llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/extra-toc-reg-deps.ll

429 lines
22 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

; RUN: llc -verify-machineinstrs < %s | FileCheck %s
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
target datalayout = "E-m:e-i64:64-n32:64"
target triple = "powerpc64-bgq-linux"
%"class.Foam::messageStream.6" = type <{ %"class.Foam::string.5", i32, i32, i32, [4 x i8] }>
%"class.Foam::string.5" = type { %"class.std::basic_string.4" }
%"class.std::basic_string.4" = type { %"struct.std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::_Alloc_hider.3" }
%"struct.std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::_Alloc_hider.3" = type { i8* }
%"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27" = type { %"class.Foam::OSstream.26", i8, %"class.Foam::string.5" }
%"class.Foam::OSstream.26" = type { %"class.Foam::Ostream.base.9", %"class.Foam::fileName.10", %"class.std::basic_ostream.25"* }
%"class.Foam::Ostream.base.9" = type <{ %"class.Foam::IOstream.8", i16 }>
%"class.Foam::IOstream.8" = type { i32 (...)**, i32, [4 x i8], %"class.Foam::IOstream::versionNumber.7", i32, i32, i32, i32 }
%"class.Foam::IOstream::versionNumber.7" = type <{ double, i32, [4 x i8] }>
%"class.Foam::fileName.10" = type { %"class.Foam::string.5" }
%"class.std::basic_ostream.25" = type { i32 (...)**, %"class.std::basic_ios.24" }
%"class.std::basic_ios.24" = type { %"class.std::ios_base.16", %"class.std::basic_ostream.25"*, i8, i8, %"class.std::basic_streambuf.17"*, %"class.std::ctype.21"*, %"class.std::__gnu_cxx_ldbl128::num_put.22"*, %"class.std::__gnu_cxx_ldbl128::num_get.23"* }
%"class.std::ios_base.16" = type { i32 (...)**, i64, i64, i32, i32, i32, %"struct.std::ios_base::_Callback_list.11"*, %"struct.std::ios_base::_Words.12", [8 x %"struct.std::ios_base::_Words.12"], i32, %"struct.std::ios_base::_Words.12"*, %"class.std::locale.15" }
%"struct.std::ios_base::_Callback_list.11" = type { %"struct.std::ios_base::_Callback_list.11"*, void (i32, %"class.std::ios_base.16"*, i32)*, i32, i32 }
%"struct.std::ios_base::_Words.12" = type { i8*, i64 }
%"class.std::locale.15" = type { %"class.std::locale::_Impl.14"* }
%"class.std::locale::_Impl.14" = type { i32, %"class.std::locale::facet.13"**, i64, %"class.std::locale::facet.13"**, i8** }
%"class.std::locale::facet.13" = type <{ i32 (...)**, i32, [4 x i8] }>
%"class.std::basic_streambuf.17" = type { i32 (...)**, i8*, i8*, i8*, i8*, i8*, i8*, %"class.std::locale.15" }
%"class.std::ctype.21" = type <{ %"class.std::locale::facet.base.18", [4 x i8], %struct.__locale_struct.20*, i8, [7 x i8], i32*, i32*, i16*, i8, [256 x i8], [256 x i8], i8, [6 x i8] }>
%"class.std::locale::facet.base.18" = type <{ i32 (...)**, i32 }>
%struct.__locale_struct.20 = type { [13 x %struct.__locale_data.19*], i16*, i32*, i32*, [13 x i8*] }
%struct.__locale_data.19 = type opaque
%"class.std::__gnu_cxx_ldbl128::num_put.22" = type { %"class.std::locale::facet.base.18", [4 x i8] }
%"class.std::__gnu_cxx_ldbl128::num_get.23" = type { %"class.std::locale::facet.base.18", [4 x i8] }
%"class.Foam::primitiveMesh.135" = type { i32 (...)**, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, i32, %"class.Foam::List.116"*, %"class.Foam::List.0"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.5"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::List.1"*, %"class.Foam::DynamicList.40", %"class.Foam::HashSet.127", %"class.Foam::Field.131"*, %"class.Foam::Field.131"*, %"class.Foam::Field.11"*, %"class.Foam::Field.131"* }
%"class.Foam::List.116" = type opaque
%"class.Foam::List.0" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.119" }
%"class.Foam::UList.119" = type { i32, %"class.Foam::edge.118"* }
%"class.Foam::edge.118" = type { %"class.Foam::FixedList.117" }
%"class.Foam::FixedList.117" = type { [2 x i32] }
%"class.Foam::List.5" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.6" }
%"class.Foam::UList.6" = type { i32, %"class.Foam::cell.121"* }
%"class.Foam::cell.121" = type { %"class.Foam::List.3" }
%"class.Foam::List.3" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.4" }
%"class.Foam::UList.4" = type { i32, i32* }
%"class.Foam::List.1" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.2" }
%"class.Foam::UList.2" = type { i32, %"class.Foam::List.3"* }
%"class.Foam::DynamicList.40" = type <{ %"class.Foam::List.3", i32, [4 x i8] }>
%"class.Foam::HashSet.127" = type { %"class.Foam::HashTable.7" }
