Created a Thumb2 predicated pattern matcher that uses Thumb2 and
HasT2ExtractPack and used it to redefine the patterns for sxta{b|h}
and uxta{b|h}. Also used the similar patterns to fill in isel pattern
gaps for the corresponding instructions in the ARM backend.
The patch is mainly changes to tests since most of this functionality
appears not to have been tested.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23273
llvm-svn: 278207
Summary: When sorting #includes, #include directives that have the same text will be deduplicated when sorting #includes, and only the first #include in the duplicate #includes remains. If the `Cursor` is provided and put on a deleted #include, it will be put on the remaining #include in the duplicate #includes.
Reviewers: djasper
Subscribers: cfe-commits, klimek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23274
llvm-svn: 278206
SIZEOF_HEADERS - Return the size in bytes of the output file’s headers.
It is is a feature used in FreeBsd script, for example.
There is a discussion on PR28688 page about it.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23165
llvm-svn: 278204
a sufficiently low alignment for the IR load created.
There is no test case because we don't have any test cases for the *IR*
produced by the autoupgrade, only the x86 assembly, and it happens that
the x86 assembly for this intrinsic as it is tested in the autoupgrade
path just happens to not produce a separate load instruction where we
might have observed the alignment.
I'm going to follow up on the original commit to suggest getting
IR-level testing in addition to the asm level testing here so that we
can see and test these kinds of issues. We might never get an x86
instruction out with an alignment constraint, but we could stil
miscompile code by folding against the alignment marked on (or inferred
for in this case) the load.
llvm-svn: 278203
constraints were added to _mm256_broadcast_{pd,ps} intel intrinsics.
The spec for these intrinics is ... pretty much silent on alignment.
This is especially frustrating considering the amount of discussion of
alignment in the load and store instrinsics. So I was forced to rely on
the specification for the VBROADCASTF128 instruction.
That instruction's spec is *also* completely silent on alignment.
Fortunately, when it comes to the instruction's spec, silence is enough.
There is no #GP fault option for an underaligned address so this
instruction, and by inference the intrinsic, can read any alignment.
As it happens, the old code worked exactly this way and in fact we have
plenty of code that hands pointers with less than 16-byte alignment to
these intrinsics. This code broke pretty spectacularly with this commit.
Fortunately, the fix is super simple! Change a 16 to a 1, and ta da!
Anyways, a lot of debugging for a really boring fix. =]
llvm-svn: 278202
Hal pointed out that the semantic of our intrinsic and the libc
call are slightly different. Add a comment while I'm here to
explain why we can't emit an intrinsic. Thanks Hal!
llvm-svn: 278200
Reorder the table setup to mirror the indices corresponding to them. This means
that the table values are filled out as per the enumeration ordering. Doing so
makes it easier to identify a particular table. NFC.
llvm-svn: 278199
Summary:
When we emit err_ref_bad_target, we should emit a "'method' declared
here" note. We already do so in most places, just not in
BuildCallToMemberFunction.
Reviewers: tra
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23240
llvm-svn: 278195
Summary:
Previously these sort of worked because they didn't end up resulting in
calls at the ptx layer. But I'm adding stricter checks that break
placement new without these changes.
Reviewers: tra
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23239
llvm-svn: 278194
Summary:
I want to reuse "CheckCUDAFoo" in a later patch. Also, I think
IsAllowedCUDACall gets the point across more clearly.
Reviewers: tra
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23238
llvm-svn: 278193
This adds an InlineParams struct which is populated from the command line options by getInlineParams and passed to getInlineCost for the call analyzer to use.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22120
llvm-svn: 278189
Summary:
While cross-compiling, a custom nm program may be required. This will also allow for the
use of llvm-nm if desired.
Reviewers: samsonov, beanz, compnerd, eugenis
Subscribers: kubabrecka, dberris, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23278
llvm-svn: 278187
Summary:
The inliner not being a function pass requires the work-around of
generating the OptimizationRemarkEmitter and in turn BFI on demand.
This will go away after the new PM is ready.
BFI is only computed inside ORE if the user has requested hotness
information for optimization diagnostitics (-pass-remark-with-hotness at
the 'opt' level). Thus there is no additional overhead without the
flag.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, eraman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22694
llvm-svn: 278185
gettimeofday() isn't defined without a special header. Rather
than rely on C apis, let's just use modern C++11 to do this
portably on all platforms using std::chrono.
llvm-svn: 278182
I needed a reader-writer lock for a downstream project and noticed that
llvm has one. Function.cpp is the only file in-tree that refers to it.
