This skips a couple of compare ones due to the different syntaxt for
floating-point 0.0. AArch64 does it more canonically, and we'll need to fiddle
ARM64 to make it work.
llvm-svn: 207119
Leak identified by LSan and reported by Kostya Serebryany.
Let's get a bit experimental here... in theory our minimum compiler
versions support unordered_map.
llvm-svn: 207118
This matches ARM64 behaviour, which I think is clearer. It also puts all the
churn from that difference into one easily ignored commit.
llvm-svn: 207116
These can have different relocations in ELF. In particular both:
b.eq global
ldr x0, global
are valid, giving different relocations. The only possible way to distinguish
them is via a different fixup, so the operands had to be separated throughout
the backend.
llvm-svn: 207105
ARM64 was not producing pure BFI instructions for bitfield insertion
operations, unlike AArch64. The approach had to be a little different (in
ISelDAGToDAG rather than ISelLowering), and the outcomes aren't identical but
hopefully this gives it similar power.
This should address PR19424.
llvm-svn: 207102
algorithm here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=177301.
The idea of isolating the roots has even more relevance when using the
stack not just to implement the DFS but also to implement the recursive
step. Because we use it for the recursive step, to isolate the roots we
need to maintain two stacks: one for our recursive DFS walk, and another
of the nodes that have been walked. The nice thing is that the latter
will be half the size. It also fixes a complete hack where we scanned
backwards over the stack to find the next potential-root to continue
processing. Now that is always the top of the DFS stack.
While this is a really nice improvement already (IMO) it further opens
the door for two important simplifications:
1) De-duplicating some of the code across the two different walks. I've
actually made the duplication a bit worse in some senses with this
patch because the two are starting to converge.
2) Dramatically simplifying the loop structures of both walks.
I wanted to do those separately as they'll be essentially *just* CFG
restructuring. This patch on the other hand actually uses different
datastructures to implement the algorithm itself.
llvm-svn: 207098
applied prior to pushing a node onto the DFSStack. This is the first
step toward avoiding the stack entirely for leaf nodes. It also
simplifies things a bit and I think is pointing the way toward factoring
some more of the shared logic out of the two implementations.
It is also making it more obvious how to restructure the loops
themselves to be a bit easier to read (although no different in terms of
functionality).
llvm-svn: 207095
a SmallPtrSet. Currently, there is no need for stable iteration in this
dimension, and I now thing there won't need to be going forward.
If this is ever re-introduced in any form, it needs to not be
a SetVector based solution because removal cannot be linear. There will
be many SCCs with large numbers of parents. When encountering these, the
incremental SCC update for intra-SCC edge removal was quadratic due to
linear removal (kind of).
I'm really hoping we can avoid having an ordering property here at all
though...
llvm-svn: 207091
This allows us to compile
return (mask & 0x8 ? a : b);
into
testb $8, %dil
cmovnel %edx, %esi
instead of
andl $8, %edi
shrl $3, %edi
cmovnel %edx, %esi
which we formed previously because dag combiner canonicalizes setcc of and into shift.
llvm-svn: 207088
Added support for bytes replication feature, so it could be GAS compatible.
E.g. instructions below:
"vmov.i32 d0, 0xffffffff"
"vmvn.i32 d0, 0xabababab"
"vmov.i32 d0, 0xabababab"
"vmov.i16 d0, 0xabab"
are incorrect, but we could deal with such cases.
For first one we should emit:
"vmov.i8 d0, 0xff"
For second one ("vmvn"):
"vmov.i8 d0, 0x54"
For last two instructions it should emit:
"vmov.i8 d0, 0xab"
P.S.: In ARMAsmParser.cpp I have also fixed few nearby style issues in old code.
Just for keeping method bodies in harmony with themselves.
llvm-svn: 207080
own CRTP base class for more general purpose use. Add some clarifying
comments for the exact way in which the adaptor uses it. Hopefully this
will help us write increasingly full featured iterators. This is
becoming important as they start to be used heavily inside of ranges.
llvm-svn: 207072
Boost's iterator_adaptor, and a specific adaptor which iterates over
pointees when wrapped around an iterator over pointers.
This is the result of a long discussion on IRC with Duncan Smith, Dave
Blaikie, Richard Smith, and myself. Essentially, I could use some subset
of the iterator facade facilities often used from Boost, and everyone
seemed interested in having the functionality in a reasonably generic
form. I've tried to strike a balance between the pragmatism and the
established Boost design. The primary differences are:
1) Delegating to the standard iterator interface names rather than
special names that then make up a second iterator-like API.
2) Using the name 'pointee_iterator' which seems more clear than
'indirect_iterator'. The whole business of calling the '*p' operation
'pointer indirection' in the standard is ... quite confusing. And
'dereference' is no better of a term for moving from a pointer to
a reference.
Hoping Duncan, and others continue to provide comments on this until
we've got a nice, minimal abstraction.
llvm-svn: 207069
This excludes avx512 as I don't have hardware to verify. It excludes _dq
variants because they are represented in the IR as <{2,4} x i64> when it's
actually a byte shift of the entire i{128,265}.
This also excludes _dq_bs as they aren't at all supported by the backend.
There are also no corresponding instructions in the ISA. I have no idea why
they exist...
llvm-svn: 207058
Summary:
Since the upper 64 bits of the destination register are undefined when
performing this operation, we can substitute it and let the optimizer
figure out that only a copy is needed.
Also added range merging, if an instruction copies a range that can be
merged with a previous copied range.
Added test cases for both optimizations.
Reviewers: grosbach, nadav
CC: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3357
llvm-svn: 207055
than functions. So far, this access pattern is *much* more common. It
seems likely that any user of this interface is going to have nodes at
the point that they are querying the SCCs.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 207045
Matheus Almeida