I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
Removed some unused headers, replaced some headers with forward class declarations.
Found using simple scripts like this one:
clear && ack --cpp -l '#include "llvm/ADT/IndexedMap.h"' | xargs grep -L 'IndexedMap[<]' | xargs grep -n --color=auto 'IndexedMap'
Patch by Eugene Kosov <claprix@yandex.ru>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19219
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266595
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
If some commits are happy, and some commits are sad, this is a sad commit. It
is sad because it restricts instruction scheduling to work around a binutils
linker bug, and moreover, one that may never be fixed. On 2012-05-21, GCC was
updated not to produce code triggering this bug, and now we'll do the same...
When resolving an address using the ELF ABI TOC pointer, two relocations are
generally required: one for the high part and one for the low part. Only
the high part generally explicitly depends on r2 (the TOC pointer). And, so,
we might produce code like this:
.Ltmp526:
addis 3, 2, .LC12@toc@ha
.Ltmp1628:
std 2, 40(1)
ld 5, 0(27)
ld 2, 8(27)
ld 11, 16(27)
ld 3, .LC12@toc@l(3)
rldicl 4, 4, 0, 32
mtctr 5
bctrl
ld 2, 40(1)
And there is nothing wrong with this code, as such, but there is a linker bug
in binutils (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18414) that will
misoptimize this code sequence to this:
nop
std r2,40(r1)
ld r5,0(r27)
ld r2,8(r27)
ld r11,16(r27)
ld r3,-32472(r2)
clrldi r4,r4,32
mtctr r5
bctrl
ld r2,40(r1)
because the linker does not know (and does not check) that the value in r2
changed in between the instruction using the .LC12@toc@ha (TOC-relative)
relocation and the instruction using the .LC12@toc@l(3) relocation.
Because it finds these instructions using the relocations (and not by
scanning the instructions), it has been asserted that there is no good way
to detect the change of r2 in between. As a result, this bug may never be
fixed (i.e. it may become part of the definition of the ABI). GCC was
updated to add extra dependencies on r2 to instructions using the @toc@l
relocations to avoid this problem, and we'll do the same here.
This is done as a separate pass because:
1. These extra r2 dependencies are not really properties of the
instructions, but rather due to a linker bug, and maybe one day we'll be
able to get rid of them when targeting linkers without this bug (and,
thus, keeping the logic centralized here will make that
straightforward).
2. There are ISel-level peephole optimizations that propagate the @toc@l
relocations to some user instructions, and so the exta dependencies do
not apply only to a fixed set of instructions (without undesirable
definition replication).
The test case was reduced with the help of bugpoint, with minimal cleaning. I'm
looking forward to our upcoming MI serialization support, and with that, much
better tests can be created.
llvm-svn: 237556
Chandler Carruth