Deduplicates some code and lets us use LEA on atom when adjusting the
stack around callee-cleanup calls. This is the only intended
functionality change.
llvm-svn: 240044
There is a one-to-one relationship between X86Subtarget and
X86FrameLowering, but every frame lowering method would previously pull
the subtarget off the MachineFunction and query some subtarget
properties.
Over time, these locals began to grow in complexity and it became
important to keep their names and meaning in sync across all of the
frame lowering methods, leading to duplication. We can eliminate that
duplication by computing them once in the constructor.
llvm-svn: 239948
Old names, new names, and what they really mean:
- IsWin64 -> IsWin64CC: This is true on non-Windows x86_64 platforms
when the ms_abi calling convention is used.
- IsWinEH -> IsWin64Prologue: True when the target is Win64, regardless
of calling convention. Changes the prologue to obey the constraints of
the Win64 unwinder.
- NeedsWinEH -> NeedsWinCFI: We're using the win64 prologue *and* the we
want .xdata unwind tables. Analogous to NeedsDwarfCFI.
NFC
llvm-svn: 239836
With this patch the x86 backend is now shrink-wrapping capable
and this functionality can be tested by using the
-enable-shrink-wrap switch.
The next step is to make more test and enable shrink-wrapping by
default for x86.
Related to <rdar://problem/20821487>
llvm-svn: 238293
The problem was that I slipped a change required for shrink-wrapping, namely I
used getFirstTerminator instead of the getLastNonDebugInstr that was here before
the refactoring, whereas the surrounding code is not yet patched for that.
Original message:
[X86] Refactor the prologue emission to prepare for shrink-wrapping.
- Add a late pass to expand pseudo instructions (tail call and EH returns).
Instead of doing it in the prologue emission.
- Factor some static methods in X86FrameLowering to ease code sharing.
NFC.
Related to <rdar://problem/20821487>
llvm-svn: 238035
Revert "[X86] Refactor the prologue emission to prepare for shrink-wrapping."
This reverts commit 6b3b93fc8b68a2c806aa992ee4bd3d7f61898d4b.
This reverts commit ab0b15dff8539826283a59c2dd700a18a9680e0f.
llvm-svn: 238011
- Add a late pass to expand pseudo instructions (tail call and EH returns).
Instead of doing it in the prologue emission.
- Factor some static methods in X86FrameLowering to ease code sharing.
NFC.
Related to <rdar://problem/20821487>
llvm-svn: 237977
This was previously returning int. However there are no negative opcode
numbers and more importantly this was needlessly different from
MCInstrDesc::getOpcode() (which even is the value returned here) and
SDValue::getOpcode()/SDNode::getOpcode().
llvm-svn: 237611
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
Summary:
Until now, we did this (among other things) based on whether or not the
target was Windows. This is clearly wrong, not just for Win64 ABI functions
on non-Windows, but for System V ABI functions on Windows, too. In this
change, we make this decision based on the ABI the calling convention
specifies instead.
Reviewers: rnk
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7953
llvm-svn: 230793
The Win64 epilogue structure is very restrictive, it permits a very
small number of opcodes and none of them are 'mov'.
This means that given:
mov %rbp, %rsp
pop %rbp
The mov isn't the epilogue, only the pop is. This is problematic unless
a frame pointer is present in which case we are free to do whatever we'd
like in the "body" of the function. If a frame pointer is present,
unwinding will undo the prologue operations in reverse order regardless
of the fact that we are at an instruction which is reseting the stack
pointer.
llvm-svn: 230543
Prologue emission, in some cases, requires calls to a stack probe helper
function. The amount of stack to probe is passed as a register
argument in the Win64 ABI but the instruction sequence used is
pessimistic: it assumes that the number of bytes to probe is greater
than 4 GB.
Instead, select a more appropriate opcode depending on the number of
bytes we are going to probe.
llvm-svn: 230270
Stack realignment occurs after the prolog, not during, for Win64.
Because of this, don't factor in the maximum stack alignment when
establishing a frame pointer.
This fixes PR22572.
llvm-svn: 230113
Canonicalize access to function attributes to use the simpler API.
getAttributes().getAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> getFnAttribute(Kind)
getAttributes().hasAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)
=> hasFnAttribute(Kind)
llvm-svn: 229214
Simply loading or storing the frame pointer is not sufficient for
Windows targets. Instead, create a synthetic frame object that we will
lower later. References to this synthetic object will be replaced with
the correct reference to the frame address.
llvm-svn: 228748
Walk the instructions marked FrameSetup and consider any stores of XMM
registers to the stack as needing a SaveXMM opcode.
This fixes PR22521.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7527
llvm-svn: 228724
Win64 has specific contraints on what valid prologues and epilogues look
like. This constraint is born from the flexibility and descriptiveness
of Win64's unwind opcodes.
Prologues previously emitted by LLVM could not be represented by the
unwind opcodes, preventing operations powered by stack unwinding to
successfully work.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7520
llvm-svn: 228641
This moves the transformation introduced in r223757 into a separate MI pass.
This allows it to cover many more cases (not only cases where there must be a
reserved call frame), and perform rudimentary call folding. It still doesn't
have a heuristic, so it is enabled only for optsize/minsize, with stack
alignment <= 8, where it ought to be a fairly clear win.
(Re-commit of r227728)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6789
llvm-svn: 227752
This moves the transformation introduced in r223757 into a separate MI pass.