%"class.Foam::HashTable.7" = type { i32, i32, %"struct.Foam::HashTable<Foam::nil, int, Foam::Hash<Foam::label> >::hashedEntry.125"** }
%"struct.Foam::HashTable<Foam::nil, int, Foam::Hash<Foam::label> >::hashedEntry.125" = type <{ i32, [4 x i8], %"struct.Foam::HashTable<Foam::nil, int, Foam::Hash<Foam::label> >::hashedEntry.125"*, %"class.Foam::nil.124", [7 x i8] }>
%"class.Foam::nil.124" = type { i8 }
%"class.Foam::Field.11" = type { %"class.Foam::refCount.128", %"class.Foam::List.12" }
%"class.Foam::refCount.128" = type { i32 }
%"class.Foam::List.12" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.13" }
%"class.Foam::UList.13" = type { i32, double* }
%"class.Foam::Field.131" = type { %"class.Foam::refCount.128", %"class.Foam::List.8" }
%"class.Foam::List.8" = type { %"class.Foam::UList.9" }
%"class.Foam::UList.9" = type { i32, %"class.Foam::Vector.29"* }
%"class.Foam::Vector.29" = type { %"class.Foam::VectorSpace.10" }
%"class.Foam::VectorSpace.10" = type { [3 x double] }
%"class.Foam::Ostream.189" = type <{ %"class.Foam::IOstream.8", i16, [6 x i8] }>
@_ZN4Foam4InfoE = external global %"class.Foam::messageStream.6", align 8
@.str27 = external unnamed_addr constant [24 x i8], align 1
@.str28 = external unnamed_addr constant [7 x i8], align 1
@_ZN4Foam4PoutE = external global %"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27", align 8
define void @_ZN4Foam13checkTopologyERKNS_8polyMeshEbb(i1 zeroext %allTopology) #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*) {
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
entry:
br i1 undef, label %for.body, label %for.cond.cleanup
; CHECK-LABEL: @_ZN4Foam13checkTopologyERKNS_8polyMeshEbb
; CHECK: addis [[REG1:[0-9]+]], 2, .LC0@toc@ha
; CHECK: std 2, 40(1)
; CHECK: ld {{[0-9]+}}, .LC0@toc@l([[REG1]])
; CHECK: {{mr|ld}} 2,
; CHECK: mtctr
; CHECK: bctrl
; CHECK: ld 2, 40(1)
; CHECK: std 2, 40(1)
; CHECK: {{mr|ld}} 2,
; CHECK: mtctr
; CHECK: bctrl
; CHECK: ld 2, 40(1)
for.cond.cleanup: ; preds = %entry
br i1 undef, label %if.then.i, label %if.else.i
if.then.i: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup
br i1 undef, label %if.then.i1435, label %if.else.i1436
if.else.i: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup
unreachable
if.then.i1435: ; preds = %if.then.i
br label %_ZN4Foam12returnReduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEET_RKS3_RKT0_ii.exit
if.else.i1436: ; preds = %if.then.i
br label %_ZN4Foam12returnReduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEET_RKS3_RKT0_ii.exit
_ZN4Foam12returnReduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEET_RKS3_RKT0_ii.exit: ; preds = %if.else.i1436, %if.then.i1435
br i1 undef, label %for.body.i, label %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8cellZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
for.body: ; preds = %entry
unreachable
for.body.i: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam12returnReduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEET_RKS3_RKT0_ii.exit
unreachable
_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8cellZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam12returnReduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEET_RKS3_RKT0_ii.exit
br i1 undef, label %for.body.i1480, label %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8faceZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
for.body.i1480: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8cellZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
unreachable
_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8faceZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8cellZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
br i1 undef, label %for.body.i1504, label %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_9pointZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
for.body.i1504: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8faceZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
unreachable
_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_9pointZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_8faceZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
invoke void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv()
to label %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit unwind label %lpad.i
lpad.i: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_9pointZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
%0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
resume { i8*, i32 } %0
