, it
looks like binary diffs must be decoded also for Python 2.7.
Otherwise, writing the diff to stdout fails with:

```
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 7-8: ordinal not in range(128)
```

I did not need to decode using Python 2.7.15 under Ubuntu.  When I do
it anyway in that case, `errors="backslashreplace"` fails for me:

```
TypeError: don't know how to handle UnicodeDecodeError in error callback
```

However, `errors="ignore"` works, so this patch uses that, hoping
it'll work on Windows as well.

This patch leaves `errors="backslashreplace"` for Python >= 3.5 as
there's no evidence yet that doesn't work and it produces more
informative binary diffs.  This patch also adjusts some lit tests to
succeed for either error handler.

This patch adjusts changes introduced by D68664.

llvm-svn: 374657

llvm-svn: 374656

I can't see any notable differences in costs between SSE2 and SSE42 arches for FADD/ADD reduction, so I've lowered the target to just SSE2.

I've also added vXi8 sum reduction costs in line with the PSADBW codegen and discussions on PR42674.

llvm-svn: 374655

llvm-svn: 374654

llvm-svn: 374653

Using GNU diff, `--strip-trailing-cr` removes a `\r` appearing before
a `\n` at the end of a line.  Without this patch, lit's internal diff
only removes `\r` if it appears as the last character.  That seems
useless.  This patch fixes that.

This patch also adds `--strip-trailing-cr` to some tests that fail on
Windows bots when D68664 is applied.  Based on what I see in the bot
logs, I think the following is happening.  In each test there, lit
diff is comparing a file with `\r\n` line endings to a file with `\n`
line endings.  Without D68664, lit diff reads those files with
Python's universal newlines support activated, causing `\r` to be
dropped.  However, with D68664, lit diff reads the files in binary
mode instead and thus reports that every line is different, just as
GNU diff does (at least under Ubuntu).  Adding `--strip-trailing-cr`
to those tests restores the previous behavior while permitting the
behavior of lit diff to be more like GNU diff.

Reviewed By: rnk

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68839

llvm-svn: 374652

To avoid breaking some tests, D66574, D68664, D67643, and D68668
landed together.  However, D68664 introduced an issue now addressed by
D68839, with which these are now all relanding.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68668

llvm-svn: 374651

To avoid breaking some tests, D66574, D68664, D67643, and D68668
landed together.  However, D68664 introduced an issue now addressed by
D68839, with which these are now all relanding.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67643

llvm-svn: 374650

To avoid breaking some tests, D66574, D68664, D67643, and D68668
landed together.  However, D68664 introduced an issue now addressed by
D68839, with which these are now all relanding.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68664

llvm-svn: 374649

To avoid breaking some tests, D66574, D68664, D67643, and D68668
landed together.  However, D68664 introduced an issue now addressed by
D68839, with which these are now all relanding.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66574

llvm-svn: 374648

llvm-svn: 374647