This allows it to cover many more cases (not only cases where there must be a
reserved call frame), and perform rudimentary call folding. It still doesn't
have a heuristic, so it is enabled only for optsize/minsize, with stack
alignment <= 8, where it ought to be a fairly clear win.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6789
llvm-svn: 227728
MSDN's x64 software conventions page says that this is one of the fixed
list of legal epilogues:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tawsa7cb.aspx
Presumably this is how the unwinder distinguishes epilogue jumps from
in-function control flow.
Also normalize the way we place "## TAILCALL" comments on such jumps.
llvm-svn: 227611
In the large code model, we now put __chkstk in %r11 before calling it.
Refactor the code so that we only do this once. Simplify things by using
__chkstk_ms instead of __chkstk on cygming. We already use that symbol
in the prolog emission, and it simplifies our logic.
Second half of PR18582.
llvm-svn: 227519
win64: Call __chkstk through a register with the large code model
Fixes half of PR18582. True dynamic allocas will still have a
CALL64pcrel32 which will fail.
Reviewers: majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7267
llvm-svn: 227503
For large stack offsets the compiler generates multiple immediate mode
sub/add instructions in the prologue/epilogue. This patch makes the
compiler place the final amount to be added/subtracted into a register,
which is then added/substracted with a single operation.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7226
llvm-svn: 227458
LLVM emits stack probes on Windows targets to ensure that the stack is
correctly accessed. However, the amount of stack allocated before
emitting such a probe is hardcoded to 4096.
It is desirable to have this be configurable so that a function might
opt-out of stack probes. Our level of granularity is at the function
level instead of, say, the module level to permit proper generation of
code after LTO.
Patch by Andrew H!
N.B. The inliner needs to be updated to properly consider what happens
after inlining a function with a specific stack-probe-size into another
function with a different stack-probe-size.
llvm-svn: 225360
The assembler backend will relax to the long form if necessary. This removes a swap from long form to short form in the MCInstLowering code. Selecting the long form used to be required by the old JIT.
llvm-svn: 225242
Under the large code model, we cannot assume that __morestack lives within
2^31 bytes of the call site, so we cannot use pc-relative addressing. We
cannot perform the call via a temporary register, as the rax register may
be used to store the static chain, and all other suitable registers may be
either callee-save or used for parameter passing. We cannot use the stack
at this point either because __morestack manipulates the stack directly.
To avoid these issues, perform an indirect call via a read-only memory
location containing the address.
This solution is not perfect, as it assumes that the .rodata section
is laid out within 2^31 bytes of each function body, but this seems to
be sufficient for JIT.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6787
llvm-svn: 225003
It is intended to be used for a family of personality functions that
have similar IR preparation requirements. Typically when interoperating
with MSVC personality functions, bits of functionality need to be
outlined from the main function into helper functions. There is also
usually more than one landing pad per invoke, which does not match the
LLVM IR landingpad representation.
None of this is implemented yet. This change just adds a new enum that
is active for *-windows-msvc and delegates to the EH removal preparation
pass. No functionality change for other targets.
llvm-svn: 224625
This handles the simplest case for mov -> push conversion:
1. x86-32 calling convention, everything is passed through the stack.
2. There is no reserved call frame.
3. Only registers or immediates are pushed, no attempt to combine a mem-reg-mem sequence into a single PUSHmm.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6503
llvm-svn: 223757
Commit on
- This patch fixes the bug described in
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-May/062343.html
The fix allocates an extra slot just below the GPRs and stores the base pointer
there. This is done only for functions containing llvm.eh.sjlj.setjmp that also
need a base pointer. Because code containing llvm.eh.sjlj.setjmp saves all of
the callee-save GPRs in the prologue, the offset to the extra slot can be
computed before prologue generation runs.
Impact at run-time on affected functions is::
- One extra store in the prologue, The store saves the base pointer.
- One extra load after a llvm.eh.sjlj.setjmp. The load restores the base pointer.
Because the extra slot is just above a gap between frame-pointer-relative and
base-pointer-relative chunks of memory, there is no impact on other offset
calculations other than ensuring there is room for the extra slot.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6388
Patch by Arch Robison <arch.robison@intel.com>
llvm-svn: 223329
This is the second patch in a small series. This patch contains the MachineInstruction and x86-64 backend pieces required to lower Statepoints. It does not include the code to actually generate the STATEPOINT machine instruction and as a result, the entire patch is currently dead code. I will be submitting the SelectionDAG parts within the next 24-48 hours. Since those pieces are by far the most complicated, I wanted to minimize the size of that patch. That patch will include the tests which exercise the functionality in this patch. The entire series can be seen as one combined whole in http://reviews.llvm.org/D5683.
The STATEPOINT psuedo node is generated after all gc values are explicitly spilled to stack slots. The purpose of this node is to wrap an actual call instruction while recording the spill locations of the meta arguments used for garbage collection and other purposes. The STATEPOINT is modeled as modifing all of those locations to prevent backend optimizations from forwarding the value from before the STATEPOINT to after the STATEPOINT. (Doing so would break relocation semantics for collectors which wish to relocate roots.)
The implementation of STATEPOINT is closely modeled on PATCHPOINT. Eventually, much of the code in this patch will be removed. The long term plan is to merge the functionality provided by statepoints and patchpoints. Merging their implementations in the backend is likely to be a good starting point.
Reviewed by: atrick, ributzka
llvm-svn: 223085
Reid Kleckner