Splitting critical edges when one of the source edges is an indirectbr
is hard in general (because it requires changing the memory the indirectbr
reads). But if a block only has a single indirectbr predecessor (which is
the common case), we can simulate splitting that edge by splitting
the destination block, and retargeting the *direct* branches.
This is motivated by the use of computed gotos in python 2.7: PyEval_EvalFrame()
ends up using an indirect branch with ~100 successors, and passing a constant to
each of those. Since MachineSink can't break indirect critical edges on demand
(and doing this in MIR doesn't look feasible), this causes us to emit about ~100
defs of registers containing constants, which we in the predecessor block, where
only one of those constants is used in each successor. So, at each computed goto,
we needlessly spill about a 100 constants to stack. The end result is that a
clang-compiled python interpreter can be about ~2.5x slower on a simple python
reduction loop than a gcc-compiled interpreter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29916
llvm-svn: 296149
Provide a 64-bit pattern to use SUBFIC for subtracting from a 16-bit immediate.
The corresponding pattern already exists for 32-bit integers.
Committing on behalf of Hiroshi Inoue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29387
llvm-svn: 296144
Emit clrrdi (extended mnemonic for rldicr) for AND-ing with masks that
clear bits from the right hand size.
Committing on behalf of Hiroshi Inoue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29388
llvm-svn: 296143
The motivation for filling out these select-of-constants cases goes back to D24480,
where we discussed removing an IR fold from add(zext) --> select. And that goes back to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL75531https://reviews.llvm.org/rL159230
The idea is that we should always canonicalize patterns like this to a select-of-constants
in IR because that's the smallest IR and the best for value tracking. Note that we currently
do the opposite in some cases (like the cases in *this* patch). Ie, the proposed folds in
this patch already exist in InstCombine today:
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp#L1151
As this patch shows, most targets generate better machine code for simple ext/add/not ops
rather than a select of constants. So the follow-up steps to make this less of a patchwork
of special-case folds and missing IR canonicalization:
1. Have DAGCombiner convert any select of constants into ext/add/not ops.
2 Have InstCombine canonicalize in the other direction (create more selects).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30180
llvm-svn: 296137
Splitting critical edges when one of the source edges is an indirectbr
is hard in general (because it requires changing the memory the indirectbr
reads). But if a block only has a single indirectbr predecessor (which is
the common case), we can simulate splitting that edge by splitting
the destination block, and retargeting the *direct* branches.
This is motivated by the use of computed gotos in python 2.7: PyEval_EvalFrame()
ends up using an indirect branch with ~100 successors, and passing a constant to
each of those. Since MachineSink can't break indirect critical edges on demand
(and doing this in MIR doesn't look feasible), this causes us to emit about ~100
defs of registers containing constants, which we in the predecessor block, where
only one of those constants is used in each successor. So, at each computed goto,
we needlessly spill about a 100 constants to stack. The end result is that a
clang-compiled python interpreter can be about ~2.5x slower on a simple python
reduction loop than a gcc-compiled interpreter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29916
llvm-svn: 296060
Resubmit -r295314 with PowerPC and AMDGPU tests updated.
Support {a|s}ext, {a|z|s}ext load nodes as a part of load combine patters.
Reviewed By: filcab
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29591
llvm-svn: 295336
Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally.
A trellis of the shape below:
A B
|\ /|
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
|/ \|
C D
would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify
trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an
increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more
predecessor blocks that all have the same successors.
because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises.
As an example consider the following CFG:
B D F H
/ \ / \ / \ / \
A---C---E---G---Ret
Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions).
The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret.
The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout
A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret
define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1: ; A
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1
optional1: ; B
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2: ; C
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2
optional2: ; D
call void @b()
br label %test3
test3: ; E
%tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4
%tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0
br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3
optional3: ; F
call void @c()
br label %test4
test4: ; G
%tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8
%tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0
br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4
optional4: ; H
call void @d()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
here is the layout after D27742:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; ... Prologue elided
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
; ... More prologue elided
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_3
b .LBB0_4
.LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_4
.LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_5
b .LBB0_6
.LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
b .LBB0_7
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret
ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload
addi 1, 1, 112
ld 0, 16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a
trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts
of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication
accordingly.
This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have
back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating
positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings
of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts
handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also
improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks.
