trying to legalize the operand types when only the result type
is required to be legalized - the type legalization machinery
will get round to the operands later if they need legalizing.
There can be a point to legalizing operands in parallel with
the result: when this saves compile time or results in better
code. There was only one case in which this was true: when
the operand is also split, so keep the logic for that bit.
As a result of this change, additional operand legalization
methods may need to be introduced to handle nodes where the
result and operand types can differ, like SIGN_EXTEND, but
the testsuite doesn't contain any tests where this is the case.
In any case, it seems better to require such methods (and die
with an assert if they doesn't exist) than to quietly produce
wrong code if we forgot to special case the node in
SplitVecRes_UnaryOp.
llvm-svn: 143026
This code makes different decisions when compiled into x87 instructions
because of different rounding behavior. That caused phase 2/3
miscompares on 32-bit Linux when the phase 1 compiler was built with gcc
(using x87), and the phase 2 compiler was built with clang (using SSE).
This fixes PR11200.
llvm-svn: 143006
An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging.
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
llvm-svn: 143001
down to this commit. Original commit message:
An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging.
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
llvm-svn: 142920
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
llvm-svn: 142891
discussions with Andy. Fundamentally, the previous algorithm is both
counter productive on several fronts and prioritizing things which
aren't necessarily the most important: static branch prediction.
The new algorithm uses the existing loop CFG structure information to
walk through the CFG itself to layout blocks. It coalesces adjacent
blocks within the loop where the CFG allows based on the most likely
path taken. Finally, it topologically orders the block chains that have
been formed. This allows it to choose a (mostly) topologically valid
ordering which still priorizes fallthrough within the structural
constraints.
As a final twist in the algorithm, it does violate the CFG when it
discovers a "hot" edge, that is an edge that is more than 4x hotter than
the competing edges in the CFG. These are forcibly merged into
a fallthrough chain.
Future transformations that need te be added are rotation of loop exit
conditions to be fallthrough, and better isolation of cold block chains.
I'm also planning on adding statistics to model how well the algorithm
does at laying out blocks based on the probabilities it receives.
The old tests mostly still pass, and I have some new tests to add, but
the nested loops are still behaving very strangely. This almost seems
like working-as-intended as it rotated the exit branch to be
fallthrough, but I'm not convinced this is actually the best layout. It
is well supported by the probabilities for loops we currently get, but
those are pretty broken for nested loops, so this may change later.
llvm-svn: 142743
The assumption in the back-end is that PHIs are not allowed at the start of the
landing pad block for SjLj exceptions.
<rdar://problem/10313708>
llvm-svn: 142689
ZExtPromotedInteger and SExtPromotedInteger based on the operation we legalize.
SetCC return type needs to be legalized via PromoteTargetBoolean.
llvm-svn: 142660
it's a bit more plausible to use this instead of CodePlacementOpt. The
code for this was shamelessly stolen from CodePlacementOpt, and then
trimmed down a bit. There doesn't seem to be much utility in returning
true/false from this pass as we may or may not have rewritten all of the
blocks. Also, the statistic of counting how many loops were aligned
doesn't seem terribly important so I removed it. If folks would like it
to be included, I'm happy to add it back.
This was probably the most egregious of the missing features, and now
I'm going to start gathering some performance numbers and looking at
specific loop structures that have different layout between the two.
Test is updated to include both basic loop alignment and nested loop
alignment.
llvm-svn: 142645
block frequency analyses. This differs substantially from the existing
block-placement pass in LLVM:
1) It operates on the Machine-IR in the CodeGen layer. This exposes much
more (and more precise) information and opportunities. Also, the
results are more stable due to fewer transforms ocurring after the
pass runs.
2) It uses the generalized probability and frequency analyses. These can
model static heuristics, code annotation derived heuristics as well
as eventual profile loading. By basing the optimization on the
analysis interface it can work from any (or a combination) of these
inputs.
3) It uses a more aggressive algorithm, both building chains from tho
bottom up to maximize benefit, and using an SCC-based walk to layout
chains of blocks in a profitable ordering without O(N^2) iterations
which the old pass involves.
The pass is currently gated behind a flag, and not enabled by default
because it still needs to grow some important features. Most notably, it
needs to support loop aligning and careful layout of loop structures
much as done by hand currently in CodePlacementOpt. Once it supports
these, and has sufficient testing and quality tuning, it should replace
both of these passes.
Thanks to Nick Lewycky and Richard Smith for help authoring & debugging
this, and to Jakob, Andy, Eric, Jim, and probably a few others I'm
forgetting for reviewing and answering all my questions. Writing
a backend pass is *sooo* much better now than it used to be. =D
llvm-svn: 142641
When checking the availability of instructions using the TLI, a 'promoted'
instruction IS available. It means that the value is bitcasted to another type
for which there is an operation. The correct check for the availablity of an
instruction is to check if it should be expanded.
llvm-svn: 142542
svn r139159 caused SelectionDAG::getConstant() to promote BUILD_VECTOR operands
with illegal types, even before type legalization. For this testcase, that led
to one BUILD_VECTOR with i16 operands and another with promoted i32 operands,
which triggered the assertion.
llvm-svn: 142370
.file filenumber "directory" "filename"
This removes one join+split of the directory+filename in MC internals. Because
bitcode files have independent fields for directory and filenames in debug info,
this patch may change the .o files written by existing .bc files.
llvm-svn: 142300
Use the custom inserter for the ARM setjmp intrinsics. Instead of creating the
SjLj dispatch table in IR, where it frequently violates serveral assumptions --
in particular assumptions made by the landingpad instruction about what can
branch to a landing pad and what cannot. Performing this in the back-end allows
us to violate these assumptions without the IR getting angry at us.
It also allows us to perform a small optimization. We can shove the address of
the dispatch's basic block into the function context and not have to add code
around the setjmp to check for the return value and jump to the dispatch.
Neat, huh?
<rdar://problem/10116753>
llvm-svn: 142294
Some code want to check that *any* call within a function has the 'returns
twice' attribute, not just that the current function has one.
llvm-svn: 142221
Eli Friedman