declarations. We can't expect to find them in the canonical definition
of the class, because that's not where they live.
This means we no longer reject real ODR violations with friend declarations,
but we weren't consistently doing so anyway.
llvm-svn: 216369
This was added in r134994, to fix a memory leak;
three days later, r135248 switched
ContainedTys from being new-allocated to being allocated
via BumpPtrAllocator, and the earlier fix was never
reverted.
The destructor doesn't seem to ever actually be called
on Types anyway, so it's harmless, but if it were,
this'd be an invalid pointer.
This reverts r134994.
llvm-svn: 216354
This does nothing but remove the Record from the map, and
then re-add it, without actually changing it in between.
The Record's Name used to be changed before re-adding it
when the code was first committed in r137232, but the
name-changing lines were removed in r142510, and since
then this code seems to do nothing.
This was also the only caller of removeClass or removeDef,
so now RecordKeeper owns its Records unconditionally,
and could be unique_ptr-ified.
llvm-svn: 216349
The switch statement would never fire due to the preceding break statement. Also, the switch statement has a default label with no case labels. Simplified the code, and allow it to execute.
llvm-svn: 216346
CFE, with -03, would turn:
bool f(unsigned x) {
bool a = x & 1;
bool b = x & 2;
return a | b;
}
into:
%1 = lshr i32 %x, 1
%2 = or i32 %1, %x
%3 = and i32 %2, 1
%4 = icmp ne i32 %3, 0
This sort of thing exposes a nasty pathology in GCC, ICC and LLVM.
Instead, we would rather want:
%1 = and i32 %x, 3
%2 = icmp ne i32 %1, 0
Things get a bit more interesting in the following case:
%1 = lshr i32 %x, %y
%2 = or i32 %1, %x
%3 = and i32 %2, 1
%4 = icmp ne i32 %3, 0
Replacing it with the following sequence is better:
%1 = shl nuw i32 1, %y
%2 = or i32 %1, 1
%3 = and i32 %2, %x
%4 = icmp ne i32 %3, 0
This sequence is preferable because %1 doesn't involve %x and could
potentially be hoisted out of loops if it is invariant; only perform
this transform in the non-constant case if we know we won't increase
register pressure.
llvm-svn: 216343
__vector long is deprecated, but __vector long long is not. As a result, we
cannot check for __vector long (to issue the deprecation warning) as we parse
the type because we need to know how many 'long's we have first.
DeclSpec::Finish seems like a more-appropriate place to perform the check
(which places it with several other similar Altivec vector checks).
Fixes PR20720.
llvm-svn: 216342
PowerPC uses the special PPC_FP128 type for long double on Linux, which is
composed of two 64-bit doubles. The higher-order double (which contains the
overall sign) comes first, and so the __builtin_signbitl implementation
requires special handling to extract the sign bit.
Fixes PR20691.
llvm-svn: 216341
We would previously assert (a decl cannot have two DLL attributes) on this code:
template <typename T> struct __declspec(dllimport) S { T f() { return T(); } };
template struct __declspec(dllexport) S<int>;
The problem was that when instantiating, we would take the attribute from the
template even if the instantiation itself already had an attribute.
Also, don't inherit DLL attributes from the template to its members before
instantiation, as the attribute may change.
I couldn't figure out what MinGW does here, so I'm leaving that open. At least
we're not asserting anymore.
llvm-svn: 216340
Adds code generation support for dcbtst (data cache prefetch for write) and
icbt (instruction cache prefetch for read - Book E cores only).
We still end up with a 'cannot select' error for the non-supported prefetch
intrinsic forms. This will be fixed in a later commit.
Fixes PR20692.
llvm-svn: 216339
Based on the STL class of the same name, it guards a mutex
while also allowing it to be unlocked conditionally before
destruction.
This eliminates the last naked usages of mutexes in LLVM and
clang.
