This means that LTO_SYMBOL_SCOPE_DEFAULT_CAN_BE_HIDDEN will not be set
in a few cases.
This should have no impact in ld64 since it doesn't use lazy loading
when merging modules and that is when it checks
LTO_SYMBOL_SCOPE_DEFAULT_CAN_BE_HIDDEN.
llvm-svn: 257915
Remove a few more implicit ilist iterator conversions, this time from
Analysis.cpp and BranchFolding.cpp.
I added a few overloads for `remove()` and `erase()`, which quite
naturally take pointers as well as iterators as parameters. This will
reduce the churn at least in the short term, but I don't really have a
problem with these existing for longer.
llvm-svn: 249867
The CATCHRET operand did not match the MachineFunction's CFG. This
mismatch happened because FrameLowering created a new MachineBasicBlock
and updated the CFG but forgot to update the CATCHRET operand.
Let's make sure this doesn't happen again by strengthing the funclet
membership analysis: it can now reason about the membership of all basic
blocks, not just those inside of funclets.
llvm-svn: 249344
Track which basic blocks belong to which funclets. Permit branch
folding to fire but only if it can prove that doing so will not cause
code in one funclet to be reused in another.
llvm-svn: 249257
This reverts isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute's use of ReadNone until we
split ReadNone into two pieces: one attribute which reasons about how
the function reasons about memory and another attribute which determines
how it may be speculated, CSE'd, trap, etc.
llvm-svn: 246331
A readnone tailcall may still have a chain of computation which follows
it that would invalidate a tailcall lowering. Don't skip the analysis
in such cases.
This fixes PR24613.
llvm-svn: 246304
Summary:
This change is part of a series of commits dedicated to have a single
DataLayout during compilation by using always the one owned by the
module.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: jholewinski, ted, yaron.keren, rafael, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11028
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 241775
Summary:
Avoid using the TargetMachine owned DataLayout and use the Module owned
one instead. This requires passing the DataLayout up the stack to
ComputeValueVTs().
This change is part of a series of commits dedicated to have a single
DataLayout during compilation by using always the one owned by the
module.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: jholewinski, yaron.keren, rafael, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11019
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 241773
It's quite possible to encounter an insertvalue instruction that's more deeply
nested than the value we're looking for, but when that happens we really
mustn't compare beyond the end of the index array.
Since I couldn't see any guarantees about what comparisons std::equal makes, we
probably need to directly check the size beforehand. In practice, I suspect
most std::equal implementations would probably bail early, which would be OK.
But just in case...
rdar://20834485
llvm-svn: 236635
When deciding whether a value comes from the aggregate or inserted value of an
insertvalue instruction, we compare the indices against those of the location
we're interested in. One of the lists needs reversing because the input data is
backwards (so that modifications take place at the end of the SmallVector), but
we were reversing both before leading to incorrect results.
Should fix PR23408
llvm-svn: 236457
All of the cases were just appending from random access iterators to a
vector. Using insert/append can grow the vector to the perfect size
directly and moves the growing out of the loop. No intended functionalty
change.
llvm-svn: 230845
When processing an array, every Elt has the same layout, it is
useless to recursively call each ComputeLinearIndex on each element.
Just do it once and multiply by the number of elements.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6832
llvm-svn: 225949
There is no need to pass on TLI separately to the function. As Eric pointed out
the Target Machine already provides everything we need.
llvm-svn: 213108
If the tail-callee and caller give the same bits via the same signext/zeroext
attribute then a tail-call should be allowed, since the extension has already
been done by the callee.
llvm-svn: 188159
This change came about primarily because of two issues in the existing code.
Niether of:
define i64 @test1(i64 %val) {
%in = trunc i64 %val to i32
tail call i32 @ret32(i32 returned %in)
ret i64 %val
}
define i64 @test2(i64 %val) {
tail call i32 @ret32(i32 returned undef)
ret i32 42
}
should be tail calls, and the function sameNoopInput is responsible. The main
problem is that it is completely symmetric in the "tail call" and "ret" value,
but in reality different things are allowed on each side.
For these cases:
1. Any truncation should lead to a larger value being generated by "tail call"
than needed by "ret".
2. Undef should only be allowed as a source for ret, not as a result of the
call.
Along the way I noticed that a mismatch between what this function treats as a
valid truncation and what the backends see can lead to invalid calls as well
(see x86-32 test case).
This patch refactors the code so that instead of being based primarily on
values which it recurses into when necessary, it starts by inspecting the type
and considers each fundamental slot that the backend will see in turn. For
example, given a pathological function that returned {{}, {{}, i32, {}}, i32}
we would consider each "real" i32 in turn, and ask if it passes through
unchanged. This is much closer to what the backend sees as a result of
ComputeValueVTs.
Aside from the bug fixes, this eliminates the recursion that's going on and, I
believe, makes the bulk of the code significantly easier to understand. The
trade-off is the nasty iterators needed to find the real types inside a
returned value.
llvm-svn: 187787
1) Disallow 'returned' on parameter that is also 'sret' (no sensible semantics, as far as I can tell).
2) Conservatively disallow tail calls through 'returned' parameters that also are 'zext' or 'sext' (for consistency with treatment of other zero-extending and sign-extending operations in tail call position detection...can be revised later to handle situations that can be determined to be safe).
This is a new attribute that is not yet used, so there is no impact.
llvm-svn: 180118
one file where it is called as a static function. Nuke the declaration
and the definition in lib/CodeGen, along with the include of
SelectionDAG.h from this file.
There is no dependency edge from lib/CodeGen to
lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG, so it isn't valid for a routine in lib/CodeGen
to reference the DAG. There is a dependency from
lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG on lib/CodeGen. This breaks one violation of
this layering.
llvm-svn: 171842
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
We use the enums to query whether an Attributes object has that attribute. The
opaque layer is responsible for knowing where that specific attribute is stored.
llvm-svn: 165488
Rafael Espindola