If this is a problem for anyone (shared_ptr is two pointers in size,
whereas IntrusiveRefCntPtr is 1 - and the ref count control block that
make_shared adds is probably larger than the one int in RefCountedBase)
I'd prefer to address this by adding a lower-overhead version of
shared_ptr (possibly refactoring IntrusiveRefCntPtr into such a thing)
to avoid the intrusiveness - this allows memory ownership to remain
orthogonal to types and at least to me, seems to make code easier to
understand (since no implicit ownership acquisition can happen).
This recommits 291006, reverted in r291007.
llvm-svn: 291016
Summary:
When promoting fp-to-uint16 to fp-to-sint32, the result is actually zero
extended. For example, given double 65534.0, without legalization:
fp-to-uint16: 65534.0 -> 0xfffe
With the legalization:
fp-to-sint32: 65534.0 -> 0x0000fffe
Without this patch, legalization wrongly emits a signed extend assertion,
which is consumed by later icmp instruction, and cause miscompile.
Note that the floating point value must be in [0, 65535), otherwise the
behavior is undefined.
This patch reverts r279223 behavior and adds more tests and
documentations.
In PR29041's context, James Molloy mentioned that:
We don't need to mask because conversion from float->uint8_t is
undefined if the integer part of the float value is not representable in
uint8_t. Therefore we can assume this doesn't happen!
which is totally true and good, because fptoui is documented clearly to
have undefined behavior when overflow/underflow happens. We should take
the advantage of this behavior so that we can save unnecessary mask
instructions.
Reviewers: jmolloy, nadav, echristo, kbarton
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28284
llvm-svn: 291015
Summary:
Instead of matching:
(a + i) + 1 -> (a + i, undef, 1)
Now it matches:
(a + i) + 1 -> (a, i, 1)
Reviewers: rengolin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26367
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 291012
If this is a problem for anyone (shared_ptr is two pointers in size,
whereas IntrusiveRefCntPtr is 1 - and the ref count control block that
make_shared adds is probably larger than the one int in RefCountedBase)
I'd prefer to address this by adding a lower-overhead version of
shared_ptr (possibly refactoring IntrusiveRefCntPtr into such a thing)
to avoid the intrusiveness - this allows memory ownership to remain
orthogonal to types and at least to me, seems to make code easier to
understand (since no implicit ownership acquisition can happen).
llvm-svn: 291006
The intrusive nature of the reference counting is not required/used
here, so simplify the ownership model to make the code easier to
understand.
llvm-svn: 291005
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. Unfortunately, because of the way
that the ABI works, we need to generate code as if we supported interposition
whenever the linker might insert stubs for the purpose of supporting it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 291003
This roughly matches the semantics of std::enable_shared_from_this - that it
does not dictate the ownership model of all users, but constrains those users
taking advantage of the intrusive nature to do so only when there's a guarantee
that that's the ownership model being used for the object being passed.
Reviewers: jlebar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28245
llvm-svn: 290987
This test case has been reduced from test/Analysis/RegionInfo/mix_1.ll and
provides us with a minimal example of a test case which caused problems while
working on an improved version of the RegionInfo analysis. We upstream this
test case, as it certainly can be helpful in future debugging and optimization
tests.
Test case reduced by Pratik Bhatu <cs12b1010@iith.ac.in>
llvm-svn: 290974
This reapplies r289828 (reverted in r289833 as it broke the address sanitizer). The
debugloc is now only set when the instruction is not a call, as this causes the
verifier to assert (the inliner requires an inlinable callsite to have a debug loc
if the caller and callee have debug info).
Original commit message:
Simplify CFG will try to sink the last instruction in a series of basic blocks,
creating a "common" instruction in the successor block (sinkLastInstruction).
When it does this, the debug location of the single instruction should be the
merged debug locations of the commoned instructions.
Original review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27590
llvm-svn: 290973
These tests are missing a target triple and the -m elf_x86_64 gold option,
which makes them fail on non-x86 targets.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28285
Reviewers: tejohnson
llvm-svn: 290965
Summary:
Change llvm-link to use the FunctionImporter handling, instead of
manually invoking the Linker. We still need to load the module
in llvm-link to do the desired testing for invalid import requests
(weak functions), and to get the GUID (in case the function is local).
Also change the drop-debug-info test to use llvm-link so that importing
is forced (in order to test debug info handling) and independent of
import logic changes.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28277
llvm-svn: 290964
This CPU type was not previously recognized by LLVM which led to emitting
poor (and sometimes incorrect) code in some JIT workloads on such a machine.
llvm-svn: 290961
Summary:
In mergeSPUpdates, debug values need to be ignored when getting the
previous element, otherwise debug data could have an impact on codegen.
In eliminateCallFramePseudoInstr, debug values after the erased element
could have an impact on codegen and should be skipped.
Closes PR31319 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31319)
Reviewers: aprantl, MatzeB, mkuper
Subscribers: gbedwell, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27688
llvm-svn: 290955
This just removes the usage of llvm::reverse and llvm::seq. That makes
it harder to handle the empty case correctly and so I've also added
a test there.
This is just a shot in the dark at what might be behind the buildbot
failures. I can't reproduce any issues locally including with ASan...
I feel like I'm missing something...
llvm-svn: 290954
This is both convenient and more efficient as we can skip any
intermediate reallocation of the vector.
This usage pattern came up in a subsequent patch on the pass manager,
but it seems generically useful so I factored it out and added unittests
here.
llvm-svn: 290952
Summary:
The InlineSpiller was accessing the DominatorTreeBase directly
through the public data member DT in the MachineDominatorTree.
This is not a good idea as the "cached" information in
SplitCriticalEdges is not applied before the access.
The DominatorTreeBase must be accessed through the member
function getBase() in MachineDominatorTree.
The fault was introduced in r266162.
I think the public data member DT in the MachineDominatorTree
should have been made private in the original code (r215576)
that introduced the concept of lazily updating the
MachineDominatorTree information from
MachineBasicBlock::SplitCriticalEdge().
Patch by Karl-Johan Karlsson <karl-johan.karlsson@ericsson.com>
Reviewers: wmi, qcolombet
Subscribers: llvm-commits, bjope, uabelho
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27983
llvm-svn: 290950
Replacing the memory operand in the intrinsic versions of the comis/ucomis instrucions from f128mem to ssmem/sdmem accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28138
llvm-svn: 290948
In some cases its more efficient to combine TRUNC( BINOP( X, Y ) ) --> BINOP( TRUNC( X ), TRUNC( Y ) ) if the binop is legal for the truncated types.
This is true for vector integer multiplication (especially vXi64), as well as ADD/AND/XOR/OR in cases where we only need to truncate one of the inputs at runtime (e.g. a duplicated input or an one use constant we can fold).
Further work could be done here - scalar cases (especially i64) could often benefit (if we avoid partial registers etc.), other opcodes, and better analysis of when truncating the inputs reduces costs.
I have considered implementing this for all targets within the DAGCombiner but wasn't sure we could devise a suitable cost model system that would give us the range we need.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28219
llvm-svn: 290947
