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
The right way to check for a binary operation is
cast<BinaryOperator>. The original check: cast<Instruction> &&
numOperands() == 2 would match phi "instructions", leading to an
infinite loop in extreme corner case: a useless phi with operands
[self, constant] that prior optimization passes failed to remove,
being used in the loop by another useless phi, in turn being used by an
lshr or udiv.
Fixes PR11350: runaway iteration assertion.
llvm-svn: 144935
instructions.
This doesn't introduce any optimizations we weren't doing before (except
potentially due to pass ordering issues), now passes will eliminate them sooner
as part of their own cleanups.
llvm-svn: 142787
promoting allocas to preferred alignments that exceed the natural
alignment. This avoids some potentially expensive dynamic stack realignments.
The natural stack alignment is set in target data strings via the "S<size>"
option. Size is in bits and must be a multiple of 8. The natural stack alignment
defaults to "unspecified" (represented by a zero value), and the "unspecified"
value does not prevent any alignment promotions. Target maintainers that care
about avoiding promotions should explicitly add the "S<size>" option to their
target data strings.
llvm-svn: 141599
This handles the case in which LSR rewrites an IV user that is a phi and
splits critical edges originating from a switch.
Fixes <rdar://problem/6453893> LSR is not splitting edges "nicely"
llvm-svn: 141059
extract the landing pad block. Otherwise, there will be a situation where the
invoke's unwind edge lands on a non-landing pad.
We also forbid the user from extracting the landing pad block by itself. Again,
this is not a valid transformation.
llvm-svn: 140083
In theory this could be extended to other instructions, eg. division by zero, but it's likely that it will "miscompile" some code because people depend on div by zero not trapping. NULL pointer dereference usually leads to a crash so we should be on the safe side.
This shrinks the size of a Release clang by 16k on x86_64.
llvm-svn: 138618
We have to be careful when splitting the landing pad block, because the
landingpad instruction is required to remain as the first non-PHI of an invoke's
unwind edge. To retain this, we split the block into two blocks, moving the
predecessors within the loop to one block and the remaining predecessors to the
other. The landingpad instruction is cloned into the new blocks.
llvm-svn: 138015
SplitLandingPadPredecessors is similar to SplitBlockPredecessors in that it
splits the current block and attaches a set of predecessors to the new basic
block. However, it differs from SplitBlockPredecessors in that it's specifically
designed to handle landing pad blocks.
Two new basic blocks are created: one that is has the vector of predecessors as
its predecessors and one that has the remaining predecessors as its
predecessors. Those two new blocks then receive a cloned copy of the landingpad
instruction from the original block. The landingpad instructions are joined in a
PHI, etc. Like SplitBlockPredecessors, it updates the LLVM IR, AliasAnalysis,
DominatorTree, DominanceFrontier, LoopInfo, and LCCSA analyses.
llvm-svn: 138014
One way to exit the loop is through an unwind edge. However, that may involve
splitting the critical edge of the landing pad, which is non-trivial. Prevent
the transformation from rewriting the landing pad exit loop block.
llvm-svn: 137871
This commit includes a mention of the landingpad instruction, but it's not
changing the behavior around it. I think the current behavior is correct,
though. Bill, can you double-check that?
llvm-svn: 137691
Chad Rosier