Summary:
We can move this functionality into LLVM's tools instead, as it no
longer is strictly required for the compiler-rt testing infrastructure.
It also is blocking the successful bootstrapping of the clang compiler
due to a missing virtual destructor in one of the flag parsing library.
Since this binary isn't critical for the XRay runtime testing effort
anymore (yet), we remove it in the meantime with the hope of moving the
functionality in LLVM proper instead.
Reviewers: kpw, pelikan, rnk, seurer, eugenis
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31926
llvm-svn: 299916
(h/t to Chandler for pointing this out)
The test in question was not at all testing what it was supposed to
test. We do not //care// about placing `!make.implicit` in inner
constant branch (since it will be folded away anyway). We care about
placing `!make.implicit` in the outer branch that switches between
either version of the loop.
Having said that, it is _correct_ to leave behind the `!make.implicit`
in the inner branch, but there is no need to do so.
llvm-svn: 299912
When allowed, we can hoist a division out of a loop in favor of a
multiplication by the reciprocal. Fixes PR32157.
Patch by vit9696!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30819
llvm-svn: 299911
Check the legality of ISD::[US]MULO to see whether
Intrinsic::[us]mul_with_overflow will legalize into a function call (and, thus,
will use the CTR register). Fixes PR32485.
Patch by Tim Neumann!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31790
llvm-svn: 299910
We were removing comdats from externalized functions (function declarations
can't be comdat), but were not doing the same for variable. Failure to do this
would cause bugpoint to fail ("Declaration may not be in a Comdat!").
llvm-svn: 299908
The former term is probably more familiar to users. Also add references to
the command line flags used to enable the features described in the doc.
llvm-svn: 299902
The getter was equivalent to AttributeList::getAttributes(unsigned),
which seems like a better way to express getting the AttributeSet for a
given index. This static helper was only used in one place anyway.
The constructor doesn't benefit from inlining and doesn't need to be in
a header.
llvm-svn: 299900
This re-lands r299875.
I introduced a bug in Clang code responsible for replacing K&R, no
prototype declarations with a real function definition with a prototype.
The bug was here:
// Collect any return attributes from the call.
- if (oldAttrs.hasAttributes(llvm::AttributeList::ReturnIndex))
- newAttrs.push_back(llvm::AttributeList::get(newFn->getContext(),
- oldAttrs.getRetAttributes()));
+ newAttrs.push_back(oldAttrs.getRetAttributes());
Previously getRetAttributes() carried AttributeList::ReturnIndex in its
AttributeList. Now that we return the AttributeSetNode* directly, it no
longer carries that index, and we call this overload with a single node:
AttributeList::get(LLVMContext&, ArrayRef<AttributeSetNode*>)
That aborted with an assertion on x86_32 targets. I added an explicit
triple to the test and added CHECKs to help find issues like this in the
future sooner.
llvm-svn: 299899
Summary:
Set up the proper stack frame for the thread spawned in internal_clone,
the current code does not follow ABI (and causes SEGV trying to use this
malformed frame).
Reviewers: wschmidt
Subscribers: kubamracek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31555
llvm-svn: 299896
The math works out where it can actually be counter-productive. The probability
calculations correctly handle the case where the alternative is 0 probability,
rely on those calculations.
Includes a test case that demonstrates the problem.
llvm-svn: 299892
Qin may be large, and Succ may be more frequent than BB. Take these both into
account when deciding if tail-duplication is profitable.
llvm-svn: 299891
Merging identical blocks when it doesn't reduce fallthrough. It is common for
the blocks created from critical edge splitting to be identical. We would like
to merge these blocks whenever doing so would not reduce fallthrough.
llvm-svn: 299890
LLVM makes several assumptions about address space 0. However,
alloca is presently constrained to always return this address space.
There's no real way to avoid using alloca, so without this
there is no way to opt out of these assumptions.
The problematic assumptions include:
- That the pointer size used for the stack is the same size as
the code size pointer, which is also the maximum sized pointer.
- That 0 is an invalid, non-dereferencable pointer value.
These are problems for AMDGPU because alloca is used to
implement the private address space, which uses a 32-bit
index as the pointer value. Other pointers are 64-bit
and behave more like LLVM's notion of generic address
space. By changing the address space used for allocas,
we can change our generic pointer type to be LLVM's generic
pointer type which does have similar properties.
llvm-svn: 299888
This code will need to be taught to handle string tables and it's better if
there is only one copy of it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31829
llvm-svn: 299886
Summary: Now the SamplePGO support is more stable, we do not need so many verbose optimization remarks emitted.
Reviewers: dnovillo, davidxl
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: fhahn, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31826
llvm-svn: 299883
Summary:
AttributeList::get(Fn|Ret|Param)Attributes no longer creates a temporary
AttributeList just to hide the AttributeSetNode type.
I've also added a factory method to create AttributeLists from a
parallel array of AttributeSetNodes. I think this simplifies
construction of AttributeLists when rewriting function prototypes.
Previously we would test if a particular index had attributes, and
conditionally add a temporary attribute list to a vector. Now the
attribute set vector is parallel to the argument vector already that
these passes already construct.
My long term vision is to wrap AttributeSetNode* inside an AttributeSet
type that holds the enum attributes, but that will come in a follow up
change.
I haven't done any performance measurements for this change because
profiling hasn't shown that any of the affected code is hot.
Reviewers: pete, chandlerc, sanjoy, hfinkel
Reviewed By: pete
Subscribers: jfb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31198
llvm-svn: 299875
Maxim Ostapenko