Summary:
Upstream LLVM is changing the the prototypes of the @llvm.memcpy/memmove/memset
intrinsics. This change updates the Clang tests for this change.
The @llvm.memcpy/memmove/memset intrinsics currently have an explicit argument
which is required to be a constant integer. It represents the alignment of the
dest (and source), and so must be the minimum of the actual alignment of the
two.
This change removes the alignment argument in favour of placing the alignment
attribute on the source and destination pointers of the memory intrinsic call.
For example, code which used to read:
call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i32(i8* %dest, i8* %src, i32 100, i32 4, i1 false)
will now read
call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i32(i8* align 4 %dest, i8* align 4 %src, i32 100, i1 false)
At this time the source and destination alignments must be the same (Step 1).
Step 2 of the change, to be landed shortly, will relax that contraint and allow
the source and destination to have different alignments.
llvm-svn: 322964
This is a follow on from a similar LLVM commit: r253511.
Note, this was reviewed (and more details are in) http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151109/312083.html
These intrinsics currently have an explicit alignment argument which is
required to be a constant integer. It represents the alignment of the
source and dest, and so must be the minimum of those.
This change allows source and dest to each have their own alignments
by using the alignment attribute on their arguments. The alignment
argument itself is removed.
The only code change to clang is hidden in CGBuilder.h which now passes
both dest and source alignment to IRBuilder, instead of taking the minimum of
dest and source alignments.
Reviewed by Hal Finkel.
llvm-svn: 253512
tools/clang/test/CodeGen/packed-nest-unpacked.c contains this test:
struct XBitfield {
unsigned b1 : 10;
unsigned b2 : 12;
unsigned b3 : 10;
};
struct YBitfield {
char x;
struct XBitfield y;
} __attribute((packed));
struct YBitfield gbitfield;
unsigned test7() {
// CHECK: @test7
// CHECK: load i32, i32* getelementptr inbounds (%struct.YBitfield, %struct.YBitfield* @gbitfield, i32 0, i32 1, i32 0), align 4
return gbitfield.y.b2;
}
The "align 4" is actually wrong. Accessing all of "gbitfield.y" as a single
i32 is of course possible, but that still doesn't make it 4-byte aligned as
it remains packed at offset 1 in the surrounding gbitfield object.
This alignment was changed by commit r169489, which also introduced changes
to bitfield access code in CGExpr.cpp. Code before that change used to take
into account *both* the alignment of the field to be accessed within the
current struct, *and* the alignment of that outer struct itself; this logic
was removed by the above commit.
Neglecting to consider both values can cause incorrect code to be generated
(I've seen an unaligned access crash on SystemZ due to this bug).
In order to always use the best known alignment value, this patch removes
the CGBitFieldInfo::StorageAlignment member and replaces it with a
StorageOffset member specifying the offset from the start of the surrounding
struct to the bitfield's underlying storage. This offset can then be combined
with the best-known alignment for a bitfield access lvalue to determine the
alignment to use when accessing the bitfield's storage.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11034
llvm-svn: 241916
CGRecordLayoutBuilder was aging, complex, multi-pass, and shows signs of
existing before ASTRecordLayoutBuilder. It redundantly performed many
layout operations that are now performed by ASTRecordLayoutBuilder and
asserted that the results were the same. With the addition of support
for the MS-ABI, such as placement of vbptrs, vtordisps, different
bitfield layout and a variety of other features, CGRecordLayoutBuilder
was growing unwieldy in its redundancy.
This patch re-architects CGRecordLayoutBuilder to not perform any
redundant layout but rather, as directly as possible, lower an
ASTRecordLayout to an llvm::type. The new architecture is significantly
smaller and simpler than the CGRecordLayoutBuilder and contains fewer
ABI-specific code paths. It's also one pass.
The architecture of the new system is described in the comments. For the
most part, the new system simply takes all of the fields and bases from
an ASTRecordLayout, sorts them, inserts padding and dumps a record.
Bitfields, unions and primary virtual bases make this process a bit more
complicated. See the inline comments.
In addition, this patch updates a few lit tests due to the fact that the
new system computes more accurate llvm types than CGRecordLayoutBuilder.
Each change is commented individually in the review.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2795
llvm-svn: 201907
generally support the C++11 memory model requirements for bitfield
accesses by relying more heavily on LLVM's memory model.
The primary change this introduces is to move from a manually aligned
and strided access pattern across the bits of the bitfield to a much
simpler lump access of all bits in the bitfield followed by math to
extract the bits relevant for the particular field.
This simplifies the code significantly, but relies on LLVM to
intelligently lowering these integers.
I have tested LLVM's lowering both synthetically and in benchmarks. The
lowering appears to be functional, and there are no really significant
performance regressions. Different code patterns accessing bitfields
will vary in how this impacts them. The only real regressions I'm seeing
are a few patterns where the LLVM code generation for loads that feed
directly into a mask operation don't take advantage of the x86 ability
to do a smaller load and a cheap zero-extension. This doesn't regress
any benchmark in the nightly test suite on my box past the noise
threshold, but my box is quite noisy. I'll be watching the LNT numbers,
and will look into further improvements to the LLVM lowering as needed.
llvm-svn: 169489
The test includes a FIXME for a related case involving calls; it's a bit more complicated to fix because the RValue class doesn't keep track of alignment.
<rdar://problem/10463337>
llvm-svn: 145862
Daniel Neilson