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
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
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
was returning incorrect values in rare cases, and incorrectly marking
exact conversions as inexact in some more common cases. Fixes PR11406, and a
missed optimization in test/CodeGen/X86/fp-stack-O0.ll.
llvm-svn: 145141
need lots of fanciness around retaining a reference to a Chain's slot in
the BlockToChain map, but that's all gone now. We can just go directly
to allocating the new chain (which will update the mapping for us) and
using it.
Somewhat gross mechanically generated test case replicates the issue
Duncan spotted when actually testing this out.
llvm-svn: 145120
conflicts, we should only be adding the first block of the chain to the
list, lest we try to merge into the middle of that chain. Most of the
places we were doing this we already happened to be looking at the first
block, but there is no reason to assume that, and in some cases it was
clearly wrong.
I've added a couple of tests here. One already worked, but I like having
an explicit test for it. The other is reduced from a test case Duncan
reduced for me and used to crash. Now it is handled correctly.
llvm-svn: 145119
Jan Sjödin