Code such as:
%vreg100 = setcc %vreg10, -1, SETNE
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
was being incorrectly morphed into
%vreg100 = and %vreg10, 1
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
where the 'and' instruction could be eliminated since
such logic is on 1-bit types in the PTX back-end, leaving
us with just:
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
which essentially gives us inverted branch conditions.
llvm-svn: 153364
destination module, but one of them isn't used in the destination module. If
another module comes along and the uses the unused type, there could be type
conflicts when the modules are finally linked together. (This happened when
building LLVM.)
The test that was reduced is:
Module A:
%Z = type { %A }
%A = type { %B.1, [7 x x86_fp80] }
%B.1 = type { %C }
%C = type { i8* }
declare void @func_x(%C*, i64, i64)
declare void @func_z(%Z* nocapture)
Module B:
%B = type { %C.1 }
%C.1 = type { i8* }
%A.2 = type { %B.3, [5 x x86_fp80] }
%B.3 = type { %C.1 }
define void @func_z() {
%x = alloca %A.2, align 16
%y = getelementptr inbounds %A.2* %x, i64 0, i32 0, i32 0
call void @func_x(%C.1* %y, i64 37, i64 927) nounwind
ret void
}
declare void @func_x(%C.1*, i64, i64)
declare void @func_y(%B* nocapture)
(Unfortunately, this test doesn't fail under llvm-link, only during an LTO
linking.) The '%C' and '%C.1' clash. The destination module gets the '%C'
declaration. When merging Module B, it looks at the '%C.1' subtype of the '%B'
structure. It adds that in, because that's cool. And when '%B.3' is processed,
it uses the '%C.1'. But the '%B' has used '%C' and we prefer to use '%C'. So the
'@func_x' type is changed to 'void (%C*, i64, i64)', but the type of '%x' in
'@func_z' remains '%A.2'. The GEP resolves to a '%C.1', which conflicts with the
'@func_x' signature.
We can resolve this situation by making sure that the type is used in the
destination before saying that it should be used in the module being merged in.
With this fix, LLVM and Clang both compile under LTO.
<rdar://problem/10913281>
llvm-svn: 153351
same basic block, and it's not safe to insert code in the successor
blocks if the edges are critical edges. Splitting those edges is
possible, but undesirable, especially on the unwind side. Instead,
make the bottom-up code motion to consider invokes to be part of
their successor blocks, rather than part of their parent blocks, so
that it doesn't push code past them and onto the edges. This fixes
PR12307.
llvm-svn: 153343
This is necessary if the client wants to be able to mutate TargetOptions (for example, fast FP math mode) after the initial creation of the ExecutionEngine.
llvm-svn: 153342
dominated by Root, check that B is available throughout the scope. This
is obviously true (famous last words?) given the current logic, but the
check may be helpful if more complicated reasoning is added one day.
llvm-svn: 153323
(and hopefully on Windows). The bots have been down most of the day
because of this, and it's not clear to me what all will be required to
fix it.
The commits started with r153205, then r153207, r153208, and r153221.
The first commit seems to be the real culprit, but I couldn't revert
a smaller number of patches.
When resubmitting, r153207 and r153208 should be folded into r153205,
they were simple build fixes.
llvm-svn: 153241
