actuall addresses in a .o file, so it is better to let the MachO writer compute
it.
This is good for two reasons. First, areas that shouldn't care about
addresses now don't have access to it. Second, the layout of each section
is independent. I should use this in a subsequent commit to speed it up.
Most of the patch is just removing the section address computation. The two
interesting parts are the change on how we handle padding in the end
of sections and how MachO can get the address of a-b when a and b are in
different sections.
Since now the expression evaluation normally doesn't know the section address,
it will think that a-b needs relocation and let the MachO writer know. Once
it has computed the section addresses, it calls back the expression evaluation
with the section addresses to resolve these expressions.
The remaining problem is the handling of padding. Currently it will create
a special alignment fragment at the end. Since that fragment doesn't update
the alignment of the section, it needs the real address to be computed.
Since now the layout will not compute a-b with a and b in different sections,
the only effect that the special alignment fragment has is update the
address size of the section. This can also be done by the MachO writer.
llvm-svn: 121076
optimization.
Consider:
static void foo() {
A = alloca
...
}
static void bar() {
B = alloca
...
call foo();
}
void main() {
bar()
}
The inliner proceeds bottom up, but lets pretend it decides not to inline foo
into bar. When it gets to main, it inlines bar into main(), and says "hey, I
just inlined an alloca "B" into main, lets remember that. Then it keeps going
and finds that it now contains a call to foo. It decides to inline foo into
main, and says "hey, foo has an alloca A, and I have an alloca B from another
inlined call site, lets reuse it". The problem with this of course, is that
the lifetime of A and B are nested, not disjoint.
Unfortunately I can't create a reasonable testcase for this: the one in the
PR is both huge and extremely sensitive, because you minor tweaks end up
causing foo to get inlined into bar too early. We already have tests for the
basic alloca merging optimization and this does not break them.
llvm-svn: 120995
memcpy's like:
memcpy(A, B)
memcpy(A, C)
we cannot delete the first memcpy as dead if A and C might be aliases.
If so, we actually get:
memcpy(A, B)
memcpy(A, A)
which is not correct to transform into:
memcpy(A, A)
This patch was heavily influenced by Jakub Staszak's patch in PR8728, thanks
Jakub!
llvm-svn: 120974
difficult on current ARM implementations for a few reasons.
1. Even though a single vmla has latency that is one cycle shorter than a pair
of vmul + vadd, a RAW hazard during the first (4? on Cortex-a8) can cause
additional pipeline stall. So it's frequently better to single codegen
vmul + vadd.
2. A vmla folowed by a vmul, vmadd, or vsub causes the second fp instruction to
stall for 4 cycles. We need to schedule them apart.
3. A vmla followed vmla is a special case. Obvious issuing back to back RAW
vmla + vmla is very bad. But this isn't ideal either:
vmul
vadd
vmla
Instead, we want to expand the second vmla:
vmla
vmul
vadd
Even with the 4 cycle vmul stall, the second sequence is still 2 cycles
faster.
Up to now, isel simply avoid codegen'ing fp vmla / vmls. This works well enough
but it isn't the optimial solution. This patch attempts to make it possible to
use vmla / vmls in cases where it is profitable.
A. Add missing isel predicates which cause vmla to be codegen'ed.
B. Make sure the fmul in (fadd (fmul)) has a single use. We don't want to
compute a fmul and a fmla.
C. Add additional isel checks for vmla, avoid cases where vmla is feeding into
fp instructions (except for the #3 exceptional case).
D. Add ARM hazard recognizer to model the vmla / vmls hazards.
E. Add a special pre-regalloc case to expand vmla / vmls when it's likely the
vmla / vmls will trigger one of the special hazards.
Work in progress, only A+B are enabled.
llvm-svn: 120960
Michael J. Spencer