Fixes PR16146: gdb.base__call-ar-st.exp fails after
pre-RA-sched=source fixes.
Patch by Xiaoyi Guo!
This also fixes an unsupported dbg.value test case. Codegen was
previously incorrect but the test was passing by luck.
llvm-svn: 182885
With a little help from the frontend, it looks like the standard va_*
intrinsics can do the job.
Also clean up an old bitcast hack in LowerVAARG that dealt with
unaligned double loads. Load SDNodes can specify an alignment now.
Still missing: Calling varargs functions with float arguments.
llvm-svn: 179961
SDNodes and MachineOperands get target flags representing the %hi() and
%lo() assembly annotations that eventually become relocations.
Also define flags to be used by the 64-bit code models.
llvm-svn: 179468
The save area is twice as big and there is no struct return slot. The
stack pointer is always 16-byte aligned (after adding the bias).
Also eliminate the stack adjustment instructions around calls when the
function has a reserved stack frame.
llvm-svn: 179083
Integer return values are sign or zero extended by the callee, and
structs up to 32 bytes in size can be returned in registers.
The CC_Sparc64 CallingConv definition is shared between
LowerFormalArguments_64 and LowerReturn_64. Function arguments and
return values are passed in the same registers.
The inreg flag is also used for return values. This is required to handle
C functions returning structs containing floats and ints:
struct ifp {
int i;
float f;
};
struct ifp f(void);
LLVM IR:
define inreg { i32, float } @f() {
...
ret { i32, float } %retval
}
The ABI requires that %retval.i is returned in the high bits of %i0
while %retval.f goes in %f1.
Without the inreg return value attribute, %retval.i would go in %i0 and
%retval.f would go in %f3 which is a more efficient way of returning
%multiple values, but it is not ABI compliant for returning C structs.
llvm-svn: 178966
All arguments are formally assigned to stack positions and then promoted
to floating point and integer registers. Since there are more floating
point registers than integer registers, this can cause situations where
floating point arguments are assigned to registers after integer
arguments that where assigned to the stack.
Use the inreg flag to indicate 32-bit fragments of structs containing
both float and int members.
The three-way shadowing between stack, integer, and floating point
registers requires custom argument lowering. The good news is that
return values are passed in the exact same way, and we can share the
code.
Still missing:
- Update LowerReturn to handle structs returned in registers.
- LowerCall.
- Variadic functions.
llvm-svn: 178958
This requires v9 cmov instructions using the %xcc flags instead of the
%icc flags.
Still missing:
- Select floats on %xcc flags.
- Select i64 on %fcc flags.
llvm-svn: 178737
The same compare instruction is used for 32-bit and 64-bit compares. It
sets two different sets of flags: icc and xcc.
This patch adds a conditional branch instruction using the xcc flags for
64-bit compares.
llvm-svn: 178621
This is far from complete, but it is enough to make it possible to write
test cases using i64 arguments.
Missing features:
- Floating point arguments.
- Receiving arguments on the stack.
- Calls.
llvm-svn: 178523
We are going to use the same registers for 32-bit and 64-bit values, but
in two different register classes. The I64Regs register class has a
larger spill size and alignment.
The addition of an i64 register class confuses TableGen's type
inference, so it is necessary to clarify the type of some immediates and
the G0 register.
In 64-bit mode, pointers are i64 and should use the I64Regs register
class. Implement getPointerRegClass() to dynamically provide the pointer
register class depending on the subtarget. Use ptr_rc and iPTR for
memory operands.
Finally, add the i64 type to the IntRegs register class. This register
class is not used to hold i64 values, I64Regs is for that. The type is
required to appease TableGen's type checking in output patterns like this:
def : Pat<(add i64:$a, i64:$b), (ADDrr $a, $b)>;
SPARC v9 uses the same ADDrr instruction for i32 and i64 additions, and
TableGen doesn't know to check the type of register sub-classes.
llvm-svn: 178522
conditions are met:
1. They share the same operand and are in the same BB.
2. Both outputs are used.
3. The target has a native instruction that maps to ISD::FSINCOS node or
the target provides a sincos library call.
Implemented the generic optimization in sdisel and enabled it for
Mac OSX. Also added an additional optimization for x86_64 Mac OSX by
using an alternative entry point __sincos_stret which returns the two
results in xmm0 / xmm1.
rdar://13087969
PR13204
llvm-svn: 173755
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
to pass around a struct instead of a large set of individual values. This
cleans up the interface and allows more information to be added to the struct
for future targets without requiring changes to each and every target.
NV_CONTRIB
llvm-svn: 157479
This allows us to keep passing reduced masks to SimplifyDemandedBits, but
know about all the bits if SimplifyDemandedBits fails. This allows instcombine
to simplify cases like the one in the included testcase.
llvm-svn: 154011
the processor keeps a return addresses stack (RAS) which stores the address
and the instruction execution state of the instruction after a function-call
type branch instruction.
Calling a "noreturn" function with normal call instructions (e.g. bl) can
corrupt RAS and causes 100% return misprediction so LLVM should use a
unconditional branch instead. i.e.
mov lr, pc
b _foo
The "mov lr, pc" is issued in order to get proper backtrace.
rdar://8979299
llvm-svn: 151623
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
