[Clang part]
These patches rename the loop unrolling and loop vectorizer metadata
such that they have a common 'llvm.loop.' prefix. Metadata name
changes:
llvm.vectorizer.* => llvm.loop.vectorizer.*
llvm.loopunroll.* => llvm.loop.unroll.*
This was a suggestion from an earlier review
(http://reviews.llvm.org/D4090) which added the loop unrolling
metadata.
Patch by Mark Heffernan.
llvm-svn: 211712
This reverts commit r211096. Looks like it broke the msvc build:
SemaOpenMP.cpp(140) : error C4519: default template arguments are only allowed on a class template
llvm-svn: 211113
Since the continuation block of the if statement is emitted within the
condition scope this had the undesirable effect of creating a line table
entry at the end of the then or else statement, a line that may have never
been executed.
PR19864 / rdar://problem/17052973
llvm-svn: 209764
It also adds a simple initial version of codegen for pragma omp simd (it will change in the future to support all the clauses).
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3644
llvm-svn: 209411
condition to a constant and emit only the relevant statement. In that
case, we were previously creating the epilog jump destination, a cleanup
scope, and emitting any condition variable into it. Instead, we can emit
the condition variable (if we have one) into the cleanup scope used for
the entire folded case sequence. We avoid creating a jump dest, a basic
block, and an extra cleanup scope. Win!
llvm-svn: 207888
CapturedStmt was being ignored by instrumentation based profiling, and
its counters attributed to the containing function. Instead, we need
to treat this as a top level entity, like we do with blocks.
llvm-svn: 206231
are not associated with any source lines.
Previously, if the Location of a Decl was empty, EmitFunctionStart would
just keep using CurLoc, which would sometimes be correct (e.g., thunks)
but in other cases would just point to a hilariously random location.
This patch fixes this by completely eliminating all uses of CurLoc from
EmitFunctionStart and rather have clients explicitly pass in a
SourceLocation for the function header and the function body.
rdar://problem/14985269
llvm-svn: 205999
This adds Clang support for the ARM64 backend. There are definitely
still some rough edges, so please bring up any issues you see with
this patch.
As with the LLVM commit though, we think it'll be more useful for
merging with AArch64 from within the tree.
llvm-svn: 205100
r203364: what was use_iterator is now user_iterator, and there is
a use_iterator for directly iterating over the uses.
This also switches to use the range-based APIs where appropriate.
llvm-svn: 203365
Previously, we made one traversal of the AST prior to codegen to assign
counters to the ASTs and then propagated the count values during codegen. This
patch now adds a separate AST traversal prior to codegen for the
-fprofile-instr-use option to propagate the count values. The counts are then
saved in a map from which they can be retrieved during codegen.
This new approach has several advantages:
1. It gets rid of a lot of extra PGO-related code that had previously been
added to codegen.
2. It fixes a serious bug. My original implementation (which was mailed to the
list but never committed) used 3 counters for every loop. Justin improved it to
move 2 of those counters into the less-frequently executed breaks and continues,
but that turned out to produce wrong count values in some cases. The solution
requires visiting a loop body before the condition so that the count for the
condition properly includes the break and continue counts. Changing codegen to
visit a loop body first would be a fairly invasive change, but with a separate
AST traversal, it is easy to control the order of traversal. I've added a
testcase (provided by Justin) to make sure this works correctly.
3. It improves the instrumentation overhead, reducing the number of counters for
a loop from 3 to 1. We no longer need dedicated counters for breaks and
continues, since we can just use the propagated count values when visiting
breaks and continues.
To make this work, I needed to make a change to the way we count case
statements, going back to my original approach of not including the fall-through
in the counter values. This was necessary because there isn't always an AST node
that can be used to record the fall-through count. Now case statements are
handled the same as default statements, with the fall-through paths branching
over the counter increments. While I was at it, I also went back to using this
approach for do-loops -- omitting the fall-through count into the loop body
simplifies some of the calculations and make them behave the same as other
loops. Whenever we start using this instrumentation for coverage, we'll need
to add the fall-through counts into the counter values.
llvm-svn: 201528
This fixes PR15768, where the sret parameter and the 'this' parameter
are in the wrong order.
Instance methods compiled by MSVC never return records in registers,
they always return indirectly through an sret pointer. That sret
pointer always comes after the 'this' parameter, for both __cdecl and
__thiscall methods.
Unfortunately, the same is true for other calling conventions, so we'll
have to change the overall approach here relatively soon.
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2664
llvm-svn: 200587
Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible
to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside
its body, for example:
for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); )
This code is rejected by GCC if compiled in C mode but is accepted in C++
code. GCC bug 44715 tracks this discrepancy. Clang used code generation
that differs from GCC in both modes: only statement of the third
expression of 'for' behaves as if it was inside loop body.
This change makes code generation more close to GCC, considering 'break'
or 'continue' statement in condition and increment expressions of a
loop as it was inside the loop body. It also adds error for the cases
when 'break'/'continue' appear outside loop due to this syntax. If
code generation differ from GCC, warning is issued.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2518
llvm-svn: 199897
I misunderstood the discussion on this. The complexity here is
justified by the malloc overhead it saves.
This reverts commit r199302.
llvm-svn: 199700
Way back in r129652 we tried to avoid emitting an empty block at -O0
for switch cases that did nothing but break. This led to a poor
debugging experience as reported in PR9796, so we disabled the
optimization for -O0 but left it in for higher optimization levels in
r154420.
Since the whole point of this was to improve -O0, it's silly to keep
the complexity at all.
llvm-svn: 199302
adjustFallThroughCount isn't a good name, and the documentation was
even worse. This commit attempts to clarify what it's for and when to
use it.
llvm-svn: 199139
There are a number of places where we do PGO.setCurrentRegionCount(0)
directly after an unconditional branch. Give this operation a name so
that it's clearer why we're doing this.
llvm-svn: 199138
This call looks like it was an artifact of an earlier change, and
doesn't actually make sense. We begin a new region immediately anyway,
so it was mostly harmless.
llvm-svn: 199137
C and C++ don't emit an extra lexical scope for the compound statement
that is the body of an Objective-C method.
rdar://problem/15010825
llvm-svn: 198699
encodes the canonical rules for LLVM's style. I noticed this had drifted
quite a bit when cleaning up LLVM, so wanted to clean up Clang as well.
llvm-svn: 198686
Not long ago I made the CodeGen of for loops simplify the condition at
-O0 in the same way we do for if and conditionals. Unfortunately this
ties how loops and simple conditions work together too tightly, which
makes features such as instrumentation based PGO awkward.
Ultimately, we should find a more general way to simplify the logic in
a given condition, but for now we'll just avoid using EmitBranchOnBool
for loops, like we already do for while and do loops.
llvm-svn: 195438
A while ago EmitForStmt was changed to explicitly evaluate the
condition expression and create a branch instead of using
EmitBranchOnBool, so that the condition expression could be used for
some cleanup logic. The cleanup stuff has since been reorganized, and
this is no longer necessary.
In EmitCXXForRange, the evaluated condition was never used for
anything else. The logic was presumably modeled on EmitForStmt.
llvm-svn: 193994
An initialization somehow found its way in between a comment and the
block of code the comment is about. Moving the initialization makes
this less confusing.
llvm-svn: 193993
CodeGenFunction is run on only one function - a new object is made for
each new function. I would add an assertion/flag to this effect, but
there's an exception: ObjC properties involve emitting helper functions
that are all emitted by the same CodeGenFunction object, so such a check
is not possible/correct.
llvm-svn: 189277
Alexey Bataev