for the PowerPC target, and factoring the results. This will ease future
maintenance of both subtargets.
PPCTargetLowering::LowerCall_Darwin_Or_64SVR4() has grown a lot of special-case
code for the different ABIs, making maintenance difficult. This is getting
worse as we repair errors in the 64-bit ELF ABI implementation, while avoiding
changes to the Darwin ABI logic. This patch splits the routine into
LowerCall_Darwin() and LowerCall_64SVR4(), allowing both versions to be
significantly simplified. I've factored out chunks of similar code where it
made sense to do so. I also performed similar factoring on
LowerFormalArguments_Darwin() and LowerFormalArguments_64SVR4().
There are no functional changes in this patch, and therefore no new test
cases have been developed.
Built and tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions.
llvm-svn: 166480
%V = mul i64 %N, 4
%t = getelementptr i8* bitcast (i32* %arr to i8*), i32 %V
into
%t1 = getelementptr i32* %arr, i32 %N
%t = bitcast i32* %t1 to i8*
incorporating the multiplication into the getelementptr.
This happens all the time in dragonegg, for example for
int foo(int *A, int N) {
return A[N];
}
because gcc turns this into byte pointer arithmetic before it hits the plugin:
D.1590_2 = (long unsigned int) N_1(D);
D.1591_3 = D.1590_2 * 4;
D.1592_5 = A_4(D) + D.1591_3;
D.1589_6 = *D.1592_5;
return D.1589_6;
The D.1592_5 line is a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, which is turned into a getelementptr
on a bitcast of A_4 to i8*, so this becomes exactly the kind of IR that the
transform fires on.
An analogous transform (with no testcases!) already existed for bitcasts of
arrays, so I rewrote it to share code with this one.
llvm-svn: 166474
The CFG of the machine function needs to know that the targets of the indirect
branch are successors to the indirect branch.
<rdar://problem/12529625>
llvm-svn: 166448
Per the October 12, 2012 Proposal for annotated disassembly output sent out by
Jim Grosbach this set of changes implements this for X86 and arm. The llvm-mc
tool now has a -mdis option to produced the marked up disassembly and a couple
of small example test cases have been added.
rdar://11764962
llvm-svn: 166445
deterministic, replace it with a DenseMap<std::pair<unsigned, unsigned>,
PHINode*> (we already have a map from BasicBlock to unsigned).
<rdar://problem/12541389>
llvm-svn: 166435
Unreachable blocks can have invalid instructions. For example,
jump threading can produce self-referential instructions in
unreachable blocks. Also, we should not be spending time
optimizing unreachable code. Fixes PR14133.
llvm-svn: 166423
Patch by Quentin Colombet <qcolombet@apple.com>
Original description:
"""
The attached patch is the first step to have a better control on Oz related optimizations.
The Oz optimization level focuses on code size, thus I propose to add an attribute called ForceSizeOpt.
"""
llvm-svn: 166422
very small but very important bugfix:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->get();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
[...]
should have read:
bool shouldExplore(Use *U) {
Value *V = U->getUser();
if (isa<CallInst>(V) || isa<InvokeInst>(V))
Fixes PR14143!
llvm-svn: 166407
This is important for vectors of pointers because only DataLayout,
not the underlying vector type, knows how to calculate the size
of the pointers in the vector. Fixes PR14138.
llvm-svn: 166401
It passes all tests, produces better results than the old code but uses the
wrong pass, LoopDependenceAnalysis, which is old and unmaintained. "Why is it
still in tree?", you might ask. The answer is obviously: "To confuse developers."
Just swapping in the new dependency pass sends the pass manager into an infinte
loop, I'll try to figure out why tomorrow.
llvm-svn: 166399
Requires a lot less code and complexity on loop-idiom's side and the more
precise analysis can catch more cases, like the one I included as a test case.
This also fixes the edge-case miscompilation from PR9481. I'm not entirely
sure that all cases are handled that the old checks handled but LDA will
certainly become smarter in the future.
llvm-svn: 166390
We used a SCEV to detect that A[X] is consecutive. We assumed that X was
the induction variable. But X can be any expression that uses the induction
for example: X = i + 2;
llvm-svn: 166388
This is important for nested-loop reductions such as :
In the innermost loop, the induction variable does not start with zero:
for (i = 0 .. n)
for (j = 0 .. m)
sum += ...
llvm-svn: 166387
obvious stuff and most new code being committed conforms to that. Some old
code does not; this might cause confusion and this is the motivation to
document the correct guidelines.
llvm-svn: 166378
If the pointer is consecutive then it is safe to read and write. If the pointer is non-loop-consecutive then
it is unsafe to vectorize it because we may hit an ordering issue.
llvm-svn: 166371
Eric Christopher