The assumption in the back-end is that PHIs are not allowed at the start of the
landing pad block for SjLj exceptions.
<rdar://problem/10313708>
llvm-svn: 142689
ZExtPromotedInteger and SExtPromotedInteger based on the operation we legalize.
SetCC return type needs to be legalized via PromoteTargetBoolean.
llvm-svn: 142660
it's a bit more plausible to use this instead of CodePlacementOpt. The
code for this was shamelessly stolen from CodePlacementOpt, and then
trimmed down a bit. There doesn't seem to be much utility in returning
true/false from this pass as we may or may not have rewritten all of the
blocks. Also, the statistic of counting how many loops were aligned
doesn't seem terribly important so I removed it. If folks would like it
to be included, I'm happy to add it back.
This was probably the most egregious of the missing features, and now
I'm going to start gathering some performance numbers and looking at
specific loop structures that have different layout between the two.
Test is updated to include both basic loop alignment and nested loop
alignment.
llvm-svn: 142645
block frequency analyses. This differs substantially from the existing
block-placement pass in LLVM:
1) It operates on the Machine-IR in the CodeGen layer. This exposes much
more (and more precise) information and opportunities. Also, the
results are more stable due to fewer transforms ocurring after the
pass runs.
2) It uses the generalized probability and frequency analyses. These can
model static heuristics, code annotation derived heuristics as well
as eventual profile loading. By basing the optimization on the
analysis interface it can work from any (or a combination) of these
inputs.
3) It uses a more aggressive algorithm, both building chains from tho
bottom up to maximize benefit, and using an SCC-based walk to layout
chains of blocks in a profitable ordering without O(N^2) iterations
which the old pass involves.
The pass is currently gated behind a flag, and not enabled by default
because it still needs to grow some important features. Most notably, it
needs to support loop aligning and careful layout of loop structures
much as done by hand currently in CodePlacementOpt. Once it supports
these, and has sufficient testing and quality tuning, it should replace
both of these passes.
Thanks to Nick Lewycky and Richard Smith for help authoring & debugging
this, and to Jakob, Andy, Eric, Jim, and probably a few others I'm
forgetting for reviewing and answering all my questions. Writing
a backend pass is *sooo* much better now than it used to be. =D
llvm-svn: 142641
When checking the availability of instructions using the TLI, a 'promoted'
instruction IS available. It means that the value is bitcasted to another type
for which there is an operation. The correct check for the availablity of an
instruction is to check if it should be expanded.
llvm-svn: 142542
svn r139159 caused SelectionDAG::getConstant() to promote BUILD_VECTOR operands
with illegal types, even before type legalization. For this testcase, that led
to one BUILD_VECTOR with i16 operands and another with promoted i32 operands,
which triggered the assertion.
llvm-svn: 142370
.file filenumber "directory" "filename"
This removes one join+split of the directory+filename in MC internals. Because
bitcode files have independent fields for directory and filenames in debug info,
this patch may change the .o files written by existing .bc files.
llvm-svn: 142300
Use the custom inserter for the ARM setjmp intrinsics. Instead of creating the
SjLj dispatch table in IR, where it frequently violates serveral assumptions --
in particular assumptions made by the landingpad instruction about what can
branch to a landing pad and what cannot. Performing this in the back-end allows
us to violate these assumptions without the IR getting angry at us.
It also allows us to perform a small optimization. We can shove the address of
the dispatch's basic block into the function context and not have to add code
around the setjmp to check for the return value and jump to the dispatch.
Neat, huh?
<rdar://problem/10116753>
llvm-svn: 142294
Some code want to check that *any* call within a function has the 'returns
twice' attribute, not just that the current function has one.
llvm-svn: 142221
This isn't put into the 'clear()' method because the information needs to stick
around (at least for a little bit) after the selection DAG is built.
llvm-svn: 142032
When spilling around an instruction with a dead def, remember to add a
value number for the def.
The missing value number wouldn't normally create problems since there
would be an incoming live range as well. However, due to another bug
we could spill a dead V_SET0 instruction which doesn't read any values.
The missing value number caused an empty live range to be created which
is dangerous since it doesn't interfere with anything.
This fixes part of PR11125.
llvm-svn: 141923
Now that MI->getRegClassConstraint() can also handle inline assembly,
don't bail when recomputing the register class of a virtual register
used by inline asm.
This fixes PR11078.
llvm-svn: 141836
Most instructions have some requirements for their register operands.
Usually, this is expressed as register class constraints in the
MCInstrDesc, but for inline assembly the constraints are encoded in the
flag words.
llvm-svn: 141835
The inline asm operand constraint is initially encoded in the virtual
register for the operand, but that register class may change during
coalescing, and the original constraint is lost.
Encode the original register class as part of the flag word for each
inline asm operand. This makes it possible to recover the actual
constraint required by inline asm, just like we can for normal
instructions.
llvm-svn: 141833
our current machine instruction defines a register with the same register class
as what's being replaced. This showed up in the SPEC 403.gcc benchmark, where it
would ICE because a tail call was expecting one register class but was given
another. (The machine instruction verifier catches this situation.)
<rdar://problem/10270968>
llvm-svn: 141830
rather than the previous index. If a block has a single instruction, the
previous index may be in a different basic block.
I have no clue how this used to work on all of test-suite, because now this
failure is seen quite often when trying to compile code with -strong-phi-elim.
This fixes PR10252.
llvm-svn: 141812
