maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/merge-store-partially-alias...

53 lines
2.2 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
; REQUIRES: asserts
; RUN: llc -march=x86-64 -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu < %s | FileCheck -check-prefix=X86 %s
; RUN: llc -march=x86-64 -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -debug-only=isel < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=DBGDAG %s
; It's OK to merge the load / store of the first 2 components, but
; they must not be placed on the same chain after merging.
; X86-LABEL: {{^}}merge_store_partial_overlap_load:
[X86] Fix PR23155 by turning on X86FixupBWInsts by default. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18866 llvm-svn: 265830
2016-04-09 02:58:29 +08:00
; X86-DAG: movzwl ([[BASEREG:%[a-z]+]]), %e[[LO2:[a-z]+]]
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
; X86-DAG: movb 2([[BASEREG]]), [[HI1:%[a-z]+]]
[X86] Fix PR23155 by turning on X86FixupBWInsts by default. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18866 llvm-svn: 265830
2016-04-09 02:58:29 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: movw %[[LO2]], 1([[BASEREG]])
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: movb [[HI1]], 3([[BASEREG]])
; X86-NEXT: retq
; DBGDAG-LABEL: Optimized lowered selection DAG: BB#0 'merge_store_partial_overlap_load:'
; DBGDAG: [[ENTRYTOKEN:t[0-9]+]]: ch = EntryToken
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[BASEPTR:t[0-9]+]]: i64,ch = CopyFromReg [[ENTRYTOKEN]],
SelectionDAGDumper: Print simple operands inline. Print simple operands inline instead of their pointer/value number. Simple operands are SDNodes without predecessors like Constant(FP), Register, UNDEF. This unifies the behaviour with dumpr() which was already doing this. Previously: t0: ch = EntryToken t1: i64 = Register %vreg0 t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, t1 t3: i64 = Constant<1> t4: i64 = add t2, t3 t5: i64 = Constant<2> t6: i64 = add t2, t5 t10: i64 = undef t11: i8,ch = load t0, t2, t10<LD1[%tmp81]> t12: i8,ch = load t0, t4, t10<LD1[%tmp10]> t13: i8,ch = load t0, t6, t10<LD1[%tmp12]> Now: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t4: i64 = add t2, Constant:i64<1> t6: i64 = add t2, Constant:i64<2> t11: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp81]> t0, t2, undef:i64 t12: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp10]> t0, t4, undef:i64 t13: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp12]> t0, t6, undef:i64 Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12567 llvm-svn: 248628
2015-09-26 06:27:02 +08:00
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[ADDPTR:t[0-9]+]]: i64 = add [[BASEPTR]], Constant:i64<2>
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
SelectionDAGDumper: Print simple operands inline. Print simple operands inline instead of their pointer/value number. Simple operands are SDNodes without predecessors like Constant(FP), Register, UNDEF. This unifies the behaviour with dumpr() which was already doing this. Previously: t0: ch = EntryToken t1: i64 = Register %vreg0 t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, t1 t3: i64 = Constant<1> t4: i64 = add t2, t3 t5: i64 = Constant<2> t6: i64 = add t2, t5 t10: i64 = undef t11: i8,ch = load t0, t2, t10<LD1[%tmp81]> t12: i8,ch = load t0, t4, t10<LD1[%tmp10]> t13: i8,ch = load t0, t6, t10<LD1[%tmp12]> Now: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t4: i64 = add t2, Constant:i64<1> t6: i64 = add t2, Constant:i64<2> t11: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp81]> t0, t2, undef:i64 t12: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp10]> t0, t4, undef:i64 t13: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp12]> t0, t6, undef:i64 Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12567 llvm-svn: 248628
2015-09-26 06:27:02 +08:00
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[LD2:t[0-9]+]]: i16,ch = load<LD2[%tmp81](align=1)> [[ENTRYTOKEN]], [[BASEPTR]], undef:i64
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[LD1:t[0-9]+]]: i8,ch = load<LD1[%tmp12]> [[ENTRYTOKEN]], [[ADDPTR]], undef:i64
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
Revert "In visitSTORE, always use FindBetterChain, rather than only when UseAA is enabled." This reverts commit r284151 which appears to be triggering a LTO failures on Hexagon llvm-svn: 284157
2016-10-14 04:23:25 +08:00
; DBGDAG: [[LOADTOKEN:t[0-9]+]]: ch = TokenFactor [[LD2]]:1, [[LD1]]:1
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
Revert "In visitSTORE, always use FindBetterChain, rather than only when UseAA is enabled." This reverts commit r284151 which appears to be triggering a LTO failures on Hexagon llvm-svn: 284157
2016-10-14 04:23:25 +08:00
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[ST2:t[0-9]+]]: ch = store<ST2[%tmp10](align=1)> [[LOADTOKEN]], [[LD2]], t{{[0-9]+}}, undef:i64
; DBGDAG-DAG: [[ST1:t[0-9]+]]: ch = store<ST1[%tmp14]> [[ST2]], [[LD1]], t{{[0-9]+}}, undef:i64
; DBGDAG: X86ISD::RET_FLAG [[ST1]],
Use new TokenFactor chain when merging stores If the stores are storing values from loads which partially alias the stores, we could end up placing the merged loads and stores on the same chain which has the potential to break. Each store may have a different chain dependency on only some of the original loads. Create a new TokenFactor to capture all of the required dependencies of the stores rather than assuming all stores can use the same chain. The testcase is a situation where this happens, although it does not have an observable change from this. The DAG nodes just happened to not be reordered before despite this missing chain dependency. This is based on an off-list report for an out of tree target which regressed due to r246307 and I haven't managed to find a case where the nodes do end up reordered with an in tree target. llvm-svn: 248468
2015-09-24 15:22:38 +08:00
; DBGDAG: Type-legalized selection DAG: BB#0 'merge_store_partial_overlap_load:'
define void @merge_store_partial_overlap_load([4 x i8]* %tmp) {
%tmp8 = getelementptr inbounds [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %tmp, i32 0, i8 0
%tmp10 = getelementptr inbounds [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %tmp, i32 0, i8 1
%tmp12 = getelementptr inbounds [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %tmp, i32 0, i8 2
%tmp14 = getelementptr [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %tmp, i32 0, i8 3
%tmp9 = load i8, i8* %tmp8, align 1 ; base + 0
%tmp11 = load i8, i8* %tmp10, align 1 ; base + 1
%tmp13 = load i8, i8* %tmp12, align 1 ; base + 2
store i8 %tmp9, i8* %tmp10, align 1 ; base + 1
store i8 %tmp11, i8* %tmp12, align 1 ; base + 2
store i8 %tmp13, i8* %tmp14, align 1 ; base + 3
; Should emit
; load base + 0, base + 1
; store base + 1, base + 2
; load base + 2
; store base + 3
ret void
}