When 'cmp rn #imm' doesn't match due to the immediate not being representable,
but 'cmn rn, #-imm' does match, use the latter in place of the former, as
it's equivalent.
rdar://10552389
llvm-svn: 146567
to finalize MI bundles (i.e. add BUNDLE instruction and computing register def
and use lists of the BUNDLE instruction) and a pass to unpack bundles.
- Teach more of MachineBasic and MachineInstr methods to be bundle aware.
- Switch Thumb2 IT block to MI bundles and delete the hazard recognizer hack to
prevent IT blocks from being broken apart.
llvm-svn: 146542
Fast ISel isn't able to handle 'insertvalue' and it causes a large slowdown
during -O0 compilation. We don't necessarily need to generate an aggregate of
the values here if they're just going to be extracted directly afterwards.
<rdar://problem/10530851>
llvm-svn: 146481
test cases where there were a lot of relocations applied relative to a large
rodata section. Gas would create a symbol for each of these whereas we would
be relative to the beginning of the rodata section. This change mimics what
gas does.
Patch by Jack Carter.
llvm-svn: 146468
of the targets we know about. Because this is cached, rebuilds won't
detect when new targets show up. It's also a bit simpler to just say
"all". If users want to restrict the target set, they can still do so,
and then the cache will preserve what they have explicitly set this
field to.
llvm-svn: 146467
undefined result. This adds new ISD nodes for the new semantics,
selecting them when the LLVM intrinsic indicates that the undef behavior
is desired. The new nodes expand trivially to the old nodes, so targets
don't actually need to do anything to support these new nodes besides
indicating that they should be expanded. I've done this for all the
operand types that I could figure out for all the targets. Owners of
various targets, please review and let me know if any of these are
incorrect.
Note that the expand behavior is *conservatively correct*, and exactly
matches LLVM's current behavior with these operations. Ideally this
patch will not change behavior in any way. For example the regtest suite
finds the exact same instruction sequences coming out of the code
generator. That's why there are no new tests here -- all of this is
being exercised by the existing test suite.
Thanks to Duncan Sands for reviewing the various bits of this patch and
helping me get the wrinkles ironed out with expanding for each target.
Also thanks to Chris for clarifying through all the discussions that
this is indeed the approach he was looking for. That said, there are
likely still rough spots. Further review much appreciated.
llvm-svn: 146466
