halting analysis, it is illegal to delete a call to a read-only function.
The correct solution is almost certainly to add a "must halt" attribute and
only allow deletions in its presence.
XFAIL the relevant testcase for now.
llvm-svn: 102831
that can have a big effect :). The first is to enable the
iterative SCC passmanager juice that kicks in when the
scc passmgr detects that a function pass has devirtualized
a call. In this case, it will rerun all the passes it
manages on the SCC, up to the iteration count limit (4). This
is useful because a function pass may devirualize a call, and
we want the inliner to inline it, or pruneeh to infer stuff
about it, etc.
The second patch is to add *all* call sites to the
DevirtualizedCalls list the inliner uses. This list is
about to get renamed, but the jist of this is that the
inliner now reconsiders *all* inlined call sites as candidates
for further inlining. The intuition is this that in cases
like this:
f() { g(1); } g(int x) { h(x); }
We analyze this bottom up, and may decide that it isn't
profitable to inline H into G. Next step, we decide that it is
profitable to inline G into F, and do so, which means that F
now calls H. Even though the call from G -> H may not have been
profitable to inline, the call from F -> H may be (in this case
because a constant allows folding etc).
In my spot checks, this doesn't have a big impact on code. For
example, the LLC output for 252.eon grew from 0.02% (from
317252 to 317308) and 176.gcc actually shrunk by .3% (from 1525612
to 1520964 bytes). 252.eon never iterated in the SCC Passmgr,
176.gcc iterated at most 1 time.
llvm-svn: 102823
that appear due to inlining a callee as candidates for
futher inlining, but a recent patch made it do this if
those call sites were indirect and became direct.
Unfortunately, in bizarre cases (see testcase) doing this
can cause us to infinitely inline mutually recursive
functions into callers not in the cycle. Fix this by
keeping track of the inline history from which callsite
inline candidates got inlined from.
This shouldn't affect any "real world" code, but is required
for a follow on patch that is coming up next.
llvm-svn: 102822
sub-register indices and outputs a single super register which is formed from
a consecutive sequence of registers.
This is used as register allocation / coalescing aid and it is useful to
represent instructions that output register pairs / quads. For example,
v1024, v1025 = vload <address>
where v1024 and v1025 forms a register pair.
This really should be modelled as
v1024<3>, v1025<4> = vload <address>
but it would violate SSA property before register allocation is done.
Currently we use insert_subreg to form the super register:
v1026 = implicit_def
v1027 - insert_subreg v1026, v1024, 3
v1028 = insert_subreg v1027, v1025, 4
...
= use v1024
= use v1028
But this adds pseudo live interval overlap between v1024 and v1025.
We can now modeled it as
v1024, v1025 = vload <address>
v1026 = REG_SEQUENCE v1024, 3, v1025, 4
...
= use v1024
= use v1026
After coalescing, it will be
v1026<3>, v1025<4> = vload <address>
...
= use v1026<3>
= use v1026
llvm-svn: 102815
code, and to eliminate the need for the SelectionDAGBuilder
state to be live during CodeGenAndEmitDAG calls.
Call SDB->clear() before CodeGenAndEmitDAG calls instead of
before it, and move the CurDAG->clear() out of SelectionDAGBuilder,
which doesn't own the DAG, and into CodeGenAndEmitDAG.
llvm-svn: 102814
were still inlining self-recursive functions into other functions.
Inlining a recursive function into itself has the potential to
reduce recursion depth by a factor of 2, inlining a recursive
function into something else reduces recursion depth by exactly
1. Since inlining a recursive function into something else is a
weird form of loop peeling, turn this off.
The deleted testcase was added by Dale in r62107, since then
we're leaning towards not inlining recursive stuff ever. In any
case, if we like inlining recursive stuff, it should be done
within the recursive function itself to get the algorithm
recursion depth win.
llvm-svn: 102798
indexes could be of a different value type. Or not even using the same SDNode
for the constant (weird, I know). Compare the actual values instead of the
pointers.
llvm-svn: 102791
call that might throw. The landing pad assumes that all registers are in stack
slots.
We used to spill those dirty CSRs after the call, and the stack slots would be
wrong when arriving at the landing pad.
llvm-svn: 102770
