This reverts r317579, originally committed as r317100.
There is a design issue with marking CFI instructions duplicatable. Not
all targets support the CFIInstrInserter pass, and targets like Darwin
can't cope with duplicated prologue setup CFI instructions. The compact
unwind info emission fails.
When the following code is compiled for arm64 on Mac at -O3, the CFI
instructions end up getting tail duplicated, which causes compact unwind
info emission to fail:
int a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m;
void n(int o, int *b) {
if (g)
f = 0;
for (; f < o; f++) {
m = a;
if (l > j * k > i)
j = i = k = d;
h = b[c] - e;
}
}
We get assembly that looks like this:
; BB#1: ; %if.then
Lloh3:
adrp x9, _f@GOTPAGE
Lloh4:
ldr x9, [x9, _f@GOTPAGEOFF]
mov w8, wzr
Lloh5:
str wzr, [x9]
stp x20, x19, [sp, #-16]! ; 8-byte Folded Spill
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset w19, -8
.cfi_offset w20, -16
cmp w8, w0
b.lt LBB0_3
b LBB0_7
LBB0_2: ; %entry.if.end_crit_edge
Lloh6:
adrp x8, _f@GOTPAGE
Lloh7:
ldr x8, [x8, _f@GOTPAGEOFF]
Lloh8:
ldr w8, [x8]
stp x20, x19, [sp, #-16]! ; 8-byte Folded Spill
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset w19, -8
.cfi_offset w20, -16
cmp w8, w0
b.ge LBB0_7
LBB0_3: ; %for.body.lr.ph
Note the multiple .cfi_def* directives. Compact unwind info emission
can't handle that.
llvm-svn: 317726
Reland r317100 with minor fix regarding ComputeCommonTailLength function in
BranchFolding.cpp. Skipping top CFI instructions block needs to executed on
several more return points in ComputeCommonTailLength().
Original r317100 message:
"Correct dwarf unwind information in function epilogue for X86"
This patch aims to provide correct dwarf unwind information in function
epilogue for X86.
It consists of two parts. The first part inserts CFI instructions that set
appropriate cfa offset and cfa register in emitEpilogue() in
X86FrameLowering. This part is X86 specific.
The second part is platform independent and ensures that:
- CFI instructions do not affect code generation
- Unwind information remains correct when a function is modified by
different passes. This is done in a late pass by analyzing information
about cfa offset and cfa register in BBs and inserting additional CFI
directives where necessary.
Changed CFI instructions so that they:
- are duplicable
- are not counted as instructions when tail duplicating or tail merging
- can be compared as equal
Added CFIInstrInserter pass:
- analyzes each basic block to determine cfa offset and register valid at
its entry and exit
- verifies that outgoing cfa offset and register of predecessor blocks match
incoming values of their successors
- inserts additional CFI directives at basic block beginning to correct the
rule for calculating CFA
Having CFI instructions in function epilogue can cause incorrect CFA
calculation rule for some basic blocks. This can happen if, due to basic
block reordering, or the existence of multiple epilogue blocks, some of the
blocks have wrong cfa offset and register values set by the epilogue block
above them.
CFIInstrInserter is currently run only on X86, but can be used by any target
that implements support for adding CFI instructions in epilogue.
Patch by Violeta Vukobrat.
llvm-svn: 317579
This patch aims to provide correct dwarf unwind information in function
epilogue for X86.
It consists of two parts. The first part inserts CFI instructions that set
appropriate cfa offset and cfa register in emitEpilogue() in
X86FrameLowering. This part is X86 specific.
The second part is platform independent and ensures that:
- CFI instructions do not affect code generation
- Unwind information remains correct when a function is modified by
different passes. This is done in a late pass by analyzing information
about cfa offset and cfa register in BBs and inserting additional CFI
directives where necessary.
Changed CFI instructions so that they:
- are duplicable
- are not counted as instructions when tail duplicating or tail merging
- can be compared as equal
Added CFIInstrInserter pass:
- analyzes each basic block to determine cfa offset and register valid at
its entry and exit
- verifies that outgoing cfa offset and register of predecessor blocks match
incoming values of their successors
- inserts additional CFI directives at basic block beginning to correct the
rule for calculating CFA
Having CFI instructions in function epilogue can cause incorrect CFA
calculation rule for some basic blocks. This can happen if, due to basic
block reordering, or the existence of multiple epilogue blocks, some of the
blocks have wrong cfa offset and register values set by the epilogue block
above them.
CFIInstrInserter is currently run only on X86, but can be used by any target
that implements support for adding CFI instructions in epilogue.
Patch by Violeta Vukobrat.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35844
llvm-svn: 317100
Summary:
This suppresses the generation of .Lcfi labels in our textual assembler.
It was annoying that this generated cascading .Lcfi labels:
llc foo.ll -o - | llvm-mc | llvm-mc
After three trips through MCAsmStreamer, we'd have three labels in the
output when none are necessary. We should only bother creating the
labels and frame data when making a real object file.
This supercedes D38605, which moved the entire .seh_ implementation into
MCObjectStreamer.
This has the advantage that we do more checking when emitting textual
assembly, as a minor efficiency cost. Outputting textual assembly is not
performance critical, so this shouldn't matter.
Reviewers: majnemer, MatzeB
Subscribers: qcolombet, nemanjai, javed.absar, eraman, hiraditya, JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38638
llvm-svn: 315259
It broke the Chromium / SQLite build; see PR34830.
> Summary:
> 1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
> extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
> appearing in the DAG.
> e.g.
> T1 = A + B
> T2 = T1 + 10
> T3 = T2 + A
> For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
> Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
>
> 2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
> so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
> could be factored out.
> e.g.
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
> will be factored as following
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
>
> 3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
> thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
>
> Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet, jmolloy
>
> Reviewed By: lsaba
>
> Subscribers: jmolloy, spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 314919
Summary:
1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
appearing in the DAG.
e.g.
T1 = A + B
T2 = T1 + 10
T3 = T2 + A
For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
could be factored out.
e.g.
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
will be factored as following
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet, jmolloy
Reviewed By: lsaba
Subscribers: jmolloy, spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 314886
This caused PR34629: asserts firing when building Chromium. It also broke some
buildbots building test-suite as reported on the commit thread.
> Summary:
> 1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
> extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
> appearing in the DAG.
> e.g.
> T1 = A + B
> T2 = T1 + 10
> T3 = T2 + A
> For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
> Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
>
> 2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
> so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
> could be factored out.
> e.g.
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
> will be factored as following
> leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
> leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
>
> 3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
> thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
>
> Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet
>
> Reviewed By: lsaba
>
> Subscribers: spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 313376
Summary:
1/ Operand folding during complex pattern matching for LEAs has been
extended, such that it promotes Scale to accommodate similar operand
appearing in the DAG.
e.g.
T1 = A + B
T2 = T1 + 10
T3 = T2 + A
For above DAG rooted at T3, X86AddressMode will no look like
Base = B , Index = A , Scale = 2 , Disp = 10
2/ During OptimizeLEAPass down the pipeline factorization is now performed over LEAs
so that if there is an opportunity then complex LEAs (having 3 operands)
could be factored out.
e.g.
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,2), %rcx
will be factored as following
leal 1(%rax,%rcx,1), %rdx
leal (%rdx,%rcx) , %edx
3/ Aggressive operand folding for AM based selection for LEAs is sensitive to loops,
thus avoiding creation of any complex LEAs within a loop.
Reviewers: lsaba, RKSimon, craig.topper, qcolombet
Reviewed By: lsaba
Subscribers: spatel, igorb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35014
llvm-svn: 313343
Reid Kleckner