instructions.
e.g.
%reg1026<def> = VLDMQ %reg1025<kill>, 260, pred:14, pred:%reg0
%reg1027<def> = EXTRACT_SUBREG %reg1026, 6
%reg1028<def> = EXTRACT_SUBREG %reg1026<kill>, 5
...
%reg1029<def> = REG_SEQUENCE %reg1028<kill>, 5, %reg1027<kill>, 6, %reg1028, 7, %reg1027, 8, %reg1028, 9, %reg1027, 10, %reg1030<kill>, 11, %reg1032<kill>, 12
After REG_SEQUENCE is eliminated, we are left with:
%reg1026<def> = VLDMQ %reg1025<kill>, 260, pred:14, pred:%reg0
%reg1029:6<def> = EXTRACT_SUBREG %reg1026, 6
%reg1029:5<def> = EXTRACT_SUBREG %reg1026<kill>, 5
The regular coalescer will not be able to coalesce reg1026 and reg1029 because it doesn't
know how to combine sub-register indices 5 and 6. Now 2-address pass will consult the
target whether sub-registers 5 and 6 of reg1026 can be combined to into a larger
sub-register (or combined to be reg1026 itself as is the case here). If it is possible,
it will be able to replace references of reg1026 with reg1029 + the larger sub-register
index.
llvm-svn: 103835
replace the check with the appropriate predicate. Modify the testcase to reflect
the correct code. (It should be saving callee-saved registers on the stack
allocated by the calling fuction.)
llvm-svn: 103829
throw, it should use invoke when needed. The fixes the
Boost.Statechrt failures that motivated PR7132, but there are a few
side issues to tackle as well.
llvm-svn: 103803
the variable actually tracks.
N.B., several back-ends are using "HasCalls" as being synonymous for something
that adjusts the stack. This isn't 100% correct and should be looked into.
llvm-svn: 103802
- Kill is implicit when use and def registers are identical.
- Only virtual registers can differ.
Add a -verify-fast-regalloc to run the verifier before the fast allocator.
llvm-svn: 103797
user directive is needed to force a property implementation.
It is decided based on those propeties which are declared in
the class (or in its protocols) but not those which must be
default implemented by one of its super classes. Implements radar 7923851.
llvm-svn: 103787
declarator is incorrect. Not being a typename causes the parser to
dive down into the K&R identifier list handling stuff, which is almost
never the right thing to do.
Before:
r.c:3:17: error: expected ')'
void bar(intptr y);
^
r.c:3:9: note: to match this '('
void bar(intptr y);
^
r.c:3:10: error: a parameter list without types is only allowed in a function definition
void bar(intptr y);
^
After:
r.c:3:10: error: unknown type name 'intptr'; did you mean 'intptr_t'?
void bar(intptr y);
^~~~~~
intptr_t
r.c:1:13: note: 'intptr_t' declared here
typedef int intptr_t;
^
This fixes rdar://7980651 - poor recovery for bad type in the first arg of a C function
llvm-svn: 103783
Daniel Dunbar