Summary:
Additional filtering of undesired shifts for targets that do not support them efficiently.
Related with D69116 and D69120
Applies the TLI.getShiftAmountThreshold hook to prevent undesired generation of shifts for the following IR code:
```
define i16 @testShiftBits(i16 %a) {
entry:
%and = and i16 %a, -64
%cmp = icmp eq i16 %and, 64
%conv = zext i1 %cmp to i16
ret i16 %conv
}
define i16 @testShiftBits_11(i16 %a) {
entry:
%cmp = icmp ugt i16 %a, 63
%conv = zext i1 %cmp to i16
ret i16 %conv
}
define i16 @testShiftBits_12(i16 %a) {
entry:
%cmp = icmp ult i16 %a, 64
%conv = zext i1 %cmp to i16
ret i16 %conv
}
```
The attached diff file shows the piece code in TargetLowering that is responsible for the generation of shifts in relation to the IR above.
Before applying this patch, shifts will be generated to replace non-legal icmp immediates. However, shifts may be undesired if they are even more expensive for the target.
For all my previous patches in this series (cited above) I added test cases for the MSP430 target. However, in this case, the target is not suitable for showing improvements related with this patch, because the MSP430 does not implement "isLegalICmpImmediate". The default implementation returns always true, therefore the patched code in TargetLowering is never reached for that target. Targets implementing both "isLegalICmpImmediate" and "getShiftAmountThreshold" will benefit from this.
The differential effect of this patch can only be shown for the MSP430 by temporarily implementing "isLegalICmpImmediate" to return false for large immediates. This is simulated with the implementation of a command line flag that was incorporated in D69975
This patch belongs to a initiative to "relax" the generation of shifts by LLVM for targets requiring it
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, asl
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: lenary, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69326
Currently there is no way to describe the data that is not a part of an output section.
It can be a data used to align sections or to fill the gaps with something,
or another kind of custom data. In this patch I suggest a way to describe it. It looks like that:
```
Sections:
- Type: CustomFiller
Pattern: "CCDD"
Size: 4
- Name: .bar
Type: SHT_PROGBITS
Content: "FF"
```
I.e. I've added a kind of synthetic section with a synthetic type "CustomFiller".
In the code it is called a "SyntheticFiller", which is "a synthetic section which
might be used to write the custom data around regular output sections. It does
not present in the sections header table, but it might affect the output file size and
program headers produced. Think about it as about piece of data."
`SyntheticFiller` currently has a `Pattern` field and a `Size` field + an optional `Name`.
When written, `Size` of bytes in the output will be filled with a `Pattern`.
It is possible to reference a named filler it by name from the program headers description,
just like any other normal section.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69709
Summary:Add the setTargetNode member function to class DGEdge.
Authored By:etiotto
Reviewer:bmahjour, Whitney, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, fhahn, kbarton,
dmgreen
Reviewed By:Meinersbur
Subscribers:dexonsmith, kristina, llvm-commits
Tag:LLVM
Differential Revision:https://reviews.llvm.org/D68474
This reverts commit bcbb121ff6.
Using 'ls -o' is not compatible way to fix the problem. FreeBSD and OSX
version of 'ls' do not support -o flag and test gets failed on these
platforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69317
The _m64 type is represented in IR as <1 x i64>. The x86-64 ABI
on Linux passes <1 x i64> as a double. MMX intrinsics use x86_mmx
type in IR.These things result in a lot of bitcasts in mmx code.
There's another instcombine that tries to turn bitcast <1 x i64>
to double into extractelement and a bitcast.
The combine here tries to reverse this extractelement conversion
if we see an mmx type.
Re-try rGef02831f0a4e (reverted due to use-after-free), but bail out completely
if we encounter an unexpected llvm.invariant.start.
We gather a set of white-listed instructions in isAllocSiteRemovable() and then
replace/erase them. But we don't know in general if the instructions in the set
have uses amongst themselves, so order of deletion makes a difference.
There's already a special-case for the llvm.objectsize intrinsic, so add another
for llvm.invariant.end.
Should fix:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43723
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69977
Summary: A helper function to get argument number of a arg operand Use.
Reviewers: jdoerfert, uenoku
Subscribers: hiraditya, lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66844
The other paremeters appear to be sufficient to determine which modules
have just been loaded and need to be removed, so stop collecting and
sending in that set explicitly.
Summary: When using the split sp adjustment and using the frame-pointer
we were still emitting CFI CFA directives based on the sp value. The
final sp-based offset also didn't reflect the two-stage sp adjust. There
remain CFI issues that aren't related to the split sp adjustment, and
thus will be addressed in a separate patch.
Reviewers: asb, lenary, shiva0217
Reviewed By: lenary, shiva0217
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69385
Summary: Adds tests necessary to properly show the impact of other
patches that affect the emission of CFI directives.
Reviewers: asb, lenary
Reviewed By: lenary
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69721
We gather a set of white-listed instructions in isAllocSiteRemovable() and then
replace/erase them. But we don't know in general if the instructions in the set
have uses amongst themselves, so order of deletion makes a difference.
There's already a special-case for the llvm.objectsize intrinsic, so add another
for llvm.invariant.end.
Should fix:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43723
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69977
Summary:This patch fixes the following warnings uncovered by PVS
Studio:
/home/xbolva00/LLVM/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp
353 warn V612 An unconditional 'return' within a loop.
/home/xbolva00/LLVM/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp
456 err V502 Perhaps the '?:' operator works in a different way than it
was expected. The '?:' operator has a lower priority than the '=='
operator.
Authored By:etiotto
Reviewer:Meinersbur, kbarton, bmahjour, Whitney, xbolva00
Reviewed By:xbolva00
Subscribers:hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tag:LLVM
Differential Revision:https://reviews.llvm.org/D69821
This recommits 11ed1c0239 (reverted in
9f08ce0d21 for failing an assert) with a fix:
tryToWidenMemory() now first checks if the widening decision is to interleave,
thus maintaining previous behavior where tryToInterleaveMemory() was called
first, giving priority to interleave decisions over widening/scalarization. This
commit adds the test case that exposed this bug as a LIT.
QingShan Zhang