Like V_SET0, these instructions are expanded by ExpandPostRA to xorps /
vxorps so they can participate in execution domain swizzling.
This also makes the AVX variants redundant.
llvm-svn: 145440
weak variable are compiled by different compilers, such as GCC and LLVM, while
LLVM may increase the alignment to the preferred alignment there is no reason to
think that GCC will use anything more than the ABI alignment. Since it is the
GCC version that might end up in the final program (as the linkage is weak), it
is wrong to increase the alignment of loads from the global up to the preferred
alignment as the alignment might only be the ABI alignment.
Increasing alignment up to the ABI alignment might be OK, but I'm not totally
convinced that it is. It seems better to just leave the alignment of weak
globals alone.
llvm-svn: 145413
as MC is the only assembler we support.
This splits MS/Windows and GNU/Windows ASM infos into two seperate classes.
While there is currently only one difference, full MS C++ ABI support will
require many more.
llvm-svn: 145409
clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp: Don't pass through negative exit status, or parent would be confused.
llvm::sys::Program::Wait(): Suppose 0x8000XXXX and 0xC000XXXX as abnormal exit code and pass it as negative value.
Win32 Exception Handler: Exit with ExceptionCode on an unhandle exception.
llvm-svn: 145389
non_lazy_symbol_pointers section (__IMPORT,__pointers). Ignore the 'hidden' part
since that will place it in the wrong section.
<rdar://problem/10443720>
llvm-svn: 145356
Conservatively returns zero when the GV does not specify an alignment nor is it
initialized. Previously it returns ABI alignment for type of the GV. However, if
the type is a "packed" type, then the under-specified alignments is attached to
the load / store instructions. In that case, the alignment of the type cannot be
trusted.
rdar://10464621
llvm-svn: 145300
than ABI alignment. These are loads / stores from / to "packed" data structures.
Their alignments are intentionally under-specified.
rdar://10301431
llvm-svn: 145273
Now that it needs to be exported in a public header (Valgrind.h)
it should be prefixed to avoid collision with other projects.
Add it to llvm-config.h as well.
This'll require regenerating the configure script after this
commit, but I don't have the required autoconf version.
llvm-svn: 145214
gcc, though I thought it was older (my gcc 4.4 has it as a local patch. Whoops!)
This fixes PR10589.
Also add some debugging statements.
Remove GcnoFiles, the mapping from CompilationUnit to raw_ostream. Now that we
start by iterating over each CU and descending into them, there's no need to
maintain a mapping.
llvm-svn: 145208
fallthrough) in cases where we might fail to rotate an exit to an outer
loop onto the end of the loop chain.
Having *some* rotation, but not performing this rotation, is the primary
fix of thep performance regression with -enable-block-placement for
Olden/em3d (a whopping 30% regression). Still working on reducing the
test case that actually exercises this and the new rotation strategy out
of this code, but I want to check if this regresses other test cases
first as that may indicate it isn't the correct fix.
llvm-svn: 145195
was centered around the premise of laying out a loop in a chain, and
then rotating that chain. This is good for preserving contiguous layout,
but bad for actually making sane rotations. In order to keep it safe,
I had to essentially make it impossible to rotate deeply nested loops.
The information needed to correctly reason about a deeply nested loop is
actually available -- *before* we layout the loop. We know the inner
loops are already fused into chains, etc. We lose information the moment
we actually lay out the loop.
The solution was the other alternative for this algorithm I discussed
with Benjamin and some others: rather than rotating the loop
after-the-fact, try to pick a profitable starting block for the loop's
layout, and then use our existing layout logic. I was worried about the
complexity of this "pick" step, but it turns out such complexity is
needed to handle all the important cases I keep teasing out of benchmarks.
This is, I'm afraid, a bit of a work-in-progress. It is still
misbehaving on some likely important cases I'm investigating in Olden.
It also isn't really tested. I'm going to try to craft some interesting
nested-loop test cases, but it's likely to be extremely time consuming
and I don't want to go there until I'm sure I'm testing the correct
behavior. Sadly I can't come up with a way of getting simple, fine
grained test cases for this logic. We need complex loop structures to
even trigger much of it.
llvm-svn: 145183
heavily on AnalyzeBranch. That routine doesn't behave as we want given
that rotation occurs mid-way through re-ordering the function. Instead
merely check that there are not unanalyzable branching constructs
present, and then reason about the CFG via successor lists. This
actually simplifies my mental model for all of this as well.
The concrete result is that we now will rotate more loop chains. I've
added a test case from Olden highlighting the effect. There is still
a bit more to do here though in order to regain all of the performance
in Olden.
llvm-svn: 145179
pass. This is designed to achieve one of the important optimizations
that the old code placement pass did, but more simply.
This is a somewhat rough and *very* conservative version of the
transform. We could get a lot fancier here if there are profitable cases
to do so. In particular, this only looks for a single pattern, it
insists that the loop backedge being rotated away is the last backedge
in the chain, and it doesn't provide any means of doing better in-loop
placement due to the rotation. However, it appears that it will handle
the important loops I am finding in the LLVM test suite.
llvm-svn: 145158
Chad Rosier