For some reason the 64-bit patterns were separated from their 8/16/32-bit friends, but only for add/sub/mul. For and/or/xor they were together.
llvm-svn: 335429
With the removal of intrin.h in an earlier patch, the intrinsics
that we were actually using were manually re-declared, however
several of them were missed leading to compilation failures with
MSVC. Fix those.
llvm-svn: 335427
-Ensure EIP isn't used with an index reigster.
-Ensure EIP isn't used as index register.
-Ensure base register isn't a vector register.
-Ensure eiz/riz usage matches the size of their base register.
llvm-svn: 335412
FDiv is replaced with multiplication by reciprocal and invariant
reciprocal is hoisted out of the loop, while multiplication remains
even if invariant.
Switch checks for all invariant operands and only invariant
denominator to fix the issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48447
llvm-svn: 335411
Implements PR34259
Intrinsics.h is a very popular header. Most LLVM TUs care about things
like dbg_value, but they don't care how they are implemented. After I
split these out, IntrinsicImpl.inc is 1.7 MB, so this saves each LLVM TU
from scanning 1.7 MB of source that gets pre-processed away.
It also means we can modify intrinsic properties without triggering a
full rebuild, but that's probably less of a win.
I think the next best thing to do would be to split out the target
intrinsics into their own header. Very, very few TUs care about
target-specific intrinsics. It's very hard to split up the target
independent intrinsics like llvm.expect, assume, and dbg.value, though.
llvm-svn: 335407
This is repeatably worth 0.3s compile time on MathExtras.cpp. This is a
very popular header, and it basically pulls all Intel intrinsics into
every LLVM TU. Let's not do that.
llvm-svn: 335406
Summary:
This affects what sections are displayed as "DATA" in llvm-objdump.
The other user llvm-size is unaffected.
Before, a "TEXT" section is also "DATA", which seems weird.
The sh_flags condition matches that of bfd's SEC_DATA but the sh_type
condition uses (== SHF_PROGBITS) instead of bfd's (!= SHT_NOBITS).
bfd's SEC_DATA is not appealing as so many sections will be shown as DATA.
Reviewers: jyknight, Bigcheese
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48472
llvm-svn: 335405
Previously, to support (%dx) we left a wide open hole in our 16-bit memory address checking. This let this address value be used with any instruction without error in the parser. It would later fail in the encoder with an assertion failure on debug builds and who knows what on release builds.
This patch passes the mnemonic down to the memory operand parsing function so we can allow the (%dx) form only on specific instructions.
llvm-svn: 335403
This gets rid of a bunch of weird special cases; instead, just use SCEV
rewriting for everything. In addition to being simpler, this fixes a
bug where we would use the wrong stride in certain edge cases.
The one bit I'm not quite sure about is the trip count handling,
specifically the FIXME about overflow. In general, I think we need to
widen the exit condition, but that's probably not profitable if the new
type isn't legal, so we probably need a check somewhere. That said, I
don't think I'm making the existing problem any worse.
As a followup to this, a bunch of IV-related code in root-finding could
be cleaned up; with SCEV-based rewriting, there isn't any reason to
assume a loop will have exactly one or two PHI nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45191
llvm-svn: 335400
This allows us to check these:
-16-bit addressing doesn't support scale so we should error if we find one there.
-Multiplying ESP/RSP by a scale even if the scale is 1 should be an error because ESP/RSP can't be an index.
llvm-svn: 335398
By default, the second register gets assigned to the index register slot. But ESP can't be an index register so we need to swap it with the other register.
There's still a slight bug that we allow [EAX+ESP*1]. The existence of the multiply even though its with 1 should force ESP to the index register and trigger an error, but it doesn't currently.
llvm-svn: 335394
The DispatchUnit is no longer a dependency of RCU, so this patch removes a
stale include and forward decl. This patch also cleans up some comments.
llvm-svn: 335392
We likely gave up on folding some select-of-constants patterns in
IR with rL331486, and we need to recover those in the DAG.
The tests without select are based on our current DAGCombiner
optimizations for select-of-constants.
llvm-svn: 335391
We likely gave up on folding some select-of-constants patterns in
IR with rL331486, and we need to recover those in the DAG.
The tests without select are based on our current DAGCombiner
optimizations for select-of-constants.
llvm-svn: 335390
These test cases show that the "(select (and (x , 0x1) == 0), y, (z ^ y) ) -> (-(and (x , 0x1)) & z ) ^ y" doesn't work if the select condition is changed to (and (x, 0x1) != 1)
llvm-svn: 335389
Since we are now producing a summary also for regular LTO builds, we
need to run the NameAnonGlobals pass in those cases as well (the
summary cannot handle anonymous globals).
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D34156 for details on the original change.
This reverts commit 6c9ee4a4a438a8059aacc809b2dd57128fccd6b3.
llvm-svn: 335385
The second register is the index register and should only be %si or %di if used with a base register. And in that case the base register should be %bp or %bx.
This makes us compatible with gas.
We do still need to support both orders with Intel syntax which uses [bp+si] and [si+bp]
llvm-svn: 335384
(%bp) can't be encoded without a displacement. The encoding is instead used for displacement alone. So a 1 byte displacement of 0 must be used. But if there is an index register we can encode without a displacement.
llvm-svn: 335379
Summary:
In LoopUnswitch when replacing a branch Parent -> Succ with a conditional
branch Parent -> True & Parent->False, the DomTree updates should insert an edge for
each of True/False if True/False are different than Succ, and delete Parent->Succ edge
if both are different. The comparison with Succ appears to be incorect,
it's comparing with Parent instead.
There is no test failing either before or after this change, but it seems to me this is
the right way to do the update.
Reviewers: chandlerc, kuhar
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48457
llvm-svn: 335369
Enable tryToVectorizeList to support InstructionsState alternate opcode patterns at a root (build vector etc.) as well as further down the vectorization tree.
NOTE: This patch reduces some of the debug reporting if there are opcode mismatches - I can try to add it back if it proves a problem. But it could get rather messy trying to provide equivalent verbose debug strings via getSameOpcode etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48488
llvm-svn: 335364
Summary:
Remove explicit stages and introduce a list of stages.
A pipeline should be composed of an arbitrary list of stages, and not any
predefined list of stages in the Backend. The Backend should not know of any
particular stage, rather it should only be concerned that it has a list of
stages, and that those stages will fulfill the contract of what it means to be
a Stage (namely pre/post/execute a given instruction).
For now, we leave the original set of stages defined in the Backend ctor;
however, I imagine these will be moved out at a later time.
This patch makes an adjustment to the semantics of Stage::isReady.
Specifically, what the Backend really needs to know is if a Stage has
unfinished work. With that said, it is more appropriately renamed
Stage::hasWorkToComplete(). This change will clean up the check in
Backend::run(), allowing us to query each stage to see if there is unfinished
work, regardless of what subclass a stage might be. I feel that this change
simplifies the semantics too, but that's a subjective statement.
Given how RetireStage and ExecuteStage handle data in their preExecute(), I've
had to change the order of Retire and Execute in our stage list. Retire must
complete any of its preExecute actions before ExecuteStage's preExecute can
take control. This is mainly because both stages utilize the RCU. In the
meantime, I want to see if I can adjust that or remove that coupling.
Reviewers: andreadb, RKSimon, courbet
Reviewed By: andreadb
Subscribers: tschuett, gbedwell, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46907
llvm-svn: 335361