Here is the resulting concrete layout:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_5
.LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
bne 0, .LBB0_7
b .LBB0_8
.LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_2
.LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_3
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522
llvm-svn: 295223
Adds the vnot extended mnemonic for the vnor instruction.
Committing on behalf of brunoalr (Bruno Rosa).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29225
llvm-svn: 294330
Summary:
llc would hit a fatal error for errors in inline assembly. The
diagnostics message is now printed.
Reviewers: rengolin, MatzeB, javed.absar, anemet
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: jyknight, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29408
llvm-svn: 293999
Recommiting after fixing X86 inc/dec chain bug.
* Simplify Consecutive Merge Store Candidate Search
Now that address aliasing is much less conservative, push through
simplified store merging search and chain alias analysis which only
checks for parallel stores through the chain subgraph. This is cleaner
as the separation of non-interfering loads/stores from the
store-merging logic.
When merging stores search up the chain through a single load, and
finds all possible stores by looking down from through a load and a
TokenFactor to all stores visited.
This improves the quality of the output SelectionDAG and the output
Codegen (save perhaps for some ARM cases where we correctly constructs
wider loads, but then promotes them to float operations which appear
but requires more expensive constant generation).
Some minor peephole optimizations to deal with improved SubDAG shapes (listed below)
Additional Minor Changes:
1. Finishes removing unused AliasLoad code
2. Unifies the chain aggregation in the merged stores across code
paths
3. Re-add the Store node to the worklist after calling
SimplifyDemandedBits.
4. Increase GatherAllAliasesMaxDepth from 6 to 18. That number is
arbitrary, but seems sufficient to not cause regressions in
tests.
5. Remove Chain dependencies of Memory operations on CopyfromReg
nodes as these are captured by data dependence
6. Forward loads-store values through tokenfactors containing
{CopyToReg,CopyFromReg} Values.
7. Peephole to convert buildvector of extract_vector_elt to
extract_subvector if possible (see
CodeGen/AArch64/store-merge.ll)
8. Store merging for the ARM target is restricted to 32-bit as
some in some contexts invalid 64-bit operations are being
generated. This can be removed once appropriate checks are
added.
This finishes the change Matt Arsenault started in r246307 and
jyknight's original patch.
Many tests required some changes as memory operations are now
reorderable, improving load-store forwarding. One test in
particular is worth noting:
CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc64-align-long-double.ll - Improved load-store
forwarding converts a load-store pair into a parallel store and
a memory-realized bitcast of the same value. However, because we
lose the sharing of the explicit and implicit store values we
must create another local store. A similar transformation
happens before SelectionDAG as well.
Reviewers: arsenm, hfinkel, tstellarAMD, jyknight, nhaehnle
llvm-svn: 293893
The the following instructions:
- LD/LWZ (expanded from sjLj pseudo-instructions)
- LXVL/LXVLL vector loads
- STXVL/STXVLL vector stores
all require G8RC_NO0X class registers for RA.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29289
Committed for Lei Huang
llvm-svn: 293769
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583
llvm-svn: 293716
Summary:
The affected transforms all implicitly use associativity of addition,
for which we usually require unsafe math to be enabled.
The "Aggressive" flag is only meant to convey information about the
performance of the fused ops relative to a fmul+fadd sequence.
Fixes Bug 31626.
Reviewers: spatel, hfinkel, mehdi_amini, arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: jholewinski, nemanjai, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28675
llvm-svn: 293635
Just adds the vmr (Vector Move Register) mnemonic for the VOR instruction in
the PPC back end.
Committing on behalf of brunoalr (Bruno Rosa).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29133
llvm-svn: 293626
1) Explicitly sets mayLoad/mayStore property in the tablegen files on load/store
instructions.
2) Updated the flags on a number of intrinsics indicating that they write
memory.
3) Added SDNPMemOperand flags for some target dependent SDNodes so that they
propagate their memory operand
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28818
llvm-svn: 293200
* Simplify Consecutive Merge Store Candidate Search
Now that address aliasing is much less conservative, push through
simplified store merging search and chain alias analysis which only
checks for parallel stores through the chain subgraph. This is cleaner
as the separation of non-interfering loads/stores from the
store-merging logic.
When merging stores search up the chain through a single load, and
finds all possible stores by looking down from through a load and a
TokenFactor to all stores visited.
