rather than passing them as arguments.
While I generally prefer actual arguments, in this case the readability
loss is substantial. By using members we avoid repeatedly calculating
the offsets, and once we're using members it is useful to ensure that
those names *always* refer to the original-alloca-relative new offset
for a rewritten slice.
No functionality changed. Follow-up refactoring, all toward getting the
address space patch merged.
llvm-svn: 202228
slice being rewritten.
We had the same code scattered across most of the visits. Instead,
compute the new offsets and the slice size once when we start to visit
a particular slice, and use the member variables from then on. This
reduces quite a bit of code duplication.
No functionality changed. Refactoring inspired to make it easier to
apply the address space patch to SROA.
llvm-svn: 202227
checking in SROA.
The primary change is to just rely on uge for checking that the offset
is within the allocation size. This removes the explicit checks against
isNegative which were terribly error prone (including the reversed logic
that led to PR18615) and prevented us from supporting stack allocations
larger than half the address space.... Ok, so maybe the latter isn't
*common* but it's a silly restriction to have.
Also, we used to try to support a PHI node which loaded from before the
start of the allocation if any of the loaded bytes were within the
allocation. This doesn't make any sense, we have never really supported
loading or storing *before* the allocation starts. The simplified logic
just doesn't care.
We continue to allow loading past the end of the allocation in part to
support cases where there is a PHI and some loads are larger than others
and the larger ones reach past the end of the allocation. We could solve
this a different and more conservative way, but I'm still somewhat
paranoid about this.
llvm-svn: 202224
The original text is very terse, so I've expanded on it.
Specifically, in the original text:
* "The selector value is a positive number if the exception matched a
type info" -- It wasn't clear that this meant "if the exception
matched a 'catch' clause".
* "If nothing is matched, the behavior of the program is
`undefined`_." -- It's actually implementation-defined in C++
rather than undefined, as the new text explains.
llvm-svn: 202209
Eventually DataLayoutPass should go away, but for now that is the only easy
way to get a DataLayout in some APIs. This patch only changes the ones that
have easy access to a Module.
One interesting issue with sometimes using DataLayoutPass and sometimes
fetching it from the Module is that we have to make sure they are equivalent.
We can get most of the way there by always constructing the pass with a Module.
In fact, the pass could be changed to point to an external DataLayout instead
of owning one to make this stricter.
Unfortunately, the C api passes a DataLayout, so it has to be up to the caller
to make sure the pass and the module are in sync.
llvm-svn: 202204
No tool does this currently, but as everything else in a module we should be
able to change its DataLayout.
Most of the fix is in DataLayout to make sure it can be reset properly.
The test uses Module::setDataLayout since the fact that we mutate a DataLayout
is an implementation detail. The module could hold a OwningPtr<DataLayout> and
the DataLayout itself could be immutable.
Thanks to Philip Reames for pushing me in the right direction.
llvm-svn: 202198
their inputs come from std::stable_sort and they are not total orders.
I'm not a huge fan of this, but the really bad std::stable_sort is right
at the beginning of Reassociate. After we commit to stable-sort based
consistent respect of source order, the downstream sorts shouldn't undo
that unless they have a total order or they are used in an
order-insensitive way. Neither appears to be true for these cases.
I don't have particularly good test cases, but this jumped out by
inspection when looking for output instability in this pass due to
changes in the ordering of std::sort.
llvm-svn: 202196
implemented this way a long time ago and due to the overwhelming bugs
that surfaced, moved to a much more relaxed variant. Richard Smith would
like to understand the magnitude of this problem and it seems fairly
harmless to keep some flag-controlled logic to get the extremely strict
behavior here. I'll remove it if it doesn't prove useful.
llvm-svn: 202193
We need to abort the formation of counter-register-based loops where there are
128-bit integer operations that might become function calls.
llvm-svn: 202192
Now that DataLayout is not a pass, store one in Module.
Since the C API expects to be able to get a char* to the datalayout description,
we have to keep a std::string somewhere. This patch keeps it in Module and also
uses it to represent modules without a DataLayout.
