The code emitter knows how to encode operands whose name matches one of
the encoding fields. If there is no match, the code emitter relies on
the order of the operand and field definitions to determine how operands
should be encoding. Matching by order makes it easy to accidentally break
the instruction encodings, so we prefer to match by name.
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 178930
SITargetLowering::analyzeImmediate() was converting the 64-bit values
to 32-bit and then checking if they were an inline immediate. Some
of these conversions caused this check to succeed and produced
S_MOV instructions with 64-bit immediates, which are illegal.
v2:
- Clean up logic
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 178927
On cores for which we know the misprediction penalty, and we have
the isel instruction, we can profitably perform early if conversion.
This enables us to replace some small branch sequences with selects
and avoid the potential stalls from mispredicting the branches.
Enabling this feature required implementing canInsertSelect and
insertSelect in PPCInstrInfo; isel code in PPCISelLowering was
refactored to use these functions as well.
llvm-svn: 178926
The manual states that there is a minimum of 13 cycles from when the
mispredicted branch is issued to when the correct branch target is
issued.
llvm-svn: 178925
The normal dataflow sequence in the ARC optimizer consists of the following
states:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Use -> Release
The optimizer before this patch stored the uses that determine the lifetime of
the retainable object pointer when it bottom up hits a retain or when top down
it hits a release. This is correct for an imprecise lifetime scenario since what
we are trying to do is remove retains/releases while making sure that no
``CanRelease'' (which is usually a call) deallocates the given pointer before we
get to the ``Use'' (since that would cause a segfault).
If we are considering the precise lifetime scenario though, this is not
correct. In such a situation, we *DO* care about the previous sequence, but
additionally, we wish to track the uses resulting from the following incomplete
sequences:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Release (TopDown)
Retain <- Use <- Release (BottomUp)
*NOTE* This patch looks large but the most of it consists of updating
test cases. Additionally this fix exposed an additional bug. I removed
the test case that expressed said bug and will recommit it with the fix
in a little bit.
llvm-svn: 178921
This fixes PEI as previously described, but correctly handles the case where
the instruction defining the virtual register to be scavenged is the first in
the block. Arnold provided me with a bugpoint-reduced test case, but even that
seems too large to use as a regression test. If I'm successful in cleaning it
up then I'll commit that as well.
Original commit message:
This change fixes a bug that I introduced in r178058. After a register is
scavenged using one of the available spills slots the instruction defining the
virtual register needs to be moved to after the spill code. The scavenger has
already processed the defining instruction so that registers killed by that
instruction are available for definition in that same instruction. Unfortunately,
after this, the scavenger needs to iterate through the spill code and then
visit, again, the instruction that defines the now-scavenged register. In order
to avoid confusion, the register scavenger needs the ability to 'back up'
through the spill code so that it can again process the instructions in the
appropriate order. Prior to this fix, once the scavenger reached the
just-moved instruction, it would assert if it killed any registers because,
having already processed the instruction, it believed they were undefined.
Unfortunately, I don't yet have a small test case. Thanks to Pranav Bhandarkar
for diagnosing the problem and testing this fix.
llvm-svn: 178919
During LTO, the target options on functions within the same Module may
change. This would necessitate resetting some of the back-end. Do this for X86,
because it's a Friday afternoon.
llvm-svn: 178917
Reverting because this breaks one of the LTO builders. Original commit message:
This change fixes a bug that I introduced in r178058. After a register is
scavenged using one of the available spills slots the instruction defining the
virtual register needs to be moved to after the spill code. The scavenger has
already processed the defining instruction so that registers killed by that
instruction are available for definition in that same instruction. Unfortunately,
after this, the scavenger needs to iterate through the spill code and then
visit, again, the instruction that defines the now-scavenged register. In order
to avoid confusion, the register scavenger needs the ability to 'back up'
through the spill code so that it can again process the instructions in the
appropriate order. Prior to this fix, once the scavenger reached the
just-moved instruction, it would assert if it killed any registers because,
having already processed the instruction, it believed they were undefined.
Unfortunately, I don't yet have a small test case. Thanks to Pranav Bhandarkar
for diagnosing the problem and testing this fix.
llvm-svn: 178916
This optimization is unstable at this moment; it
1) block us on a very important application
2) PR15200
3) test6 and test7 in test/Transforms/ScalarRepl/dynamic-vector-gep.ll
(the CHECK command compare the output against wrong result)
I personally believe this optimization should not have any impact on the
autovectorized code, as auto-vectorizer is supposed to put gather/scatter
in a "right" way. Although in theory downstream optimizaters might reveal
some gather/scatter optimization opportunities, the chance is quite slim.
