Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Daniel Jasper 559aa75382 Revert "r306529 - [X86] Correct dwarf unwind information in function epilogue"
I am 99% sure that this breaks the PPC ASAN build bot:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-ppc64be-linux/builds/3112/steps/64-bit%20check-asan/logs/stdio

If it doesn't go back to green, we can recommit (and fix the original
commit message at the same time :) ).

llvm-svn: 306676
2017-06-29 13:58:24 +00:00
Petar Jovanovic 7b3a38ec30 [X86] Correct dwarf unwind information in function epilogue
CFI instructions that set appropriate cfa offset and cfa register are now
inserted in emitEpilogue() in X86FrameLowering.

Majority of the changes in this patch:

1. Ensure that CFI instructions do not affect code generation.
2. Enable maintaining correct information about cfa offset and cfa register
in a function when basic blocks are reordered, merged, split, duplicated.

These changes are target independent and described below.

Changed CFI instructions so that they:

1. are duplicable
2. are not counted as instructions when tail duplicating or tail merging
3. can be compared as equal

Add information to each MachineBasicBlock about cfa offset and cfa register
that are valid at its entry and exit (incoming and outgoing CFI info). Add
support for updating this information when basic blocks are merged, split,
duplicated, created. Add a verification pass (CFIInfoVerifier) that checks
that outgoing cfa offset and register of predecessor blocks match incoming
values of their successors.

Incoming and outgoing CFI information is used by a late pass
(CFIInstrInserter) that corrects CFA calculation rule for a basic block if
needed. That means that additional CFI instructions get inserted at basic
block beginning to correct the rule for calculating CFA. Having CFI
instructions in function epilogue can cause incorrect CFA calculation rule
for some basic blocks. This can happen if, due to basic block reordering,
or the existence of multiple epilogue blocks, some of the blocks have wrong
cfa offset and register values set by the epilogue block above them.

Patch by Violeta Vukobrat.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18046

llvm-svn: 306529
2017-06-28 10:21:17 +00:00
Nirav Dave 3465861177 [X86] Remove target feature info from mul-i256.ll test. NFC.
llvm-svn: 303558
2017-05-22 15:04:08 +00:00
Amaury Sechet 77cfb4a85f [DAGCombine] (addcarry 0, 0, X) -> (ext/trunc X)
Summary:
While this makes some case better and some case worse - so it's unclear if it is a worthy combine just by itself - this is a useful canonicalisation.

As per discussion in D32756 .

Reviewers: jyknight, nemanjai, mkuper, spatel, RKSimon, zvi, bkramer

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32916

llvm-svn: 303441
2017-05-19 18:20:44 +00:00
Amaury Sechet 106a7eab84 [DAGCombine] (uaddo X, (addcarry Y, 0, Carry)) -> (addcarry X, Y, Carry)
Summary: This is a common pattern that arise when legalizing large integers operations. Only do it when Y + 1 cannot overflow as this would change the carry behavior of uaddo .

Reviewers: jyknight, nemanjai, mkuper, spatel, RKSimon, zvi, bkramer

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32687

llvm-svn: 301922
2017-05-02 14:15:48 +00:00
Amaury Sechet c7e81bf381 Commit full codegen for mul-i256.ll . NFC
The full codegen is committed for larger multiply, so that won't make the test suite more fragile. However, it'll allow to expose the effects fo various DAG combine.

llvm-svn: 294196
2017-02-06 16:21:41 +00:00
Pawel Bylica c3f6c97f71 Integer legalization: fix MUL expansion
Summary:
This fixes the runtime results produces by the fallback multiplication expansion introduced in r270720.

For tests I created a fuzz tester that compares the results with Boost.Multiprecision.

Reviewers: hfinkel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26628

llvm-svn: 286998
2016-11-15 18:29:24 +00:00
Hal Finkel 6f3387f434 [SDAG] Add a fallback multiplication expansion
LegalizeIntegerTypes does not have a way to expand multiplications for large
integer types (i.e. larger than twice the native bit width). There's no
standard runtime call to use in that case, and so we'd just assert.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, it is possible to hit this case from
standard-ish C code in rare cases. A particular case a user ran into yesterday
involved an __int128 induction variable and a loop with a quadratic (not
linear) recurrence which triggered some backend logic using SCEVExpander. In
this case, the BinomialCoefficient code in SCEV generates some i129 variables,
which get widened to i256. At a high level, this is not actually good (i.e. the
underlying optimization, PPCLoopPreIncPrep, should not be transforming the loop
in question for performance reasons), but regardless, the backend shouldn't
crash because of cost-modeling issues in the optimizer.

This is a straightforward implementation of the multiplication expansion, based
on the algorithm in Hacker's Delight. I validated it against the code for the
mul256b function from http://locklessinc.com/articles/256bit_arithmetic/ using
random inputs. There should be no functional change for previously-working code
(the new expansion code only replaces an assert).

Fixes PR19797.

llvm-svn: 270720
2016-05-25 16:50:22 +00:00