Once DataLayout is mandatory, we should probably move the string to DataLayout
itself since it won't be necessary anymore to represent the special case of a
module without a DataLayout.
llvm-svn: 202190
Variadic functions have an unspecified parameter tag after the last
argument. In IR this is represented as an unspecified parameter in the
subroutine type.
Paired commit with CFE r202185.
rdar://problem/13690847
This re-applies r202184 + a bugfix in DwarfDebug's argument handling.
llvm-svn: 202188
Variadic functions have an unspecified parameter tag after the last
argument. In IR this is represented as an unspecified parameter in the
subroutine type.
Paired commit with CFE.
rdar://problem/13690847
llvm-svn: 202184
The function with uwtable attribute might be visited by the
stack unwinder, thus the link register should be considered
as clobbered after the execution of the branch and link
instruction (i.e. the definition of the machine instruction
can't be ignored) even when the callee function are marked
with noreturn.
llvm-svn: 202165
The behaviour of the XCore's instruction buffer means that the performance
of the same code sequence can differ depending on whether it starts at a 4
byte aligned address or not. Since we don't model the instruction buffer
in the backend we have no way of knowing for sure if it is beneficial to
word align a specific function. However, in the absence of precise
modelling, it is better on balance to word align functions because:
* It makes a fetch-nop while executing the prologue slightly less likely.
* If we don't word align functions then a small perturbation in one
function can have a dramatic knock on effect. If the size of the function
changes it might change the alignment and therefore the performance of
all the functions that happen to follow it in the binary. This butterfly
effect makes it harder to reason about and measure the performance of
code.
llvm-svn: 202163
just "load". This helps avoid pointless de-duping with order-sensitive
numbers as we already have unique names from the original load. It also
makes the resulting IR quite a bit easier to read.
llvm-svn: 202140
the pointer adjustment code. This is the primary code path that creates
totally new instructions in SROA and being able to lump them based on
the pointer value's name for which they were created causes
*significantly* fewer name collisions and general noise in the debug
output. This is particularly significant because it is making it much
harder to track down instability in the output of SROA, as name
de-duplication is a totally harmless form of instability that gets in
the way of seeing real problems.
The new fancy naming scheme tries to dig out the root "pre-SROA" name
for pointer values and associate that all the way through the pointer
formation instructions. Digging out the root is important to prevent the
multiple iterative rounds of SROA from just layering too much cruft on
top of cruft here. We already track the layers of SROAs iteration in the
alloca name prefix. We don't need to duplicate it here.
Should have no functionality change, and shouldn't have any really
measurable impact on NDEBUG builds, as most of the complex logic is
debug-only.
llvm-svn: 202139
using OldPtr more heavily. Lots of this code was written before the
rewriter had an OldPtr member setup ahead of time. There are already
asserts in place that should ensure this doesn't change any
functionality.
llvm-svn: 202135
the break statement, not just think it to yourself....
No idea how this worked at all, much less survived most bots, my
bootstrap, and some bot bootstraps!
The Polly one didn't survive, and this was filed as PR18959. I don't
have a reduced test case and honestly I'm not seeing the need. What we
probably need here are better asserts / debug-build behavior in
SmallPtrSet so that this madness doesn't make it so far.
llvm-svn: 202129
sorting it. This helps uncover latent reliance on the original ordering
which aren't guaranteed to be preserved by std::sort (but often are),
and which are based on the use-def chain orderings which also aren't
(technically) guaranteed.
Only available in C++11 debug builds, and behind a flag to prevent noise
at the moment, but this is generally useful so figured I'd put it in the
tree rather than keeping it out-of-tree.
llvm-svn: 202106
the destination operand or source operand of a memmove.
It so happens that it was impossible for SROA to try to rewrite
self-memmove where the operands are *identical*, because either such
a think is volatile (and we don't rewrite) or it is non-volatile, and we
don't even register it as a use of the alloca.
However, making the 'IsDest' test *rely* on this subtle fact is... Very
confusing for the reader. We should use the direct and readily available
test of the Use* which gives us concrete information about which operand
is being rewritten.
No functionality changed, I hope! ;]
llvm-svn: 202103
