synthesize a move constructor. Thus, for any types where move semantics
are important (yea, that's essentially every type...) you must
explicitly define the special members. Do so systematically throughout
the pass manager as the core of the design relies heavily on move
semantics.
This will hopefully fix the build with MSVC 2013. We still don't know
why MSVC 2012 accepted this code, but it almost certainly wasn't doing
the right thing.
I've also added explicit to a few single-argument constructors spotted
in passing.
llvm-svn: 203426
it is available. Also make the move semantics sufficiently correct to
tolerate move-only passes, as the PassManagers *are* move-only passes.
llvm-svn: 203391
The grammar for LLVM IR is not well specified in any document but seems
to obey the following rules:
- Attributes which have parenthesized arguments are never preceded by
commas. This form of attribute is the only one which ever has
optional arguments. However, not all of these attributes support
optional arguments: 'thread_local' supports an optional argument but
'addrspace' does not. Interestingly, 'addrspace' is documented as
being a "qualifier". What constitutes a qualifier? I cannot find a
definition.
- Some attributes use a space between the keyword and the value.
Examples of this form are 'align' and 'section'. These are always
preceded by a comma.
- Otherwise, the attribute has no argument. These attributes do not
have a preceding comma.
Sometimes an attribute goes before the instruction, between the
instruction and it's type, or after it's type. 'atomicrmw' has
'volatile' between the instruction and the type while 'call' has 'tail'
preceding the instruction.
With all this in mind, it seems most consistent for 'inalloca' on an
'inalloca' instruction to occur before between the instruction and the
type. Unlike the current formulation, there would be no preceding
comma. The combination 'alloca inalloca' doesn't look particularly
appetizing, perhaps a better spelling of 'inalloca' is down the road.
llvm-svn: 203376
This reverts commit r203374.
Ambiguities in assign... oh well. I'm just going to revert this and
probably not try to recommit it as it's not terribly important.
llvm-svn: 203375
Move a common utility (assign(iter, iter)) into SmallVector (some of the
others could be moved there too, but this one seemed particularly
generic) and replace repetitions overrides with using directives.
And simplify SmallVector::assign(num, element) while I'm here rather
than thrashing these files (that cause everyone to rebuild) again.
llvm-svn: 203374
MSVC (2012, 2013, 2013 Nov CTP) fail on the following code:
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2};
for (int i : arr)
do {} while (0);
}
The fix is to put {} around the for loop. I've reported this to the MSVC
team.
llvm-svn: 203371
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
relevant subclasses of RuntimeDyldImpl. This allows construction of
RuntimeDyldImpl instances to be deferred until after the target architecture is
known.
llvm-svn: 203352
This is already done for shifts. Allow it for rotations as well. E.g.:
(rotl:i32 x, (trunc (and y, 31))) -> (rotl:i32 x, (and (trunc y), 31))
Use the newly factored-out distributeTruncateThroughAnd.
With this patch and some X86.td tweaks we should be able to remove redundant
masking of the rotation amount like in the example above. HW implicitly
performs this masking.
The testcase will be added as part of the X86 patch.
llvm-svn: 203316
This is the new idiom:
x<<(y&31) | x>>((0-y)&31)
which is recognized as:
x ROTL (y&31)
The change refines matchRotateSub. In
Neg & (OpSize - 1) == (OpSize - Pos) & (OpSize - 1), if Pos is
Pos' & (OpSize - 1) we can just use Pos' instead of Pos.
llvm-svn: 203315
Slightly change the wording in the function comment. Originally, it can be
misunderstood as we turned the input into two subsequent rotates.
Better connect the comment which talks about Mask and the code which used
LoBits. Renamed variable to MaskLoBits.
llvm-svn: 203314
be split and the result type widened.
When the condition of a vselect has to be split it makes no sense widening the
vselect and thereby widening the condition. We end up in an endless loop of
widening (vselect result type) and splitting (condition mask type) doing this.
Instead, split both the condition and the vselect and widen the result.
I ran this over the test suite with i686 and mattr=+sse and saw no regressions.
Fixes PR18036.
llvm-svn: 203311
