This avoids a partial false dependency on the previous content of
the upper lanes of the destination vector register.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7307
llvm-svn: 227820
now that we have a correct and cached subtarget specific to the
function.
Also, finish providing a cached per-function subtarget in the core
LLVMTargetMachine -- that layer hadn't switched over yet.
The only use of the TargetMachine was to re-lookup a subtarget for
a particular function to work around the fact that TTI was immutable.
Now that it is per-function and we haved a cached subtarget, use it.
This still leaves a few interfaces with real warts on them where we were
passing Function objects through the TTI interface. I'll remove these
and clean their usage up in subsequent commits now that this isn't
necessary.
llvm-svn: 227738
intermediate TTI implementation template and instead query up to the
derived class for both the TargetMachine and the TargetLowering.
Most of the derived types had a TLI cached already and there is no need
to store a less precisely typed target machine pointer.
This will in turn make it much cleaner to look up the TLI via
a per-function subtarget instead of the generic subtarget, and it will
pave the way toward pulling the subtarget used for unroll preferences
into the same form once we are *always* using the function to look up
the correct subtarget.
llvm-svn: 227737
TargetIRAnalysis access path directly rather than implementing getTTI.
This even removes getTTI from the interface. It's more efficient for
each target to just register a precise callback that creates their
specific TTI.
As part of this, all of the targets which are building their subtargets
individually per-function now build their TTI instance with the function
and thus look up the correct subtarget and cache it. NVPTX, R600, and
XCore currently don't leverage this functionality, but its trivial for
them to add it now.
llvm-svn: 227735
null.
For some reason some of the original TTI code supported a null target
machine. This seems to have been legacy, and I made matters worse when
refactoring this code by spreading that pattern further through the
various targets.
The TargetMachine can't actually be null, and it doesn't make sense to
support that use case. I've now consistently removed it and removed all
of the code trying to cope with that situation. This is probably good,
as several targets *didn't* cope with it being null despite the null
default argument in their constructors. =]
llvm-svn: 227734
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
llvm-svn: 227685
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
Add tie breaker to colorChainSet() sort so that processing order doesn't
depend on std::set order, which depends on pointer order, which is
unstable from run to run.
No test case as this is nearly impossible to reproduce.
Phabricator Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7265
Patch by Geoff Berry <gberry@codeaurora.org>!
llvm-svn: 227606
These are needed so this pass will produce output when
e.g. -print-after-all is used.
Phabricator Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7264
Patch by Geoff Berry <gberry@codeaurora.org>!
llvm-svn: 227506
derived classes.
Since global data alignment, layout, and mangling is often based on the
DataLayout, move it to the TargetMachine. This ensures that global
data is going to be layed out and mangled consistently if the subtarget
changes on a per function basis. Prior to this all targets(*) have
had subtarget dependent code moved out and onto the TargetMachine.
*One target hasn't been migrated as part of this change: R600. The
R600 port has, as a subtarget feature, the size of pointers and
this affects global data layout. I've currently hacked in a FIXME
to enable progress, but the port needs to be updated to either pass
the 64-bitness to the TargetMachine, or fix the DataLayout to
avoid subtarget dependent features.
llvm-svn: 227113
-no-exec-stack. This was due to it not deriving from the correct
asm info base class and missing the override for the exec
stack section query. Added another line to the noexec test
line to make sure this doesn't regress.
llvm-svn: 227074
This patch adds the missing LD[U]RSW variants to the load store optimizer, so
that we generate LDPSW when possible.
<rdar://problem/19583480>
llvm-svn: 226978
Currently, we're adding a uint64_t describing the current subtarget so
that matching can check whether the specified register is valid.
However, we want to move to a bitset for those bits (x86 has more than
64 of them).
This can't live in a union so it's probably better to do the checks
early (especially as there are only 3 of them).
llvm-svn: 226841
AAPCS64 says that it's up to the platform to specify whether x18 is
reserved, and a first step on that way is to add a flag controlling
it.
From: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz>
llvm-svn: 226664
The fixes are to note that AArch64 has additional restrictions on when local
relocations can be used. In particular, ld64 requires that relocations to
cstring/cfstrings use linker visible symbols.
Original message:
In an assembly expression like
bar:
.long L0 + 1
the intended semantics is that bar will contain a pointer one byte past L0.
In sections that are merged by content (strings, 4 byte constants, etc), a
single position in the section doesn't give the linker enough information.
For example, it would not be able to tell a relocation must point to the
end of a string, since that would look just like the start of the next.
The solution used in ELF to use relocation with symbols if there is a non-zero
addend.
In MachO before this patch we would just keep all symbols in some sections.
This would miss some cases (only cstrings on x86_64 were implemented) and was
inefficient since most relocations have an addend of 0 and can be represented
without the symbol.
This patch implements the non-zero addend logic for MachO too.
llvm-svn: 226503
Original patch by Luke Iannini. Minor improvements and test added by
Erik de Castro Lopo.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6877
From: Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd@mega-nerd.com>
llvm-svn: 226473
utils/sort_includes.py.
I clearly haven't done this in a while, so more changed than usual. This
even uncovered a missing include from the InstrProf library that I've
added. No functionality changed here, just mechanical cleanup of the
include order.
llvm-svn: 225974
One is that AArch64 has additional restrictions on when local relocations can
be used. We have to take those into consideration when deciding to put a L
symbol in the symbol table or not.