This improves the quality of the output SelectionDAG and the output
Codegen (save perhaps for some ARM cases where we correctly constructs
wider loads, but then promotes them to float operations which appear
but requires more expensive constant generation).
Some minor peephole optimizations to deal with improved SubDAG shapes (listed below)
Additional Minor Changes:
1. Finishes removing unused AliasLoad code
2. Unifies the chain aggregation in the merged stores across code
paths
3. Re-add the Store node to the worklist after calling
SimplifyDemandedBits.
4. Increase GatherAllAliasesMaxDepth from 6 to 18. That number is
arbitrary, but seems sufficient to not cause regressions in
tests.
5. Remove Chain dependencies of Memory operations on CopyfromReg
nodes as these are captured by data dependence
6. Forward loads-store values through tokenfactors containing
{CopyToReg,CopyFromReg} Values.
7. Peephole to convert buildvector of extract_vector_elt to
extract_subvector if possible (see
CodeGen/AArch64/store-merge.ll)
8. Store merging for the ARM target is restricted to 32-bit as
some in some contexts invalid 64-bit operations are being
generated. This can be removed once appropriate checks are
added.
This finishes the change Matt Arsenault started in r246307 and
jyknight's original patch.
Many tests required some changes as memory operations are now
reorderable, improving load-store forwarding. One test in
particular is worth noting:
CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc64-align-long-double.ll - Improved load-store
forwarding converts a load-store pair into a parallel store and
a memory-realized bitcast of the same value. However, because we
lose the sharing of the explicit and implicit store values we
must create another local store. A similar transformation
happens before SelectionDAG as well.
Reviewers: arsenm, hfinkel, tstellarAMD, jyknight, nhaehnle
llvm-svn: 293184
And teach shouldAssumeDSOLocal that ppc has no copy relocations.
The resulting code handle a few more case than before. For example, it
knows that a weak symbol can be resolved to another .o file, but it
will still be in the main executable.
llvm-svn: 293180
Summary:
This patch changes the layout of DoubleAPFloat, and adjust all
operations to do either:
1) (IEEEdouble, IEEEdouble) -> (uint64_t, uint64_t) -> PPCDoubleDoubleImpl,
then run the old algorithm.
2) Do the right thing directly.
1) includes multiply, divide, remainder, mod, fusedMultiplyAdd, roundToIntegral,
convertFromString, next, convertToInteger, convertFromAPInt,
convertFromSignExtendedInteger, convertFromZeroExtendedInteger,
convertToHexString, toString, getExactInverse.
2) includes makeZero, makeLargest, makeSmallest, makeSmallestNormalized,
compare, bitwiseIsEqual, bitcastToAPInt, isDenormal, isSmallest,
isLargest, isInteger, ilogb, scalbn, frexp, hash_value, Profile.
I could split this into two patches, e.g. use
1) for all operatoins first, then incrementally change some of them to
2). I didn't do that, because 1) involves code that converts data between
PPCDoubleDoubleImpl and (IEEEdouble, IEEEdouble) back and forth, and may
pessimize the compiler. Instead, I find easy functions and use
approach 2) for them directly.
Next step is to implement move multiply and divide from 1) to 2). I don't
have plans for other functions in 1).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27872
llvm-svn: 292839
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292154
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292128
This reverts commit ada6595a526d71df04988eb0a4b4fe84df398ded.
This needs a simple probability check because there are some cases where it is
not profitable.
llvm-svn: 291695
Summary:
Previously if you had
* a function with the fast-math-enabled attr, followed by
* a function without the fast-math attr,
the second function would inherit the first function's fast-math-ness.
This means that mixing fast-math and non-fast-math functions in a module
was completely broken unless you explicitly annotated every
non-fast-math function with "unsafe-fp-math"="false". This appears to
have been broken since r176986 (March 2013), when the resetTargetOptions
function was introduced.
This patch tests the correct behavior as best we can. I don't think I
can test FPDenormalMode and NoTrappingFPMath, because they aren't used
in any backends during function lowering. Surprisingly, I also can't
find any uses at all of LessPreciseFPMAD affecting generated code.
The NVPTX/fast-math.ll test changes are an expected result of fixing
this bug. When FMA is disabled, we emit add as "add.rn.f32", which
prevents fma combining. Before this patch, fast-math was enabled in all
functions following the one which explicitly enabled it on itself, so we
were emitting plain "add.f32" where we should have generated
"add.rn.f32".
