We should apply fastcc whenever profitable. We can expand this list,
but there are lots of conventions with performance implications that we
don't want to change.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2705
llvm-svn: 202293
COFF object files with 0 as string table size are currently rejected. This
prevents us from reading object files written by tools like cvtres that
violate the PECOFF spec and write 0 instead of 4 for the size of an empty
string table.
llvm-svn: 202292
We don't have any test with more than 6 address spaces, so a DenseMap is
probably not the correct answer.
An unsorted array would also be OK, but we have to sort it for printing anyway.
llvm-svn: 202275
This includes instructions with aggregate operands (insert/extract), instructions with vector operands (insert/extract/shuffle), binary arithmetic and bitwise instructions, conversion instructions and terminators.
Work was done by lama.saba@intel.com.
llvm-svn: 202262
The table argument is always 128-bit (and interpreted as <16 x i8>) so the
extra specifier for it is just clutter.
No user-visible behaviour change, so no tests.
llvm-svn: 202258
Summary:
Fixes an issue where a test attempts to use -mcpu=cortex-a15 on non-ARM targets.
This triggers an assertion on MIPS since it doesn't know what ABI to use by default for
unrecognized processors.
Reviewers: rengolin
Reviewed By: rengolin
CC: llvm-commits, aemerson, rengolin
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2876
llvm-svn: 202256
Summary:
This should fix the MCJIT unit tests that were broken by r201792 on the MIPS buildbot.
MIPS currently uses the default implementation of sys::getHostCPUName() which
always returns "generic". For now, we will accept "generic" and coerce it to
"mips32" or "mips64" depending on the target architecture like we do for empty
CPU names.
Reviewers: jacksprat, matheusalmeida
Reviewed By: jacksprat
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2878
llvm-svn: 202253
the default.
Based on the patch by Matt Arsenault, D1764!
I switched one place to use the more direct pointer type to compute the
desired address space, and I reworked the memcpy rewriting section to
reflect significant refactorings that this patch helped inspire.
Thanks to several of the folks who helped review and improve the patch
as well.
llvm-svn: 202247
to work independently for the slice side and the other side.
This allows us to only compute the minimum of the two when we actually
rewrite to a memcpy that needs to take the minimum, and preserve higher
alignment for one side or the other when rewriting to loads and stores.
This fix was inspired by seeing the result of some refactoring that
makes addrspace handling better.
llvm-svn: 202242
target_link_libraries(INTERFACE) doesn't bring inter-target dependencies in add_library,
although final targets have dependencies to whole dependent libraries.
It makes most libraries can be built in parallel.
target_link_libraries(PRIVATE) is used to shaared library.
Each dependent library is linked to the target.so, and its user will not see its grandchildren.
For example,
- libclang.so has sufficient libclang*.a(s).
- c-index-test requires just only libclang.so.
FIXME: lld is tweaked minimally. Adding INTERFACE in each library would be better thing.
llvm-svn: 202241
For now, use both keywords, INTERFACE and PRIVATE via the variable,
- ${cmake_2_8_12_INTERFACE}
- ${cmake_2_8_12_PRIVATE}
They could be cleaned up when we introduce 2.8.12.
llvm-svn: 202239
D1764, which in turn set off the other refactorings to make
'getSliceAlign()' a sensible thing.
There are two possible inputs to the required alignment of a memory
transfer intrinsic: the alignment constraints of the source and the
destination. If we are *only* introducing a (potentially new) offset
onto one side of the transfer, we don't need to consider the alignment
constraints of the other side. Use this to simplify the logic feeding
into alignment computation for unsplit transfers.
Also, hoist the clamp of the magical zero alignment for these intrinsics
to the more customary one alignment early. This lets several other
conditions melt away.
No functionality changed. There is a further improvement this exposes
which *will* change functionality, but that's arriving in a separate
patch.
llvm-svn: 202232
rewriting logic: don't pass custom offsets for the adjusted pointer to
the new alloca.
We always passed NewBeginOffset here. Sometimes we spelled it
BeginOffset, but only when they were in fact equal. Whats worse, the API
is set up so that you can't reasonably call it with anything else -- it
assumes that you're passing it an offset relative to the *original*
alloca that happens to fall within the new one. That's the whole point
of NewBeginOffset, it's the clamped beginning offset.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 202231
alignment of the slice being rewritten, not any arbitrary offset.
Every caller is really just trying to compute the alignment for the
whole slice, never for some arbitrary alignment. They are also just
passing a type when they have one to see if we can skip an explicit
alignment in the IR by using the type's alignment. This makes for a much
simpler interface.
Another refactoring inspired by the addrspace patch for SROA, although
only loosely related.
llvm-svn: 202230
consistency with memcpy rewriting, and fix a latent bug in the alignment
management for memset.
The alignment issue is that getAdjustedAllocaPtr is computing the
*relative* offset into the new alloca, but the alignment isn't being set
to the relative offset, it was using the the absolute offset which is
into the old alloca.
I don't think its possible to write a test case that actually reaches
this code where the resulting alignment would be observably different,
but the intent was clearly to use the relative offset within the new
alloca.
llvm-svn: 202229
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
