Summary:
In PR29973 Sanjay Patel reported an assertion failure when a certain
loop was optimized, for a target without SSE2 support. It turned out
this was because of the AVG pattern detection introduced in rL253952.
Prevent the assertion failure by bailing out early in
`detectAVGPattern()`, if the target does not support SSE2.
Also add a minimized test case.
Reviewers: congh, eli.friedman, spatel
Subscribers: emaste, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20905
llvm-svn: 271548
This patch removes the llvm intrinsics (V)CVTTPS2DQ and VCVTTPD2DQ truncation (round to zero) conversions and auto-upgrades to FP_TO_SINT calls instead.
Note: I looked at updating CVTTPD2DQ as well but this still requires a lot more work to correctly lower.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20860
llvm-svn: 271510
I'm not sure why this was missing for so long.
This also exposed that we were picking floating point 256-bit VMOVNTPS for some integer types in normal isel for AVX1 even though VMOVNTDQ is available. In practice it doesn't matter due to the execution dependency fix pass, but it required extra isel patterns. Fixing that in a follow up commit.
llvm-svn: 271481
Introduced in r271244, this is probably undefined behaviour and asserts when
compiled with Visual C++ debug mode.
On further note, the loop is quadratic with regard to the number of successors
since removeSuccessor is linear and could probably be modified to linear time.
llvm-svn: 271278
This adds support to the backed to actually support SjLj EH as an exception
model. This is *NOT* the default model, and requires explicitly opting into it
from the frontend. GCC supports this model and for MinGW can still be enabled
via the `--using-sjlj-exceptions` options.
Addresses PR27749!
llvm-svn: 271244
This patch removes the llvm intrinsics VPMOVSX and (V)PMOVZX sign/zero extension intrinsics and auto-upgrades to SEXT/ZEXT calls instead. We already did this for SSE41 PMOVSX sometime ago so much of that implementation can be reused.
Reapplied now that the the companion patch (D20684) removes/auto-upgrade the clang intrinsics has been committed.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20686
llvm-svn: 271131
We were producing R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX for invalid instructions and
sometimes producing R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX instead of
R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX.
llvm-svn: 271118
It would be better to check the valid/expected size of the immediate operand, but this is
generally better than what we print right now.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20385
llvm-svn: 271114
This patch removes the llvm intrinsics VPMOVSX and (V)PMOVZX sign/zero extension intrinsics and auto-upgrades to SEXT/ZEXT calls instead. We already did this for SSE41 PMOVSX sometime ago so much of that implementation can be reused.
A companion patch (D20684) removes/auto-upgrade the clang intrinsics.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20686
llvm-svn: 270973
Most often as not this is what it started out as, the extraction is zero-cost on AVX and the PMOVZX/PMOVSX folding logic is based around 128-bit loads.
llvm-svn: 270858
By making pointer extraction from a vector more expensive in the cost model,
we avoid the vectorization of a loop that is very likely to be memory-bound:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
There are still bugs related to this, so we may need a more general solution
to avoid vectorizing obviously memory-bound loops when we don't have HW gather
support.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20601
llvm-svn: 270729
As noted in the review, there are still problems, so this doesn't the bug completely.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20529
llvm-svn: 270718
Followup to D20528 clang patch, this removes the (V)CVTDQ2PD(Y) and (V)CVTPS2PD(Y) llvm intrinsics and auto-upgrades to sitofp/fpext instead.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20568
llvm-svn: 270678
This isn't the complete fix, but it handles the trivial examples of duplicate vzero* ops in PR27823:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27823
...and amusingly, the bogus cases already exist as regression tests, so let's take this baby step.
We'll need to do more in the general case where there's legitimate AVX usage in the function + there's
already a vzero in the code.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20477
llvm-svn: 270378
Dimitry Andric