Reviewers: mkuper
Subscribers: hfinkel, majnemer, jholewinski, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28507
llvm-svn: 291618
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27742
llvm-svn: 291609
If a vector index is out of bounds, the result is supposed to be
undefined but is not undefined behavior. Change the legalization
for indexing the vector on the stack so that an out of bounds
index does not create an out of bounds memory access.
llvm-svn: 291604
Summary:
When promoting fp-to-uint16 to fp-to-sint32, the result is actually zero
extended. For example, given double 65534.0, without legalization:
fp-to-uint16: 65534.0 -> 0xfffe
With the legalization:
fp-to-sint32: 65534.0 -> 0x0000fffe
Without this patch, legalization wrongly emits a signed extend assertion,
which is consumed by later icmp instruction, and cause miscompile.
Note that the floating point value must be in [0, 65535), otherwise the
behavior is undefined.
This patch reverts r279223 behavior and adds more tests and
documentations.
In PR29041's context, James Molloy mentioned that:
We don't need to mask because conversion from float->uint8_t is
undefined if the integer part of the float value is not representable in
uint8_t. Therefore we can assume this doesn't happen!
which is totally true and good, because fptoui is documented clearly to
have undefined behavior when overflow/underflow happens. We should take
the advantage of this behavior so that we can save unnecessary mask
instructions.
Reviewers: jmolloy, nadav, echristo, kbarton
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28284
llvm-svn: 291015
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. Unfortunately, because of the way
that the ABI works, we need to generate code as if we supported interposition
whenever the linker might insert stubs for the purpose of supporting it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 291003
This patch renumbers the metadata nodes in debug info testcases after
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769. This is a separate patch because it
causes so much churn. This was implemented with a python script that
pipes the testcases through llvm-as - | llvm-dis - and then goes
through the original and new output side-by side to insert all
comments at a close-enough location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27765
llvm-svn: 290292
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
This reapplies r289902 with additional testcase upgrades and a change
to the Bitcode record for DIGlobalVariable, that makes upgrading the
old format unambiguous also for variables without DIExpressions.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 290153
This reverts commit 289920 (again).
I forgot to implement a Bitcode upgrade for the case where a DIGlobalVariable
has not DIExpression. Unfortunately it is not possible to safely upgrade
these variables without adding a flag to the bitcode record indicating which
version they are.
My plan of record is to roll the planned follow-up patch that adds a
unit: field to DIGlobalVariable into this patch before recomitting.
This way we only need one Bitcode upgrade for both changes (with a
version flag in the bitcode record to safely distinguish the record
formats).
Sorry for the churn!
llvm-svn: 289982
This patch appears to result in trampolines in vtables being miscompiled
when they in turn tail call a method.
I've posted some preliminary details about the failure on the thread for
this commit and talked to Hal. He was comfortable going ahead and
reverting until we sort out what is wrong.
llvm-svn: 289928
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
This reapplies r289902 with additional testcase upgrades.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 289920
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 289902
Removing sensitivity to scheduling (by using CHECK-DAG instead of CHECK) and
some other minor corrections.
In preparation to commit Power9 processor model.
llvm-svn: 289900
This test is currently sensitive to scheduling. Using CHECK-DAG allows us to
preserve the main purpose of the test and remove this sensivity.
In preparation to commit Power9 processor model.
llvm-svn: 289869
In some situations, the BUILD_VECTOR node that builds a v18i8 vector by
a splat of an i8 constant will end up with signed 8-bit values and other
situations, it'll end up with unsigned ones. Handle both situations.
Fixes PR31340.
llvm-svn: 289804
Most of the PowerPC64 code generation for the ELF ABI is already PIC.
There are four main exceptions:
(1) Constant pointer arrays etc. should in writeable sections.
(2) The TOC restoration NOP after a call is needed for all global
symbols. While GNU ld has a workaround for questionable GCC self-calls,
we trigger the checks for calls from COMDAT sections as they cross input
sections and are therefore not considered self-calls. The current
decision is questionable and suboptimal, but outside the scope of the
change.
(3) TLS access can not use the initial-exec model.
(4) Jump tables should use relative addresses. Note that the current
encoding doesn't work for the large code model, but it is more compact
than the default for any non-trivial jump table. Improving this is again
beyond the scope of this change.