For the hand-crafted vectorizing code, in term of redundancy elimination,
load-CSE, copy-propagation and DSE can collectively achieve the same result,
but in much simpler way. On the other hand, these optimizers are able to
improve the code in a incremental way; in contrast, SROA is sort of all-or-none
approach. However, SROA might slighly win in stack size, as it tries to figure
out a stretch of memory tightenly cover the area accessed by the dynamic index.
rdar://13174884
PR15200
llvm-svn: 178912
llvm-mips-linux green.
llvm-mips-linux runs on a big endian machine. This test passes if I change 'e'
to 'E' in the target data layout string.
llvm-svn: 178910
It's possible for the lock file to disappear and the owning process to
return before we're able to see the generated file. Spin for a little
while to see if it shows up before failing.
llvm-svn: 178909
If the directory that will contain the unique file doesn't exist when
we tried to create the file, but another process creates it before we
get a chance to try creating it, we would bail out rather than try to
create the unique file.
llvm-svn: 178908
memory operands.
Essentially, this layers an infix calculator on top of the parsing state
machine. The scale on the index register is still expected to be an immediate
__asm mov eax, [eax + ebx*4]
and will not work with more complex expressions. For example,
__asm mov eax, [eax + ebx*(2*2)]
The plus and minus binary operators assume the numeric value of a register is
zero so as to not change the displacement. Register operands should never
be an operand for a multiply or divide operation; the scale*indexreg
expression is always replaced with a zero on the operand stack to prevent
such a case.
rdar://13521380
llvm-svn: 178881
Summary:
Sets a report hook that emulates pressing "retry" in the "abort, retry,
ignore" dialog box that _CrtDbgReport normally raises. There are many
other ways to disable assertion reports, but this was the only way I
could find that still calls our exception handler.
Reviewers: Bigcheese
CC: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D625
llvm-svn: 178880
InMemoryStruct is extremely dangerous as it returns data from an internal
buffer when the endiannes doesn't match. This should fix the tests on big
endian hosts.
llvm-svn: 178875
Change unittests/ExecutionEngine/Makefile to include Makefile.config before
TARGET_HAS_JIT flag is checked.
Fixes bug: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15669
llvm-svn: 178871
When the RuntimeDyldELF::processRelocationRef routine finds the target
symbol of a relocation in the local or global symbol table, it performs
a section-relative relocation:
Value.SectionID = lsi->second.first;
Value.Addend = lsi->second.second;
At this point, however, any Addend that might have been specified in
the original relocation record is lost. This is somewhat difficult to
trigger for relocations within the code section since they usually
do not contain non-zero Addends (when built with the default JIT code
model, in any case). However, the problem can be reliably triggered
by a relocation within the data section caused by code like:
int test[2] = { -1, 0 };
int *p = &test[1];
The initializer of "p" will need a relocation to "test + 4". On
platforms using RelA relocations this means an Addend of 4 is required.
Current code ignores this addend when processing the relocation,
resulting in incorrect execution.
Fixed by taking the Addend into account when processing relocations
to symbols found in the local or global symbol table.
Tested on x86_64-linux and powerpc64-linux.
llvm-svn: 178869
This change fixes a bug that I introduced in r178058. After a register is
scavenged using one of the available spills slots the instruction defining the
virtual register needs to be moved to after the spill code. The scavenger has
already processed the defining instruction so that registers killed by that
instruction are available for definition in that same instruction. Unfortunately,
after this, the scavenger needs to iterate through the spill code and then
visit, again, the instruction that defines the now-scavenged register. In order
to avoid confusion, the register scavenger needs the ability to 'back up'
through the spill code so that it can again process the instructions in the
appropriate order. Prior to this fix, once the scavenger reached the
just-moved instruction, it would assert if it killed any registers because,
having already processed the instruction, it believed they were undefined.
Unfortunately, I don't yet have a small test case. Thanks to Pranav Bhandarkar
for diagnosing the problem and testing this fix.
llvm-svn: 178845
Looks like there is a big endian/little endian problem here. Loosen the
test to try to get the bots green while llvm builds on a ppc qemu vm.
The failure was in http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/
llvm-svn: 178839
