Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361852, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs, and then reverted in
rL362109 to fix missing constant folds that were causing
endless combine loops.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 362143
I was looking into an endless combine loop the uncommitted follow-up patch
was causing, and it appears even these patches can exibit such an
endless loop. The root cause is that we try to hoist one binop (add/sub) with
constant operand, and if we get two such binops both of which are
eligible for this hoisting, we get stuck.
Some cases may highlight missing constant-folds.
Reverts r361871,r361872,r361873,r361874.
llvm-svn: 362109
Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361853, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 361872
Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 361853
Summary:
Another target that prefers to use `-march` in tests
```
llvm/test/CodeGen/SPARC$ grep -ri mtriple | wc -l
25
llvm/test/CodeGen/SPARC$ grep -ri march | wc -l
165
```
This test is being affected by a further patch,
so regenerate it to better visualize the changes
Reviewers: RKSimon, dcederman, gberry
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: jyknight, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62242
llvm-svn: 361381
On SparcV8, it was previously the case that a variable-sized alloca
might overlap by 4-bytes the last fixed stack variable, effectively
because 92 (the number of bytes reserved for the register spill area) !=
96 (the offset added to SP for where to start a DYNAMIC_STACKALLOC).
It's not as simple as changing 96 to 92, because variables that should
be 8-byte aligned would then be misaligned.
For now, simply increase the allocation size by 8 bytes for each dynamic
allocation -- wastes space, but at least doesn't overlap. As the large
comment says, doing this more efficiently will require larger changes in
llvm.
Also adds some test cases showing that we continue to not support
dynamic stack allocation and over-alignment in the same function.
llvm-svn: 285131
Roman Lebedev