At least (1) and (3) are assumptions made in target-independent code and
introducing additional hooks is a bit messy. Testing with clang shows
that a -fPIC binary is 600KB smaller than the corresponding -fno-pic
build. Separate testing from improved jump table encodings would explain
only about 100KB or so. The rest is expected to be a result of more
aggressive immediate forming for -fno-pic, where the -fPIC binary just
uses TOC entries.
This change brings the LLVM output in line with the GCC output, other
PPC64 compilers like XLC on AIX are known to produce PIC by default
as well. The relocation model can still be provided explicitly, i.e.
when using MCJIT.
One test case for case (1) is included, other test cases with relocation
mode sensitive behavior are wired to static for now. They will be
reviewed and adjusted separately.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26566
llvm-svn: 289743
Retrying after fixing after removing load-store factoring through
token factors in favor of improved token factor operand pruning
Simplify Consecutive Merge Store Candidate Search
Now that address aliasing is much less conservative, push through
simplified store merging search which only checks for parallel stores
through the chain subgraph. This is cleaner as the separation of
non-interfering loads/stores from the store-merging logic.
Whem merging stores, search up the chain through a single load, and
finds all possible stores by looking down from through a load and a
TokenFactor to all stores visited. This improves the quality of the
output SelectionDAG and generally the output CodeGen (with some
exceptions).
Additional Minor Changes:
1. Finishes removing unused AliasLoad code
2. Unifies the the chain aggregation in the merged stores across
code paths
3. Re-add the Store node to the worklist after calling
SimplifyDemandedBits.
4. Increase GatherAllAliasesMaxDepth from 6 to 18. That number is
arbitrary, but seemed sufficient to not cause regressions in
tests.
This finishes the change Matt Arsenault started in r246307 and
jyknight's original patch.
Many tests required some changes as memory operations are now
reorderable. Some tests relying on the order were changed to use
volatile memory operations
Noteworthy tests:
CodeGen/AArch64/argument-blocks.ll -
It's not entirely clear what the test_varargs_stackalign test is
supposed to be asserting, but the new code looks right.
CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-memset-inline.lli -
CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-stur.ll -
CodeGen/ARM/memset-inline.ll -
The backend now generates *worse* code due to store merging
succeeding, as we do do a 16-byte constant-zero store efficiently.
CodeGen/AArch64/merge-store.ll -
Improved, but there still seems to be an extraneous vector insert
from an element to itself?
CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc64-align-long-double.ll -
Worse code emitted in this case, due to the improved store->load
forwarding.
CodeGen/X86/dag-merge-fast-accesses.ll -
CodeGen/X86/MergeConsecutiveStores.ll -
CodeGen/X86/stores-merging.ll -
CodeGen/Mips/load-store-left-right.ll -
Restored correct merging of non-aligned stores
CodeGen/AMDGPU/promote-alloca-stored-pointer-value.ll -
Improved. Correctly merges buffer_store_dword calls
CodeGen/AMDGPU/si-triv-disjoint-mem-access.ll -
Improved. Sidesteps loading a stored value and
merges two stores
CodeGen/X86/pr18023.ll -
This test has been removed, as it was asserting incorrect
behavior. Non-volatile stores *CAN* be moved past volatile loads,
and now are.
CodeGen/X86/vector-idiv.ll -
CodeGen/X86/vector-lzcnt-128.ll -
It's basically impossible to tell what these tests are actually
testing. But, looks like the code got better due to the memory
operations being recognized as non-aliasing.
CodeGen/X86/win32-eh.ll -
Both loads of the securitycookie are now merged.
Reviewers: arsenm, hfinkel, tstellarAMD, jyknight, nhaehnle
Subscribers: wdng, nhaehnle, nemanjai, arsenm, weimingz, niravd, RKSimon, aemerson, qcolombet, dsanders, resistor, tstellarAMD, t.p.northover, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D14834
llvm-svn: 289659
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. This will yield subtle bugs if
interposition is attempted. As a result, regardless of whether we're in PIC
mode, we don't assume that we need to add the nop to support the possibility of
ELF interposition. However, the necessary check is in place (i.e. calling
GV->isInterposable and TM.shouldAssumeDSOLocal) so when we have functions for
which interposition is allowed at the IR level, we'll add the nop as necessary.
In the mean time, we'll generate more tail calls and fewer nops when compiling
position-independent code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 289638
Michael Kuperstein