To anyone reading this: are you using RWMutex in out-of-tree code? Maybe
it's not worth keeping around any more...
Since we're not actually using RWMutex *here*, remove the #include (and
a few other stale headers while we're at it).
llvm-svn: 278178
It's always hard to remember when to include this file, and
when you do include it it's hard to remember what preprocessor
check it needs to be behind, and then you further have to remember
whether it's windows.h or win32.h which you need to include.
This patch changes the name to PosixApi.h, which is more appropriately
named, and makes it independent of any preprocessor setting.
There's still the issue of people not knowing when to include this,
because there's not a well-defined set of things it exposes other
than "whatever is missing on Windows", but at least this should
make it less painful to fix when problems arise.
This patch depends on LLVM revision r278170.
llvm-svn: 278177
In case there are compilers that support neither __FUNCSIG__ or
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__, we fall back to __func__ as a last resort,
which should be guaranteed by C++11 and C99.
llvm-svn: 278176
Summary:
This hopefully fixes PR28825. The problem now was that a value from the
original loop was used in a subloop, which became a sibling after separation.
While a subloop doesn't need an lcssa phi node, a sibling does, and that's
where we broke LCSSA. The most natural way to fix this now is to simply call
formLCSSA on the original loop: it'll do what we've been doing before plus
it'll cover situations described above.
I think we don't need to run formLCSSARecursively here, and we have an assert
to verify this (I've tried testing it on LLVM testsuite + SPECs). I'd be happy
to be corrected here though.
I also changed a run line in the test from '-lcssa -loop-unroll' to
'-lcssa -loop-simplify -indvars', because it exercises LCSSA
preservation to the same extent, but also makes less unrelated
transformation on the CFG, which makes it easier to verify.
Reviewers: chandlerc, sanjoy, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23288
llvm-svn: 278173
This patch adds -emscripten-cxx-exceptions-whitelist option to
WebAssemblyLowerEmscriptenExceptions pass. This options is the list of
function names in which Emscripten-style exception handling is enabled.
This is to support emscripten's EXCEPTION_CATCHING_WHITELIST which
exists because of the performance impact of emscripten's non-zero-cost
EH method.
Patch by Heejin Ahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23292
llvm-svn: 278171
MSVC doesn't have this, it only has __FUNCSIG__. So this adds
a new macro called LLVM_PRETTY_FUNCTION which evaluates to the
right thing on any platform.
llvm-svn: 278170
When using libunwind and not building as standalone project, we
can directly depend on the unwind library target.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23289
llvm-svn: 278169
For now put them all in the entry block. This should be correct but may give
poor runtime performance. Hopefully MachineSinking combined with
isReMaterializable can solve those issues, but if not the interface is sound
enough to support alternatives.
llvm-svn: 278168
The patch is to fix the bug in PR28705. It was caused by setting wrong return
value for SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion. The return values of findExistingExpansion
have different meanings when the function is used in different ways so it is easy to make
mistake. The fix creates two new interfaces to replace SCEVExpander::findExistingExpansion,
and specifies where each interface is expected to be used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22942
llvm-svn: 278161
The fix for PR28705 will be committed consecutively.
In D12090, the ExprValueMap was added to reuse existing value during SCEV expansion.
However, const folding and sext/zext distribution can make the reuse still difficult.
A simplified case is: suppose we know S1 expands to V1 in ExprValueMap, and
S1 = S2 + C_a
S3 = S2 + C_b
where C_a and C_b are different SCEVConstants. Then we'd like to expand S3 as
V1 - C_a + C_b instead of expanding S2 literally. It is helpful when S2 is a
complex SCEV expr and S2 has no entry in ExprValueMap, which is usually caused
by the fact that S3 is generated from S1 after const folding.
In order to do that, we represent ExprValueMap as a mapping from SCEV to
ValueOffsetPair. We will save both S1->{V1, 0} and S2->{V1, C_a} into the
ExprValueMap when we create SCEV for V1. When S3 is expanded, it will first
expand S2 to V1 - C_a because of S2->{V1, C_a} in the map, then expand S3 to
V1 - C_a + C_b.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21313
llvm-svn: 278160
Summary:
The corresponding LLVM change: D23217.
LazyVector::iterator breaks, because int isn't an iterator type.
Since iterator_adaptor_base shouldn't be blamed to break at the call to
iterator_traits<int>::xxx, I'd rather "fix" LazyVector::iterator.
The perfect solution is to model "relative pointer", but it's beyond the goal of this patch.
Reviewers: chandlerc, bkramer
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23218
llvm-svn: 278156
Sam Parker