Because we create a new kind of debug instruction, DBG_LABEL, we need to
check all passes which use isDebugValue() to check MachineInstr is debug
instruction or not. When expelling debug instructions, we should expel
both DBG_VALUE and DBG_LABEL. So, I create a new function,
isDebugInstr(), in MachineInstr to check whether the MachineInstr is
debug instruction or not.
This patch has no new test case. I have run regression test and there is
no difference in regression test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45342
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331844
This header includes CodeGen headers, and is not, itself, included by
any Target headers, so move it into CodeGen to match the layering of its
implementation.
llvm-svn: 317647
Reverse iterators to doubly-linked lists can be simpler (and cheaper)
than std::reverse_iterator. Make it so.
In particular, change ilist<T>::reverse_iterator so that it is *never*
invalidated unless the node it references is deleted. This matches the
guarantees of ilist<T>::iterator.
(Note: MachineBasicBlock::iterator is *not* an ilist iterator, but a
MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>. This commit does not change
MachineBasicBlock::reverse_iterator, but it does update
MachineBasicBlock::reverse_instr_iterator. See note at end of commit
message for details on bundle iterators.)
Given the list (with the Sentinel showing twice for simplicity):
[Sentinel] <-> A <-> B <-> [Sentinel]
the following is now true:
1. begin() represents A.
2. begin() holds the pointer for A.
3. end() represents [Sentinel].
4. end() holds the poitner for [Sentinel].
5. rbegin() represents B.
6. rbegin() holds the pointer for B.
7. rend() represents [Sentinel].
8. rend() holds the pointer for [Sentinel].
The changes are #6 and #8. Here are some properties from the old
scheme (which used std::reverse_iterator):
- rbegin() held the pointer for [Sentinel] and rend() held the pointer
for A;
- operator*() cost two dereferences instead of one;
- converting from a valid iterator to its valid reverse_iterator
involved a confusing increment; and
- "RI++->erase()" left RI invalid. The unintuitive replacement was
"RI->erase(), RE = end()".
With vector-like data structures these properties are hard to avoid
(since past-the-beginning is not a valid pointer), and don't impose a
real cost (since there's still only one dereference, and all iterators
are invalidated on erase). But with lists, this was a poor design.
Specifically, the following code (which obviously works with normal
iterators) now works with ilist::reverse_iterator as well:
for (auto RI = L.rbegin(), RE = L.rend(); RI != RE;)
fooThatMightRemoveArgFromList(*RI++);
Converting between iterator and reverse_iterator for the same node uses
the getReverse() function.
reverse_iterator iterator::getReverse();
iterator reverse_iterator::getReverse();
Why doesn't iterator <=> reverse_iterator conversion use constructors?
In order to catch and update old code, reverse_iterator does not even
have an explicit conversion from iterator. It wouldn't be safe because
there would be no reasonable way to catch all the bugs from the changed
semantic (see the changes at call sites that are part of this patch).
Old code used this API:
std::reverse_iterator::reverse_iterator(iterator);
iterator std::reverse_iterator::base();
Here's how to update from old code to new (that incorporates the
semantic change), assuming I is an ilist<>::iterator and RI is an
ilist<>::reverse_iterator:
[Old] ==> [New]
reverse_iterator(I) (--I).getReverse()
reverse_iterator(I) ++I.getReverse()
--reverse_iterator(I) I.getReverse()
reverse_iterator(++I) I.getReverse()
RI.base() (--RI).getReverse()
RI.base() ++RI.getReverse()
--RI.base() RI.getReverse()
(++RI).base() RI.getReverse()
delete &*RI, RE = end() delete &*RI++
RI->erase(), RE = end() RI++->erase()
=======================================
Note: bundle iterators are out of scope
=======================================
MachineBasicBlock::iterator, also known as
MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>, is a wrapper to represent
MachineInstr bundles. The idea is that each operator++ takes you to the
beginning of the next bundle. Implementing a sane reverse iterator for
this is harder than ilist. Here are the options:
- Use std::reverse_iterator<MBB::i>. Store a handle to the beginning of
the next bundle. A call to operator*() runs a loop (usually
operator--() will be called 1 time, for unbundled instructions).
Increment/decrement just works. This is the status quo.
- Store a handle to the final node in the bundle. A call to operator*()
still runs a loop, but it iterates one time fewer (usually
operator--() will be called 0 times, for unbundled instructions).
Increment/decrement just works.
- Make the ilist_sentinel<MachineInstr> *always* store that it's the
sentinel (instead of just in asserts mode). Then the bundle iterator
can sniff the sentinel bit in operator++().
I initially tried implementing the end() option as part of this commit,
but updating iterator/reverse_iterator conversion call sites was
error-prone. I have a WIP series of patches that implements the final
option.
llvm-svn: 280032
Rename AllVRegsAllocated to NoVRegs. This avoids the connotation of
running after register and simply describes that no vregs are used in
a machine function. With that we can simply compute the property and do
not need to dump/parse it in .mir files.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D23850
llvm-svn: 279698
Summary:
This adds the same checks that were added in r264593 to all
target-specific passes that run after register allocation.
Reviewers: qcolombet
Subscribers: jyknight, dsanders, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18525
llvm-svn: 265313
Summary:
* Fix to stop delay slot filler from inserting SP modifying instructions in the newly expanded call/return instructions.
* In LowerSymbol the outermost type was not LanaiMCExpr if there was a binary expression
* Remove printExpr in LanaiInstPrinter
Subscribers: joker.eph, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18734
llvm-svn: 265251
Shiva Chen