_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit: ; preds = %_ZNK4Foam8ZoneMeshINS_9pointZoneENS_8polyMeshEE15checkDefinitionEb.exit
invoke void @_ZN4Foam7cellSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE()
to label %invoke.cont59 unwind label %lpad
invoke.cont59: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit, label %if.then.i.i, !prof !1
if.then.i.i: ; preds = %invoke.cont59
br i1 true, label %if.then.i.i.i1508, label %if.else.i.i.i
if.then.i.i.i1508: ; preds = %if.then.i.i
br label %_ZN9__gnu_cxxL27__exchange_and_add_dispatchEPii.exit.i.i
if.else.i.i.i: ; preds = %if.then.i.i
br label %_ZN9__gnu_cxxL27__exchange_and_add_dispatchEPii.exit.i.i
_ZN9__gnu_cxxL27__exchange_and_add_dispatchEPii.exit.i.i: ; preds = %if.else.i.i.i, %if.then.i.i.i1508
br i1 undef, label %if.then4.i.i, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit
if.then4.i.i: ; preds = %_ZN9__gnu_cxxL27__exchange_and_add_dispatchEPii.exit.i.i
br label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit: ; preds = %if.then4.i.i, %_ZN9__gnu_cxxL27__exchange_and_add_dispatchEPii.exit.i.i, %invoke.cont59
br i1 undef, label %for.body70, label %for.cond.cleanup69
for.cond.cleanup69: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit
br i1 undef, label %if.then121, label %if.else
lpad: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit
%1 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1578, label %if.then.i.i1570, !prof !1
if.then.i.i1570: ; preds = %lpad
br i1 undef, label %if.then4.i.i1577, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1578
if.then4.i.i1577: ; preds = %if.then.i.i1570
unreachable
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1578: ; preds = %if.then.i.i1570, %lpad
unreachable
for.body70: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit
unreachable
if.then121: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup69
unreachable
if.else: ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup69
invoke void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv()
to label %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1701 unwind label %lpad.i1689
lpad.i1689: ; preds = %if.else
%2 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
unreachable
_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1701: ; preds = %if.else
invoke void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE()
to label %invoke.cont169 unwind label %lpad165
invoke.cont169: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1701
%call177 = invoke zeroext i1 undef(%"class.Foam::primitiveMesh.135"* undef, i1 zeroext true, %"class.Foam::HashSet.127"* undef)
to label %invoke.cont176 unwind label %lpad175
invoke.cont176: ; preds = %invoke.cont169
br i1 %call177, label %if.then178, label %if.end213
if.then178: ; preds = %invoke.cont176
unreachable
lpad165: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1701
%3 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
unreachable
lpad175: ; preds = %invoke.cont169
%4 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
invoke void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetD1Ev()
to label %eh.resume unwind label %terminate.lpad
if.end213: ; preds = %invoke.cont176
invoke void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv()
to label %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1777 unwind label %lpad.i1765
lpad.i1765: ; preds = %if.end213
%5 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
br i1 undef, label %eh.resume.i1776, label %if.then.i.i.i1767, !prof !1
if.then.i.i.i1767: ; preds = %lpad.i1765
unreachable
eh.resume.i1776: ; preds = %lpad.i1765
resume { i8*, i32 } %5
_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1777: ; preds = %if.end213
invoke void @_ZN4Foam7faceSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE()
to label %invoke.cont221 unwind label %lpad217
invoke.cont221: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1777
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792, label %if.then.i.i1784, !prof !1
if.then.i.i1784: ; preds = %invoke.cont221
br i1 undef, label %if.then4.i.i1791, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792
if.then4.i.i1791: ; preds = %if.then.i.i1784
br label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792: ; preds = %if.then4.i.i1791, %if.then.i.i1784, %invoke.cont221
%call232 = invoke zeroext i1 undef(%"class.Foam::primitiveMesh.135"* undef, i1 zeroext true, %"class.Foam::HashSet.127"* undef)
to label %invoke.cont231 unwind label %lpad230
