Added abstract class MemSDNode for any Node that have an associated MemOperand
Changed atomic.lcs => atomic.cmp.swap, atomic.las => atomic.load.add, and
atomic.lss => atomic.load.sub
llvm-svn: 52706
test (doesn't work for any MMX vector types, it's
not me). Rewritten to use v2i16 which is generic
and going to stay that way; I think that preserves
the point of the test.
llvm-svn: 52692
shuffle could be skipped. The check is invalid because the loop index i
doesn't correspond to the element actually inserted. The correct check is
already done a few lines earlier, for whether the element is already in
the right spot, so this shouldn't have any effect on the codegen for
code that was already correct.
llvm-svn: 52486
wrong for volatile loads and stores. In fact this
is almost all of them! There are three types of
problems: (1) it is wrong to change the width of
a volatile memory access. These may be used to
do memory mapped i/o, in which case a load can have
an effect even if the result is not used. Consider
loading an i32 but only using the lower 8 bits. It
is wrong to change this into a load of an i8, because
you are no longer tickling the other three bytes. It
is also unwise to make a load/store wider. For
example, changing an i16 load into an i32 load is
wrong no matter how aligned things are, since the
fact of loading an additional 2 bytes can have
i/o side-effects. (2) it is wrong to change the
number of volatile load/stores: they may be counted
by the hardware. (3) it is wrong to change a volatile
load/store that requires one memory access into one
that requires several. For example on x86-32, you
can store a double in one processor operation, but to
store an i64 requires two (two i32 stores). In a
multi-threaded program you may want to bitcast an i64
to a double and store as a double because that will
occur atomically, and be indivisible to other threads.
So it would be wrong to convert the store-of-double
into a store of an i64, because this will become two
i32 stores - no longer atomic. My policy here is
to say that the number of processor operations for
an illegal operation is undefined. So it is alright
to change a store of an i64 (requires at least two
stores; but could be validly lowered to memcpy for
example) into a store of double (one processor op).
In short, if the new store is legal and has the same
size then I say that the transform is ok. It would
also be possible to say that transforms are always
ok if before they were illegal, whether after they
are illegal or not, but that's more awkward to do
and I doubt it buys us anything much.
However this exposed an interesting thing - on x86-32
a store of i64 is considered legal! That is because
operations are marked legal by default, regardless of
whether the type is legal or not. In some ways this
is clever: before type legalization this means that
operations on illegal types are considered legal;
after type legalization there are no illegal types
so now operations are only legal if they really are.
But I consider this to be too cunning for mere mortals.
Better to do things explicitly by testing AfterLegalize.
So I have changed things so that operations with illegal
types are considered illegal - indeed they can never
map to a machine operation. However this means that
the DAG combiner is more conservative because before
it was "accidentally" performing transforms where the
type was illegal because the operation was nonetheless
marked legal. So in a few such places I added a check
on AfterLegalize, which I suppose was actually just
forgotten before. This causes the DAG combiner to do
slightly more than it used to, which resulted in the X86
backend blowing up because it got a slightly surprising
node it wasn't expecting, so I tweaked it.
llvm-svn: 52254
in DAGISelEmitter output. This bug was recently uncovered by the
addition of patterns for CALL32m and CALL64m, which are nodes
that now have both MemOperands and variadic_ops.
This bug was especially visible with PIC in various configurations,
because the new patterns are matching the indirect call code used
in many PIC configurations.
llvm-svn: 51877
cases due to an isel deficiency already noted in
lib/Target/X86/README.txt, but they can be matched in this fold-call.ll
testcase, for example.
This is interesting mainly because it exposes a tricky tblgen bug;
tblgen was incorrectly computing the starting index for variable_ops
in the case of a complex pattern.
llvm-svn: 51706
sometimes a "mov %ebp, %esp" in the epilogue.
Force these tests that rely on counting 'mov' to use i686-apple-darwin8.8.0
where they were written.
llvm-svn: 51568
BB1:
vr1025 = copy vr1024
..
BB2:
vr1024 = op
= op vr1025
<loop eventually branch back to BB1>
Even though vr1025 is copied from vr1024, it's not safe to coalesced them since live range of vr1025 intersects the def of vr1024. This happens when vr1025 is assigned the value of the previous iteration of vr1024 in the loop.
llvm-svn: 51394
use-before-def. The problem comes up in code with multiple PHIs where
one PHI is being rewritten in terms of the other, but the other needs
to be casted first. LLVM rules requre the cast instruction to be
inserted after any PHI instructions, but when instructions were
inserted to replace the second PHI value with a function of the first,
they were ended up going before the cast instruction. Avoid this
problem by remembering the location of the cast instruction, when one
is needed, and inserting the expansion of the new value after it.
This fixes a bug that surfaced in 255.vortex on x86-64 when
instcombine was removed from the middle of the loop optimization
passes.
llvm-svn: 51169
Dale Johannesen