It also uncovered and fixed a bug in callExternalFunction()
when compiled without USE_LIBFFI, where the mutex would never
be unlocked if the end of the function was reached.
llvm-svn: 216338
When building without XCode on sytems where these constants are
not in the system header (or I presume with older versions of XCode),
these are needed to make this file compile, since unlike most other
uses of MachO specific constants, these use the system headers
rather than the LLVM-defined ones.
llvm-svn: 216332
This test was testing nothing, as only -Werror was ever
being added to the compiler flags.
You can see the final nitty-gritty compiler invocation in
CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log (for successful tests) and
CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log (for failed tests).
Before:
Building C object CMakeFiles/cmTryCompileExec3385359576.dir/src.c.o
/usr/bin/clang -fPIC -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wcovered-switch-default -DC_WCOMMENT_ALLOWS_LINE_WRAP -Werror -o CMakeFiles/cmTryCompileExec3385359576.dir/src.c.o -c /home/nobled/code/llvm-b9/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp/src.c
After:
Building C object CMakeFiles/cmTryCompileExec3385359576.dir/src.c.o
/usr/bin/clang -fPIC -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wcovered-switch-default -DC_WCOMMENT_ALLOWS_LINE_WRAP -Werror -Wcomment -o CMakeFiles/cmTryCompileExec3385359576.dir/src.c.o -c /home/nobled/code/llvm-b9/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp/src.c
llvm-svn: 216328
clang has only been smart enough not to trigger -Wnon-virtual-dtor
warnings on final classes since r208449 (in clang 3.5). Building
with older versions is extremely noisy, so disable the warning
on those compilers.
llvm-svn: 216327
This reverts commit r215862 due to nightly failures. Will work on getting a
reduced test case, but I wanted to get our bots green in the meantime.
llvm-svn: 216325
These were missing and caused mad24/mul24 with int3/uint3 arg type to fail
Signed-off-by: Aaron Watry <awatry@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 216321
these DAG combines.
The DAG auto-CSE thing is truly terrible. Due to it, when RAUW-ing
a node with its operand, you can cause its uses to CSE to itself, which
then causes their uses to become your uses which causes them to be
picked up by the RAUW. For nodes that are determined to be "no-ops",
this is "fine". But if the RAUW is one of several steps to enact
a transformation, this causes the DAG to really silently eat an discard
nodes that you would never expect. It took days for me to actually
pinpoint a test case triggering this and a really frustrating amount of
time to even comprehend the bug because I never even thought about the
ability of RAUW to iteratively consume nodes due to CSE-ing them into
itself.
To fix this, we have to build up a brand-new chain of operations any
time we are combining across (potentially) intervening nodes. But once
the logic is added to do this, another issue surfaces: CombineTo eagerly
deletes the one node combined, *but no others*. This is... really
frustrating. If deleting it makes its operands become dead, those
operand nodes often won't go onto the worklist in the
order you would want -- they're already on it and not near the top. That
means things higher on the worklist will get combined prior to these
dead nodes being GCed out of the worklist, and if the chain is long, the
immediate users won't be enough to re-detect where the root of the chain
is that became single-use again after deleting the dead nodes. The
better way to do this is to never immediately delete nodes, and instead
to just enqueue them so we can recursively delete them. The
combined-from node is typically not on the worklist anyways by virtue of
having been popped off.... But that in turn breaks other tests that
*require* CombineTo to delete unused nodes. :: sigh ::
Fortunately, there is a better way. This whole routine should have been
returning the replacement rather than using CombineTo which is quite
hacky. Switch to that, and all the pieces fall together.
I suspect the same kind of miscompile is possible in the half-shuffle
folding code, and potentially the recursive folding code. I'll be
switching those over to a pattern more like this one for safety's sake
even though I don't immediately have any test cases for them. Note that
the only way I got a test case for this instance was with *heavily* DAG
combined 256-bit shuffle sequences generated by my fuzzer. ;]
llvm-svn: 216319
Craig Topper