Summary:
Now that store-merge is only generates type-safe stores, do a second
pass just before instruction selection to allow lowered intrinsics to
be merged as well.
Reviewers: jyknight, hfinkel, RKSimon, efriedma, rnk, jmolloy
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33675
llvm-svn: 319036
Initialize all AArch64-specific passes in the TargetMachine so they can be run
by llc. This can lead to conflicts in opt with some command line options that
share the same name as the pass, so I took this opportunity to do some cleanups:
* rename all relevant command line options from "aarch64-blah" to
"aarch64-enable-blah" and update the tests accordingly
* run clang-format on their declarations
* move all these declarations to a common place (the TargetMachine) as opposed
to having them scattered around (AArch64BranchRelaxation and
AArch64AddressTypePromotion were the only offenders)
llvm-svn: 277322
Summary:
If a function needs to allocate both callee-save stack memory and local
stack memory, we currently decrement/increment the SP in two steps:
first for the callee-save area, and then for the local stack area. This
changes the code to allocate them both at once at the very beginning/end
of the function. This has two benefits:
1) there is one fewer sub/add micro-op in the prologue/epilogue
2) the stack adjustment instructions act as a scheduling barrier, so
moving them to the very beginning/end of the function increases post-RA
scheduler's ability to move instructions (that only depend on argument
registers) before any of the callee-save stores
This change can cause an increase in instructions if the original local
stack SP decrement could be folded into the first store to the stack.
This occurs when the first local stack store is to stack offset 0. In
this case we are trading off one more sub instruction for one fewer sub
micro-op (along with benefits (2) and (3) above).
Reviewers: t.p.northover
Subscribers: aemerson, rengolin, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18619
llvm-svn: 268746
Tailcalls are only OK with forwarded sret pointers. With sret demotion,
they're not, as we'd have a pointer into a soon-to-be-dead stack frame.
Differential Revison: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8510
llvm-svn: 233409
Nirav Dave