No functionality change intended.
This captures the first two cases GPR32/64. For the others, we need
an addition operator (if we have one, I've not yet found it).
Based on a suggestion made by Tom Stellard in the AArch64 review!
llvm-svn: 173366
- PR 15038: missing wide char support on Linux
- PR 14600 - Exception state registers not supported on Linux
- PR 15039: SBProcess.GetSTDOUT() returns an empty buffer
- PR 15037: stop-hooks sometimes fail to fire on Linux
llvm-svn: 173363
Change messages to help identify which interpreter was actually selected (safe
vs testing).
Signed-off-by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Reviewed-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 173360
Set the message returned after the GCC runner has been constructed as otherwise
the message will be overwritten by the construction of the runner, resulting in
misleading messages.
Signed-off-by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Reviewed-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 173359
Introduce a spelling index to Attr class, which is an index into the attribute spelling list of an attribute defined in Attr.td.
This index will determine the actual spelling used by an attribute, as it incorporates both the syntax and naming of the attribute.
When constructing an attribute AST node, the spelling index is computed based on attribute kind, scope (if it's a C++11 attribute), and
name, then passed to Attr that will use the index to print itself.
Thanks to Richard Smith for the idea and review.
llvm-svn: 173358
Original commit message:
Plug TTI into the speculation logic, giving it a real cost interface
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173357
We use constant folding to see if an intrinsic evaluates to the same value as a
constant that we know. If we don't take the undefinedness into account we get a
value that doesn't match the actual implementation, and miscompiled code.
This was uncovered by Chandler's simplifycfg changes.
llvm-svn: 173356
It had program scope variables that were not in the constant address space,
make them to be function scope variables instead.
Also move the test to the SemaOpenCL directory.
llvm-svn: 173352
that can be specialized by targets.
The goal here is not to be more aggressive, but to just be more accurate
with very obvious cases. There are instructions which are known to be
truly free and which were not being modeled as such in this code -- see
the regression test which is distilled from an inner loop of zlib.
Everywhere the TTI cost model is insufficiently conservative I've added
explicit checks with FIXME comments to go add proper modelling of these
cost factors.
If this causes regressions, the likely solution is to make TTI even more
conservative in its cost estimates, but test cases will help here.
llvm-svn: 173342
a cost fuction that seems both a bit ad-hoc and also poorly suited to
evaluating constant expressions.
Notably, it is missing any support for trivial expressions such as
'inttoptr'. I could fix this routine, but it isn't clear to me all of
the constraints its other users are operating under.
The core protection that seems relevant here is avoiding the formation
of a select instruction wich a further chain of select operations in
a constant expression operand. Just explicitly encode that constraint.
Also, update the comments and organization here to make it clear where
this needs to go -- this should be driven off of real cost measurements
which take into account the number of constants expressions and the
depth of the constant expression tree.
llvm-svn: 173340
terms of cost rather than hoisting a single instruction.
This does *not* change the cost model! We still set the cost threshold
at 1 here, it's just that we track it by accumulating cost rather than
by storing an instruction.
The primary advantage is that we no longer leave no-op intrinsics in the
basic block. For example, this will now move both debug info intrinsics
and a single instruction, instead of only moving the instruction and
leaving a basic block with nothing bug debug info intrinsics in it, and
those intrinsics now no longer ordered correctly with the hoisted value.
Instead, we now splice the entire conditional basic block's instruction
sequence.
This also places the code for checking the safety of hoisting next to
the code computing the cost.
Currently, the only observable side-effect of this change is that debug
info intrinsics are no longer abandoned. I'm not sure how to craft
a test case for this, and my real goal was the refactoring, but I'll
talk to Dave or Eric about how to add a test case for this.
llvm-svn: 173339
Previously, the code would scan the PHI nodes and build up a small
setvector of candidate value pairs in phi nodes to go and rewrite. Once
certain the rewrite could be performed, the code walks the set, and for
each one re-scans the entire PHI node list looking for nodes to rewrite
operands.
Instead, scan the PHI nodes once to check for hazards, and then scan it
a second time to rewrite the operands to selects. No set vector, and
a max of two scans.
The only downside is that we might form identical selects, but
instcombine or anything else should fold those easily, and it seems
unlikely to happen often.
llvm-svn: 173337
pretty in doxygen, adding some of the details actually present in
a classic example where this matters (a loop from gzip and many other
compression algorithms), and a cautionary note about the risks inherent
in the transform. This has come up on the mailing lists recently, and
I suspect folks reading this code could benefit from going and looking
at the MI pass that can really deal with these issues.
llvm-svn: 173329
Allow Mips16 routines to call Mips32 routines that have abi requirements
that either arguments or return values are passed in floating point
registers. This handles only the pic case. We have not done non pic
for Mips16 yet in any form.
The libm functions are Mips32, so with this addition we have a complete
Mips16 hard float implementation.
We still are not able to complete mix Mip16 and Mips32 with hard float.
That will be the next phase which will have several steps. For Mips32
to freely call Mips16 some stub functions must be created.
llvm-svn: 173320
Jordan Rose