This reverts commit 80a34ae311 with fixes.
Previously, since bots turning on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are essentially turning on
MachineVerifierPass by default on X86 and the fact that
inline-asm-avx-v-constraint-32bit.ll and inline-asm-avx512vl-v-constraint-32bit.ll
are not expected to generate functioning machine code, this would go
down to `report_fatal_error` in MachineVerifierPass. Here passing
`-verify-machineinstrs=0` to make the intent explicit.
This reverts commit 80a34ae311 with fixes.
On bots llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-ubuntu and
llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-debian only,
llc returns 0 for these two tests unexpectedly. I tweaked the RUN line a little
bit in the hope that LIT is the culprit since this change is not in the
codepath these tests are testing.
llvm\test\CodeGen\X86\inline-asm-avx-v-constraint-32bit.ll
llvm\test\CodeGen\X86\inline-asm-avx512vl-v-constraint-32bit.ll
This reverts commit rGcd5b308b828e, rGcd5b308b828e, rG8cedf0e2994c.
There are issues to be investigated for polly bots and bots turning on
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS.
Summary:
This patch could be treated as a rebase of D33960. It also fixes PR35547.
A fix for `llvm/test/Other/close-stderr.ll` is proposed in D68164. Seems
the consensus is that the test is passing by chance and I'm not
sure how important it is for us. So it is removed like in D33960 for now.
The rest of the test fixes are just adding `--crash` flag to `not` tool.
** The reason it fixes PR35547 is
`exit` does cleanup including calling class destructor whereas `abort`
does not do any cleanup. In multithreading environment such as ThinLTO or JIT,
threads may share states which mostly are ManagedStatic<>. If faulting thread
tearing down a class when another thread is using it, there are chances of
memory corruption. This is bad 1. It will stop error reporting like pretty
stack printer; 2. The memory corruption is distracting and nondeterministic in
terms of error message, and corruption type (depending one the timing, it
could be double free, heap free after use, etc.).
Reviewers: rnk, chandlerc, zturner, sepavloff, MaskRay, espindola
Reviewed By: rnk, MaskRay
Subscribers: wuzish, jholewinski, qcolombet, dschuff, jyknight, emaste, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, sbc100, arichardson, jgravelle-google, aheejin, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, apazos, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, cfe-commits, MaskRay, filcab, davide, MatzeB, mehdi_amini, hiraditya, steven_wu, dexonsmith, rupprecht, seiya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67847
Summary:
Targets often have instructions that can sign-extend certain cases faster
than the equivalent shift-left/arithmetic-shift-right. Such cases can be
identified by matching a shift-left/shift-right pair but there are some
issues with this in the context of combines. For example, suppose you can
sign-extend 8-bit up to 32-bit with a target extend instruction.
%1:_(s32) = G_SHL %0:_(s32), i32 24 # (I've inlined the G_CONSTANT for brevity)
%2:_(s32) = G_ASHR %1:_(s32), i32 24
%3:_(s32) = G_ASHR %2:_(s32), i32 1
would reasonably combine to:
%1:_(s32) = G_SHL %0:_(s32), i32 24
%2:_(s32) = G_ASHR %1:_(s32), i32 25
which no longer matches the special case. If your shifts and extend are
equal cost, this would break even as a pair of shifts but if your shift is
more expensive than the extend then it's cheaper as:
%2:_(s32) = G_SEXT_INREG %0:_(s32), i32 8
%3:_(s32) = G_ASHR %2:_(s32), i32 1
It's possible to match the shift-pair in ISel and emit an extend and ashr.
However, this is far from the only way to break this shift pair and make
it hard to match the extends. Another example is that with the right
known-zeros, this:
%1:_(s32) = G_SHL %0:_(s32), i32 24
%2:_(s32) = G_ASHR %1:_(s32), i32 24
%3:_(s32) = G_MUL %2:_(s32), i32 2
can become:
%1:_(s32) = G_SHL %0:_(s32), i32 24
%2:_(s32) = G_ASHR %1:_(s32), i32 23
All upstream targets have been configured to lower it to the current
G_SHL,G_ASHR pair but will likely want to make it legal in some cases to
handle their faster cases.
To follow-up: Provide a way to legalize based on the constant. At the
moment, I'm thinking that the best way to achieve this is to provide the
MI in LegalityQuery but that opens the door to breaking core principles
of the legalizer (legality is not context sensitive). That said, it's
worth noting that looking at other instructions and acting on that
information doesn't violate this principle in itself. It's only a
violation if, at the end of legalization, a pass that checks legality
without being able to see the context would say an instruction might not be
legal. That's a fairly subtle distinction so to give a concrete example,
saying %2 in:
%1 = G_CONSTANT 16
%2 = G_SEXT_INREG %0, %1
is legal is in violation of that principle if the legality of %2 depends
on %1 being constant and/or being 16. However, legalizing to either:
%2 = G_SEXT_INREG %0, 16
or:
%1 = G_CONSTANT 16
%2:_(s32) = G_SHL %0, %1
%3:_(s32) = G_ASHR %2, %1
depending on whether %1 is constant and 16 does not violate that principle
since both outputs are genuinely legal.
Reviewers: bogner, aditya_nandakumar, volkan, aemerson, paquette, arsenm
Subscribers: sdardis, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, rovka, kristof.beyls, javed.absar, hiraditya, jrtc27, atanasyan, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61289
llvm-svn: 368487
Russell Gallop