This will become necessary in a subsequent change to make this method
merge adjacent stack adjustments, i.e. it might erase the previous
and/or next instruction.
It also greatly simplifies the calls to this function from Prolog-
EpilogInserter. Previously, that had a bunch of logic to resume iteration
after the call; now it just continues with the returned iterator.
Note that this changes the behaviour of PEI a little. Previously,
it attempted to re-visit the new instruction created by
eliminateCallFramePseudoInstr(). That code was added in r36625,
but I can't see any reason for it: the new instructions will obviously
not be pseudo instructions, they will not have FrameIndex operands,
and we have already accounted for the stack adjustment.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18627
llvm-svn: 265036
If you're going to realign %sp to get object alignment properly (which
the code does), and stack offsets and alignments are calculated going
down from %fp (which they are), then the total stack size had better
be a multiple of the alignment. LLVM did indeed ensure that.
And then, after aligning, the sparc frame code added 96 (for sparcv8)
to the frame size, making any requested alignment of 64-bytes or
higher *guaranteed* to be misaligned. The test case added with r245668
even tests this exact scenario, and asserted the incorrect behavior,
which I somehow failed to notice. D'oh.
This change fixes the frame lowering code to align the stack size
*after* adding the spill area, instead.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12349
llvm-svn: 246042
Note: I do not implement a base pointer, so it's still impossible to
have dynamic realignment AND dynamic alloca in the same function.
This also moves the code for determining the frame index reference
into getFrameIndexReference, where it belongs, instead of inline in
eliminateFrameIndex.
[Begin long-winded screed]
Now, stack realignment for Sparc is actually a silly thing to support,
because the Sparc ABI has no need for it -- unlike the situation on
x86, the stack is ALWAYS aligned to the required alignment for the CPU
instructions: 8 bytes on sparcv8, and 16 bytes on sparcv9.
However, LLVM unfortunately implements user-specified overalignment
using stack realignment support, so for now, I'm going to go along
with that tradition. GCC instead treats objects which have alignment
specification greater than the maximum CPU-required alignment for the
target as a separate block of stack memory, with their own virtual
base pointer (which gets aligned). Doing it that way avoids needing to
implement per-target support for stack realignment, except for the
targets which *actually* have an ABI-specified stack alignment which
is too small for the CPU's requirements.
Further unfortunately in LLVM, the default canRealignStack for all
targets effectively returns true, despite that implementing that is
something a target needs to do specifically. So, the previous behavior
on Sparc was to silently ignore the user's specified stack
alignment. Ugh.
Yet MORE unfortunate, if a target actually does return false from
canRealignStack, that also causes the user-specified alignment to be
*silently ignored*, rather than emitting an error.
(I started looking into fixing that last, but it broke a bunch of
tests, because LLVM actually *depends* on having it silently ignored:
some architectures (e.g. non-linux i386) have smaller stack alignment
than spilled-register alignment. But, the fact that a register needs
spilling is not known until within the register allocator. And by that
point, the decision to not reserve the frame pointer has been frozen
in place. And without a frame pointer, stack realignment is not
possible. So, canRealignStack() returns false, and
needsStackRealignment() then returns false, assuming everyone can just
go on their merry way assuming the alignment requirements were
probably just suggestions after-all. Sigh...)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12208
llvm-svn: 245668
This changes TargetFrameLowering::processFunctionBeforeCalleeSavedScan():
- Rename the function to determineCalleeSaves()
- Pass a bitset of callee saved registers by reference, thus avoiding
the function-global PhysRegUsed bitset in MachineRegisterInfo.
- Without PhysRegUsed the implementation is fine tuned to not save
physcial registers which are only read but never modified.
Related to rdar://21539507
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10909
llvm-svn: 242165
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the
prologue and epilogue of the function.
The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits
blocks.
As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also
implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64.
** Context **
Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the
entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when
those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed
places.
The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places.
** Motivating example **
Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of
a if:
define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
%tmp = alloca i32, align 4
%tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false
true:
store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4
%tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp)
br label %false
false:
%tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ]
ret i32 %tmp.0
}
On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease
readabilities):
_f: ; @f
; BB#0:
stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
mov x29, sp
sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16
cmp w0, w1
b.ge LBB0_2
; BB#1: ; %true
stur w0, [x29, #-4]
sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4
mov w0, wzr
bl _doSomething
LBB0_2: ; %false
mov sp, x29
ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
ret
With shrink-wrapping we could generate:
_f: ; @f
; BB#0:
cmp w0, w1
b.ge LBB0_2
; BB#1: ; %true
stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
mov x29, sp
sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16
stur w0, [x29, #-4]
sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4
mov w0, wzr
bl _doSomething
add sp, x29, #16 ; =16
ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
LBB0_2: ; %false
ret
Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if
we actually do the call.
** Proposed Solution **
This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping
analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details).
It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo
attached to the MachineFunction.
This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the
related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI.
Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of
shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack
to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and
loop properties.
The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the
EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig.
This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using
-enable-shrink-wrap.
Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your
emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not
necessarily the entry block.
** Design Decisions **
1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but
for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file.
2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some
point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted
component would then be:
- The pass itself: New algorithm needed.
- MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one
pointer.
- PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point.
Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting
to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating
examples.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210
<rdar://problem/3201744>
llvm-svn: 236507
Add header guards to files that were missing guards. Remove #endif comments
as they don't seem common in LLVM (we can easily add them back if we decide
they're useful)
Changes made by clang-tidy with minor tweaks.
llvm-svn: 215558
The save area is twice as big and there is no struct return slot. The
stack pointer is always 16-byte aligned (after adding the bias).
Also eliminate the stack adjustment instructions around calls when the
function has a reserved stack frame.
llvm-svn: 179083
to TargetFrameLowering, where it belongs. Incidentally, this allows us
to delete some duplicated (and slightly different!) code in TRI.
There are potentially other layering problems that can be cleaned up
as a result, or in a similar manner.
The refactoring was OK'd by Anton Korobeynikov on llvmdev.
Note: this touches the target interfaces, so out-of-tree targets may
be affected.
llvm-svn: 175788
LLVM is now -Wunused-private-field clean except for
- lib/MC/MCDisassembler/Disassembler.h. Not sure why it keeps all those unaccessible fields.
- gtest.
llvm-svn: 158096
Hans Wennborg