invoke.cont231: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792
invoke void @_ZN4Foam6reduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEEvRKNS_4ListINS_8UPstream11commsStructEEERT_RKT0_ii()
to label %invoke.cont243 unwind label %lpad230
lpad217: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1777
%6 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
br label %eh.resume
lpad230: ; preds = %invoke.cont231, %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1792
%7 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
invoke void @_ZN4Foam7faceSetD1Ev()
to label %eh.resume unwind label %terminate.lpad
invoke.cont243: ; preds = %invoke.cont231
invoke void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv()
to label %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1862 unwind label %lpad.i1850
lpad.i1850: ; preds = %invoke.cont243
%8 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
unreachable
_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1862: ; preds = %invoke.cont243
invoke void @_ZN4Foam7faceSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE()
to label %invoke.cont280 unwind label %lpad276
invoke.cont280: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1862
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1877, label %if.then.i.i1869, !prof !1
if.then.i.i1869: ; preds = %invoke.cont280
unreachable
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1877: ; preds = %invoke.cont280
br i1 undef, label %if.then292, label %if.end328
if.then292: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1877
unreachable
lpad276: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit1862
%9 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
unreachable
if.end328: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit1877
br i1 %allTopology, label %if.then331, label %if.end660
if.then331: ; preds = %if.end328
unreachable
if.end660: ; preds = %if.end328
invoke void @_ZN4Foam13messageStreamcvRNS_8OSstreamEEv()
to label %invoke.cont668 unwind label %lpad663
invoke.cont668: ; preds = %if.end660
%call671 = invoke dereferenceable(56) %"class.Foam::Ostream.189"* @_ZN4FoamlsERNS_7OstreamEPKc()
to label %invoke.cont670 unwind label %lpad663
invoke.cont670: ; preds = %invoke.cont668
invoke void @_ZN4FoamlsERNS_7OstreamEi()
to label %invoke.cont674 unwind label %lpad663
invoke.cont674: ; preds = %invoke.cont670
%call677 = invoke dereferenceable(56) %"class.Foam::Ostream.189"* @_ZN4FoamlsERNS_7OstreamEPKc()
to label %invoke.cont676 unwind label %lpad663
invoke.cont676: ; preds = %invoke.cont674
invoke void undef(%"class.Foam::Ostream.189"* %call677)
to label %if.end878 unwind label %lpad663
lpad663: ; preds = %invoke.cont670, %if.end660, %invoke.cont668, %invoke.cont674, %invoke.cont676
%10 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
br i1 undef, label %_ZN4Foam4ListIiED2Ev.exit.i3073, label %delete.notnull.i.i3071
if.end878: ; preds = %invoke.cont676
br i1 undef, label %_ZN4Foam11regionSplitD2Ev.exit, label %delete.notnull.i.i3056
delete.notnull.i.i3056: ; preds = %if.end878
unreachable
_ZN4Foam11regionSplitD2Ev.exit: ; preds = %if.end878
br i1 undef, label %if.then883, label %if.else888
if.then883: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam11regionSplitD2Ev.exit
unreachable
delete.notnull.i.i3071: ; preds = %lpad663
unreachable
_ZN4Foam4ListIiED2Ev.exit.i3073: ; preds = %lpad663
invoke void @_ZN4Foam11regIOobjectD2Ev()
to label %eh.resume unwind label %terminate.lpad
if.else888: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam11regionSplitD2Ev.exit
invoke void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv()
to label %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit3098 unwind label %lpad.i3086
lpad.i3086: ; preds = %if.else888
%11 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
unreachable
_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit3098: ; preds = %if.else888
invoke void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE()
to label %invoke.cont902 unwind label %lpad898
invoke.cont902: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit3098
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3113, label %if.then.i.i3105, !prof !1
if.then.i.i3105: ; preds = %invoke.cont902
br i1 undef, label %if.then4.i.i3112, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3113
if.then4.i.i3112: ; preds = %if.then.i.i3105
unreachable
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3113: ; preds = %if.then.i.i3105, %invoke.cont902
