Changes:
There was a condition for `!NeedsFrameRecord` missing in the assert. The
assert in question has changed to:
+ assert((!RPI.isPaired() || !NeedsFrameRecord || RPI.Reg2 != AArch64::FP ||
+ RPI.Reg1 == AArch64::LR) &&
+ "FrameRecord must be allocated together with LR");
This addresses PR43016.
llvm-svn: 369122
This patch changes the location of the frame-record (FP, LR) to the
bottom of the callee-saved area. According to the AAPCS the location of
the frame-record within the stackframe is unspecified (section 5.2.3 The
Frame Pointer), so the compiler should be free to choose a different
location.
The reason for changing the location of the frame-record is to prepare
the frame for allocating an SVE area below the callee-saves. This way the
compiler can use the VL-scaled addressing modes to directly access SVE
objects from the frame-pointer.
: :
| stack | | stack |
| args | | args |
+-------+ +-------+
| x30 | | x19 |
| x29 | | x20 |
FP -> |- - - -| | x21 |
| x19 | ==> | x22 |
| x20 | |- - - -|
| x21 | | x30 |
| x22 | | x29 |
+-------+ +-------+ <- FP
|///////| |///////| // realignment gap
|- - - -| |- - - -|
|spills/| |spills/|
| locals| | locals|
SP -> +-------+ +-------+ <- SP
Things to point out:
- The algorithm to find a paired register should be prevented from
accidentally pairing some callee-saved register with LR that is not
FP, since they should always be paired together when the frame
has a frame-record.
- For Darwin platforms the location of the frame-record is unchanged,
since the unwind encoding does not allow for encoding this position
dynamically and other tools currently depend on the former layout.
Reviewers: efriedma, rovka, rengolin, thegameg, greened, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65653
llvm-svn: 368987
The LocalStackSlotPass pre-allocates a stack protector and makes sure
that it comes before the local variables on the stack.
We need to make sure that later during PEI we don't re-allocate a new
stack protector slot. If that happens, the new stack protector slot will
end up being **after** the local variables that it should be protecting.
Therefore, we would have two slots assigned for two different stack
protectors, one at the top of the stack, and one at the bottom. Since
PEI will overwrite the assigned slot for the stack protector, the load
that is used to compare the value of the stack protector will use the
slot assigned by PEI, which is wrong.
For this, we need to check if the object is pre-allocated, and re-use
that pre-allocated slot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64757
llvm-svn: 366371
Sander de Smalen