Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
This re-applies r223862, r224198, r224203, and r224754, which were
reverted in r228129 because they exposed Clang misalignment problems
when self-hosting.
The combine caused the crashes because we turned ISD::LOAD/STORE nodes
to ARMISD::VLD1/VST1_UPD nodes. When selecting addressing modes, we
were very lax for the former, and only emitted the alignment operand
(as in "[r1:128]") when it was larger than the standard alignment of
the memory type.
However, for ARMISD nodes, we just used the MMO alignment, no matter
what. In our case, we turned ISD nodes to ARMISD nodes, and this
caused the alignment operands to start being emitted.
And that's how we exposed alignment problems that were ignored before
(but I believe would have been caught with SCTRL.A==1?).
To fix this, we can just mirror the hack done for ISD nodes: only
take into account the MMO alignment when the access is overaligned.
Original commit message:
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
rdar://19717869, rdar://14062261.
llvm-svn: 229932
This reverts patches 223862, 224198, 224203, and 224754, which were all
related to the vector load/store combining and were reverted/reaplied
a few times due to the same alignment problems we're seeing now.
Further tests, mainly self-hosting Clang, will be needed to reapply this
patch in the future.
llvm-svn: 228129
This partially fixes PR13007 (ARM CodeGen fails with large stack
alignment): for ARM and Thumb2 targets, but not for Thumb1, as it
seems stack alignment for Thumb1 targets hasn't been supported at
all.
Producing an aligned stack pointer is done by zero-ing out the lower
bits of the stack pointer. The BIC instruction was used for this.
However, the immediate field of the BIC instruction only allows to
encode an immediate that can zero out up to a maximum of the 8 lower
bits. When a larger alignment is requested, a BIC instruction cannot
be used; llvm was silently producing incorrect code in this case.
This commit fixes code generation for large stack aligments by
using the BFC instruction instead, when the BFC instruction is
available. When not, it uses 2 instructions: a right shift,
followed by a left shift to zero out the lower bits.
The lowering of ARM::Int_eh_sjlj_dispatchsetup still has code
that unconditionally uses BIC to realign the stack pointer, so it
very likely has the same problem. However, I wasn't able to
produce a test case for that. This commit adds an assert so that
the compiler will fail the assert instead of silently generating
wrong code if this is ever reached.
llvm-svn: 225446
r223862 tried to also combine base-updating load/stores.
r224198 reverted it, as "it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown."
Reapply, with a fix to ignore non-normal load/stores.
Truncstores are handled elsewhere (you can actually write a pattern for
those, whereas for postinc loads you can't, since they return two values),
but it should be possible to also combine extloads base updates, by checking
that the memory (rather than result) type is of the same size as the addend.
Original commit message:
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
llvm-svn: 224203
This reverts commit r223862, as it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown. We'll investigate the issue and re-apply
when safe.
llvm-svn: 224198
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
llvm-svn: 223862
Function attributes are the future! So just query whether we want to realign the
stack directly from the function instead of through a random target options
structure.
llvm-svn: 187618
Aside from the question of whether we report a warning or an error when we
can't satisfy a requested stack object alignment, the current implementation
of this is not good. We're not providing any source location in the diagnostics
and the current warning is not connected to any warning group so you can't
control it. We could improve the source location somewhat, but we can do a
much better job if this check is implemented in the front-end, so let's do that
instead. <rdar://problem/13127907>
llvm-svn: 174741
requirement when creating stack objects in MachineFrameInfo.
Add CreateStackObjectWithMinAlign to throw error when the minimal alignment
can't be achieved and to clamp the alignment when the preferred alignment
can't be achieved. Same is true for CreateVariableSizedObject.
Will not emit error in CreateSpillStackObject or CreateStackObject.
As long as callers of CreateStackObject do not assume the object will be
aligned at the requested alignment, we should not have miscompile since
later optimizations which look at the object's alignment will have the correct
information.
rdar://12713765
llvm-svn: 172027
the alignment is clamped to TargetFrameLowering.getStackAlignment if the target
does not support stack realignment or the option "realign-stack" is off.
This will cause miscompile if the address is treated as aligned and add is
replaced with or in DAGCombine.
Added a bool StackRealignable to TargetFrameLowering to check whether stack
realignment is implemented for the target. Also added a bool RealignOption
to MachineFrameInfo to check whether the option "realign-stack" is on.
rdar://12713765
llvm-svn: 169197
David Blaikie