%call.i31163117 = invoke zeroext i32 undef(%"class.Foam::IOstream.8"* getelementptr inbounds (%"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27", %"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27"* @_ZN4Foam4PoutE, i64 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0))
to label %call.i3116.noexc unwind label %lpad905.loopexit.split-lp
call.i3116.noexc: ; preds = %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3113
%call5.i3118 = invoke zeroext i32 null(%"class.Foam::IOstream.8"* getelementptr inbounds (%"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27", %"class.Foam::prefixOSstream.27"* @_ZN4Foam4PoutE, i64 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), i32 zeroext undef)
to label %invoke.cont906 unwind label %lpad905.loopexit.split-lp
invoke.cont906: ; preds = %call.i3116.noexc
unreachable
lpad898: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4wordC2EPKcb.exit3098
%12 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
br i1 undef, label %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3204, label %if.then.i.i3196, !prof !1
if.then.i.i3196: ; preds = %lpad898
unreachable
_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3204: ; preds = %lpad898
unreachable
lpad905.loopexit.split-lp: ; preds = %call.i3116.noexc, %_ZNSsD2Ev.exit3113
%lpad.loopexit.split-lp = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
cleanup
invoke void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetD1Ev()
to label %eh.resume unwind label %terminate.lpad
eh.resume: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4ListIiED2Ev.exit.i3073, %lpad230, %lpad175, %lpad905.loopexit.split-lp, %lpad217
resume { i8*, i32 } undef
terminate.lpad: ; preds = %_ZN4Foam4ListIiED2Ev.exit.i3073, %lpad230, %lpad175, %lpad905.loopexit.split-lp
%13 = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
[PowerPC] Add extra r2 read deps on @toc@l relocations If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same... When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so, we might produce code like this: .Ltmp526: addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha .Ltmp1628: std 2, 40(1) ld 5, 0(27) ld 2, 8(27) ld 11, 16(27) ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3) rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32 mtctr 5 bctrl ld 2, 40(1) And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will misoptimize this code sequence to this: nop std r2,40(r1) ld r5,0(r27) ld r2,8(r27) ld r11,16(r27) ld r3,-32472(r2) clrldi r4,r4,32 mtctr r5 bctrl ld r2,40(r1) because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2 changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative) relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation. Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here. This is done as a separate pass because: 1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and, thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that straightforward). 2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable definition replication). The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much better tests can be created. llvm-svn: 237556
2015-05-18 14:25:59 +08:00
catch i8* null
unreachable
}
declare dereferenceable(56) %"class.Foam::Ostream.189"* @_ZN4FoamlsERNS_7OstreamEPKc() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam13messageStreamcvRNS_8OSstreamEEv() #0
declare i32 @__gxx_personality_v0(...)
declare void @_ZN4Foam7cellSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE() #0
declare void @_ZN4FoamlsERNS_7OstreamEi() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam8pointSetD1Ev() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam7faceSetC1ERKNS_8polyMeshERKNS_4wordEiNS_8IOobject11writeOptionE() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam7faceSetD1Ev() #0
; Function Attrs: inlinehint
declare void @_ZN4Foam4word12stripInvalidEv() #1 align 2
declare void @_ZN4Foam11regIOobjectD2Ev() #0
declare void @_ZN4Foam6reduceIiNS_5sumOpIiEEEEvRKNS_4ListINS_8UPstream11commsStructEEERT_RKT0_ii() #0
attributes #0 = { "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="a2q" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
attributes #1 = { inlinehint "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="a2q" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
!llvm.module.flags = !{!0}
!0 = !{i32 1, !"PIC Level", i32 2}
!1 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 64, i32 4}