The other is that ld64 requires the relocations to cstring to use linker
visible symbols on AArch64.
Thanks to Michael Zolotukhin for testing this!
Remove doesSectionRequireSymbols.
In an assembly expression like
bar:
.long L0 + 1
the intended semantics is that bar will contain a pointer one byte past L0.
In sections that are merged by content (strings, 4 byte constants, etc), a
single position in the section doesn't give the linker enough information.
For example, it would not be able to tell a relocation must point to the
end of a string, since that would look just like the start of the next.
The solution used in ELF to use relocation with symbols if there is a non-zero
addend.
In MachO before this patch we would just keep all symbols in some sections.
This would miss some cases (only cstrings on x86_64 were implemented) and was
inefficient since most relocations have an addend of 0 and can be represented
without the symbol.
This patch implements the non-zero addend logic for MachO too.
llvm-svn: 225644
type (in addition to the memory type).
The *LoadExt* legalization handling used to only have one type, the
memory type. This forced users to assume that as long as the extload
for the memory type was declared legal, and the result type was legal,
the whole extload was legal.
However, this isn't always the case. For instance, on X86, with AVX,
this is legal:
v4i32 load, zext from v4i8
but this isn't:
v4i64 load, zext from v4i8
Whereas v4i64 is (arguably) legal, even without AVX2.
Note that the same thing was done a while ago for truncstores (r46140),
but I assume no one needed it yet for extloads, so here we go.
Calls to getLoadExtAction were changed to add the value type, found
manually in the surrounding code.
Calls to setLoadExtAction were mechanically changed, by wrapping the
call in a loop, to match previous behavior. The loop iterates over
the MVT subrange corresponding to the memory type (FP vectors, etc...).
I also pulled neighboring setTruncStoreActions into some of the loops;
those shouldn't make a difference, as the additional types are illegal.
(e.g., i128->i1 truncstores on PPC.)
No functional change intended.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6532
llvm-svn: 225421
Even thouh gcc produces simialr instructions as Owen pointed out the two patterns aren’t equivalent in the case
where the original subtraction could have caused an overflow.
Reverting the same.
llvm-svn: 225341
We used to generate code similar to:
umov.b w8, v0[2]
strb w8, [x0, x1]
because the STR*ro* patterns were preferred to ST1*.
Instead, we can avoid going through GPRs, and generate:
add x8, x0, x1
st1.b { v0 }[2], [x8]
This patch increases the ST1* AddedComplexity to achieve that.
rdar://16372710
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6202
llvm-svn: 225183
For 0-lane stores, we used to generate code similar to:
fmov w8, s0
str w8, [x0, x1, lsl #2]
instead of:
str s0, [x0, x1, lsl #2]
To correct that: for store lane 0 patterns, directly match to STR <subreg>0.
Byte-sized instructions don't have the special case for a 0 index,
because FPR8s are defined to have untyped content.
rdar://16372710
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6772
llvm-svn: 225181
This patch lowers patterns such as-
sub v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
abs v0.4s, v0.4s
to
sabd v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
on AArch64.
Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6781
llvm-svn: 225165
Weak externals are resolved statically, so we can actually generate the tail
call on PE/COFF targets without breaking the requirements. It is questionable
whether we want to propagate the current behaviour for MachO as the requirements
are part of the ARM ELF specifications, and it seems that prior to the SVN
r215890, we would have tail'ed the call. For now, be conservative and only
permit it on PE/COFF where the call will always be fully resolved.
llvm-svn: 225119
Make sure they all have llvm_unreachable on the default path out of the switch. Remove unnecessary "default: break". Remove a 'return' after unreachable. Fix some indentation.
llvm-svn: 225114
The issues was that AArch64 has additional restrictions on when local
relocations can be used. We have to take those into consideration when
deciding to put a L symbol in the symbol table or not.
Original message:
Remove doesSectionRequireSymbols.
In an assembly expression like
bar:
.long L0 + 1
the intended semantics is that bar will contain a pointer one byte past L0.
In sections that are merged by content (strings, 4 byte constants, etc), a
single position in the section doesn't give the linker enough information.
For example, it would not be able to tell a relocation must point to the
end of a string, since that would look just like the start of the next.
The solution used in ELF to use relocation with symbols if there is a non-zero
addend.
In MachO before this patch we would just keep all symbols in some sections.
This would miss some cases (only cstrings on x86_64 were implemented) and was
inefficient since most relocations have an addend of 0 and can be represented
without the symbol.
This patch implements the non-zero addend logic for MachO too.
llvm-svn: 225048
In an assembly expression like
bar:
.long L0 + 1
the intended semantics is that bar will contain a pointer one byte past L0.
In sections that are merged by content (strings, 4 byte constants, etc), a
single position in the section doesn't give the linker enough information.
For example, it would not be able to tell a relocation must point to the
end of a string, since that would look just like the start of the next.
The solution used in ELF to use relocation with symbols if there is a non-zero
addend.
In MachO before this patch we would just keep all symbols in some sections.
This would miss some cases (only cstrings on x86_64 were implemented) and was
inefficient since most relocations have an addend of 0 and can be represented
without the symbol.
This patch implements the non-zero addend logic for MachO too.
llvm-svn: 224985
Eric Christopher