We were implicitly creating space for the headers. That is not the
behaviour of bfd, which requires the script to use SIZEOF_HEADERS. The
difference is important for scripts that don't use SIZEOF_HEADERS and
expect the first section to be at 0.
llvm-svn: 282818
This uses a TableGen'ed like structure for all 3-operands instrs.
The output of the RegBankSelect pass should be identical but the
RegisterBankInfo will do less dynamic allocations.
llvm-svn: 282817
Currently lld will implicitly reserve space for the headers. This is
not the case is bfd, where it is the script responsibility to use
SIZEOF_HEADERS. This means that a script not using SIZEOF_HEADERS and
expecting the address of the first section to be 0 would fail with lld.
I am fixing that is the next commit. This one just makes the tests
explicitly use SIZEOF_HEADERS to avoid the dependency on the current
behaviour.
llvm-svn: 282814
(Recommit after making sure IsVerbose gets properly initialized in
DiagnosticInfoOptimizationBase. See previous commit that takes care of
this.)
OptimizationRemarkAnalysis directly takes the role of the report that is
generated by LAA.
Then we need the magic to be able to turn an LAA remark into an LV
remark. This is done via a new OptimizationRemark ctor.
llvm-svn: 282813
enumerate allows you to iterate over a range by pairing the
iterator's value with its index in the enumeration. This gives
you most of the benefits of using a for loop while still allowing
the range syntax.
llvm-svn: 282804
IRExecutionUnit.h includes Module.h, which through a long chain of includes eventually includes Attributes.gen.
This fixes a build issue reported to lldb-dev by Hal. Thanks Hal!
llvm-svn: 282803
Since they end up going on the same PT_LOAD, there is no reason to
sort them. This matches bfd's behaviour and is user visible in the
placement of orphan sections.
llvm-svn: 282799
Also, make foldSelectExtConst() a member of InstCombiner, remove
unnecessary parameters from its interface, and group visitSelectInst
helpers together in the header file.
llvm-svn: 282796
Instead of ignoring the evaluation order rule, ignore the "destroy parameters
in reverse construction order" rule for the small number of problematic cases.
This only causes incorrect behavior in the rare case where both parameters to
an overloaded operator <<, >>, ->*, &&, ||, or comma are of class type with
non-trivial destructor, and the program is depending on those parameters being
destroyed in reverse construction order.
We could do a little better here by reversing the order of parameter
destruction for those functions (and reversing the argument evaluation order
for all direct calls, not just those with operator syntax), but that is not a
complete solution to the problem, as the same situation can be reached by an
indirect function call.
Approach reviewed off-line by rnk.
llvm-svn: 282777
Adam Nemet