rotation. When there is a loop backedge which is an unconditional
branch, we will end up with a branch somewhere no matter what. Try
placing this backedge in a fallthrough position above the loop header as
that will definitely remove at least one branch from the loop iteration,
where whole loop rotation may not.
I haven't seen any benchmarks where this is important but loop-blocks.ll
tests for it, and so this will be covered when I flip the default.
llvm-svn: 154812
and retrieving it from instructions. I don't have a use for this but is seems
logical for it to exist. While there, remove some 'const' markings from methods
which are in fact 'const' in practice, but aren't logically 'const'.
llvm-svn: 154811
The test change is to account for the fact that the default disassembler behaviour has changed with regards to specifying the assembly syntax to use.
llvm-svn: 154809
so we don't want it to show up in the stable 3.1 interface.
While at it, add a comment about why LTOCodeGenerator manually creates the
internalize pass.
llvm-svn: 154807
laid out in a form with a fallthrough into the header and a fallthrough
out of the bottom. In that case, leave the loop alone because any
rotation will introduce unnecessary branches. If either side looks like
it will require an explicit branch, then the rotation won't add any, do
it to ensure the branch occurs outside of the loop (if possible) and
maximize the benefit of the fallthrough in the bottom.
llvm-svn: 154806
Until we work out the solution for http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=65 we'd better not allow
the clients to override AddressSanitizer's signal handler.
The second part of r154390 (removing the sighandler-related tests) is not reverted, because those tests were broken
and didn't test anything.
llvm-svn: 154803
in the declaration of a non-static member function after the
(optional) cv-qualifier-seq, which in practice means in the exception
specification and late-specified return type.
The new scheme here used to manage 'this' outside of a member function
scope is more general than the Scope-based mechanism previously used
for non-static data member initializers and late-parsesd attributes,
because it can also handle the cv-qualifiers on the member
function. Note, however, that a separate pass is required for static
member functions to determine whether 'this' was used, because we
might not know that we have a static function until after declaration
matching.
Finally, this introduces name mangling for 'this' and for the implicit
'this', which is intended to match GCC's mangling. Independent
verification for the new mangling test case would be appreciated.
Fixes PR10036 and PR12450.
llvm-svn: 154799
Otherwise we would get this error in C++11 mode (because of a recent change):
error: non-type template argument of type 'const _GUID *' is not a constant expression
For code like:
template <const GUID* g = &__uuidof(struct_with_uuid)>
class COM_CLASS { };
llvm-svn: 154790
includes a patch from Matthias Kleine with a regression testcase!
Adds a new iterator 'data_iterator' to OnDiskHashTable which doesn't try to
reconstruct the external_key from the internal_key, which is useful for traits
that don't store enough information to do that mapping in their key. Also
deletes the 'item_iterator' from OnDiskHashTable as dead code.
llvm-svn: 154784
This is a complex change that resulted from a great deal of
experimentation with several different benchmarks. The one which proved
the most useful is included as a test case, but I don't know that it
captures all of the relevant changes, as I didn't have specific
regression tests for each, they were more the result of reasoning about
what the old algorithm would possibly do wrong. I'm also failing at the
moment to craft more targeted regression tests for these changes, if
anyone has ideas, it would be welcome.
The first big thing broken with the old algorithm is the idea that we
can take a basic block which has a loop-exiting successor and a looping
successor and use the looping successor as the layout top in order to
get that particular block to be the bottom of the loop after layout.
This happens to work in many cases, but not in all.
The second big thing broken was that we didn't try to select the exit
which fell into the nearest enclosing loop (to which we exit at all). As
a consequence, even if the rotation worked perfectly, it would result in
one of two bad layouts. Either the bottom of the loop would get
fallthrough, skipping across a nearer enclosing loop and thereby making
it discontiguous, or it would be forced to take an explicit jump over
the nearest enclosing loop to earch its successor. The point of the
rotation is to get fallthrough, so we need it to fallthrough to the
nearest loop it can.
The fix to the first issue is to actually layout the loop from the loop
header, and then rotate the loop such that the correct exiting edge can
be a fallthrough edge. This is actually much easier than I anticipated
because we can handle all the hard parts of finding a viable rotation
before we do the layout. We just store that, and then rotate after
layout is finished. No inner loops get split across the post-rotation
backedge because we check for them when selecting the rotation.
That fix exposed a latent problem with our exitting block selection --
we should allow the backedge to point into the middle of some inner-loop
chain as there is no real penalty to it, the whole point is that it
*won't* be a fallthrough edge. This may have blocked the rotation at all
in some cases, I have no idea and no test case as I've never seen it in
practice, it was just noticed by inspection.
Finally, all of these fixes, and studying the loops they produce,
highlighted another problem: in rotating loops like this, we sometimes
fail to align the destination of these backwards jumping edges. Fix this
by actually walking the backwards edges rather than relying on loopinfo.
This fixes regressions on heapsort if block placement is enabled as well
as lots of other cases where the previous logic would introduce an
abundance of unnecessary branches into the execution.
llvm-svn: 154783
Passing -verify to clang without -cc1 or -Xclang silently passes (with a
printed warning, but lit doesn't care about that). This change adds -cc1 or,
as is necessary in one case, -Xclang to fix this so that these tests are
actually verifying as intended.
I'd like to change the driver so this kind of mistake could not be made, but
I'm not entirely sure how. Further, since the driver only warns about unknown
flags in general, we could have similar bugs with a misspellings of arguments
that would be nice to find.
llvm-svn: 154776
As an example, attach range info to the "invalid instruction" message:
$ clang -arch arm -c asm.c
asm.c:2:11: error: invalid instruction
__asm__("foo r0");
^
<inline asm>:1:2: note: instantiated into assembly here
foo r0
^~~
llvm-svn: 154765
Duncan Sands