Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
Large code model on PPC64 requires creating and referencing TOC entries when
using the addis/ld form of addressing. This was not being done in all cases.
The changes in this patch to PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction() fix this. Two
test cases are also modified to reflect this requirement.
Fast-isel was not creating correct code for loading floating-point constants
using large code model. This also requires the addis/ld form of addressing.
Previously we were using the addis/lfd shortcut which is only applicable to
medium code model. One test case is modified to reflect this requirement.
llvm-svn: 190882
This was done with the following sed invocation to catch label lines demarking function boundaries:
sed -i '' "s/^;\( *\)\([A-Z0-9_]*\):\( *\)test\([A-Za-z0-9_-]*\):\( *\)$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3test\4:\5/g" test/CodeGen/*/*.ll
which was written conservatively to avoid false positives rather than false negatives. I scanned through all the changes and everything looks correct.
llvm-svn: 186258
Large code model is identical to medium code model except that the
addis/addi sequence for "local" accesses is never used. All accesses
use the addis/ld sequence.
The coding changes are straightforward; most of the patch is taken up
with creating variants of the medium model tests for large model.
llvm-svn: 175767
The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries
must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally,
only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer.
With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed
via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker
allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the
number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model
also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables
that are wholly internal to the compilation unit.
Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the
compiler generates:
ld 3, .LC1@toc(2)
lwz 4, 0(3)
.section .toc,"aw",@progbits
.LC1:
.tc ei[TC],ei
With medium model, it instead generates:
addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha
ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3)
lwz 4, 0(3)
.section .toc,"aw",@progbits
.LC1:
.tc ei[TC],ei
Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the
32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly,
.LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if
the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of
the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and
replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small
code model example.
Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code
model, the compiler generates:
ld 3, .LC1@toc(2)
lwz 4, 0(3)
.section .toc,"aw",@progbits
.LC1:
.tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si
.type test_fn_static.si,@object
.local test_fn_static.si
.comm test_fn_static.si,4,4
For medium code model, the compiler generates:
addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha
addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l
lwz 4, 0(3)
.type test_fn_static.si,@object
.local test_fn_static.si
.comm test_fn_static.si,4,4
Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only
a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient.
Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate:
addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha
lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3)
The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be
addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch.
For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the
small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code
model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different
code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will
be linked and execute correctly.
I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in
two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional
logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile
cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an
unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens
that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in
floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external
library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct
the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default,
to avoid introducing this "regression."
Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code
can be difficult to follow:
The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions:
LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for
constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The
pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because
we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern.
Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY
node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either
a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to
the sequences described above.
The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases:
* Jump table addresses
* Function addresses
* External global variables
* Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage)
The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases:
* Constant pool entries
* File-scope static global variables
* Function-scope static variables
Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the
instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling.
The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in
PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to
a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this
is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and
LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this).
I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or
ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA.
However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a
different block, which may be assembled textually following the block
containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the
possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions.
Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This
allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD
instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation).
When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need
to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations.
The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the
intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile
and hard to understand.
The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the
integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by
PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for
proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences
tested with the external assembler.
llvm-svn: 168708
David Blaikie