r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.
Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.
However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
apart, but they seem entirely good.
In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
I spotted them.
In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
dependent.
This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
changes.
llvm-svn: 167222
getIntPtrType support for multiple address spaces via a pointer type,
and also introduced a crasher bug in the constant folder reported in
PR14233.
These commits also contained several problems that should really be
addressed before they are re-committed. I have avoided reverting various
cleanups to the DataLayout APIs that are reasonable to have moving
forward in order to reduce the amount of churn, and minimize the number
of commits that were reverted. I've also manually updated merge
conflicts and manually arranged for the getIntPtrType function to stay
in DataLayout and to be defined in a plausible way after this revert.
Thanks to Duncan for working through this exact strategy with me, and
Nick Lewycky for tracking down the really annoying crasher this
triggered. (Test case to follow in its own commit.)
After discussing with Duncan extensively, and based on a note from
Micah, I'm going to continue to back out some more of the more
problematic patches in this series in order to ensure we go into the
LLVM 3.2 branch with a reasonable story here. I'll send a note to
llvmdev explaining what's going on and why.
Summary of reverted revisions:
r166634: Fix a compiler warning with an unused variable.
r166607: Add some cleanup to the DataLayout changes requested by
Chandler.
r166596: Revert "Back out r166591, not sure why this made it through
since I cancelled the command. Bleh, sorry about this!
r166591: Delete a directory that wasn't supposed to be checked in yet.
r166578: Add in support for getIntPtrType to get the pointer type based
on the address space.
llvm-svn: 167221
instsimplify+inline strategy.
The crux of the problem is that instsimplify was reasonably relying on
an invariant that is true within any single function, but is no longer
true mid-inline the way we use it. This invariant is that an argument
pointer != a local (alloca) pointer.
The fix is really light weight though, and allows instsimplify to be
resiliant to these situations: when checking the relation ships to
function arguments, ensure that the argumets come from the same
function. If they come from different functions, then none of these
assumptions hold. All credit to Benjamin Kramer for coming up with this
clever solution to the problem.
llvm-svn: 161410
Original commit message for r153521 (aka r153423):
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153587
undefined behavior, which Rafael was kind enough to fix.
Original commit message for r153423:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153521
Original commit message:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loading a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153452
constant-offsets of a common base using the generic GEP-walking logic
I added for computing pointer differences in the same situation.
llvm-svn: 153419
inbounds GEPs. This isn't really necessary for simplifying pointer
differences, but I'm planning to re-use the same code to simplify
pointer comparisons where it is necessary. Since real code almost
exclusively uses inbounds GEPs, it doesn't seem worth it to support the
extra complexity of turning it on and off. If anyone would like that
back, feel free to shout. Note that instcombine will still catch any of
these patterns.
llvm-svn: 153418
spotted by inspection, and I've crafted no test case that triggers it on
my machine, but some of the windows builders are hitting what looks like
memory corruption, so *something* is amiss here.
This patch takes a more generalized approach to eliminating
double-visits. Imagine code such as:
%x = ...
%y = add %x, 1
%z = add %x, %y
You can imagine that if we simplify %x, we would add %y and %z to the
list. If the use-chain order happens to cause us to add them in reverse
order, we could pull %y off first, and simplify it, adding %z to the
list. We now have %z on the list twice, and will reference it after it
is deleted.
Currently, all my test cases happen to not trigger this, likely due to
the use-chain ordering, but there seems no guarantee that such
a situation could not occur, so we should handle it correctly.
Again, if anyone knows how to craft a testcase that actually triggers
this, please let me know.
llvm-svn: 153397
worklist. This can happen in theory when an instruction uses itself,
such as a PHI node. This was spotted by inspection, and unfortunately
I've not been able to come up with a test case that would trigger it. If
anyone has ideas, let me know...
llvm-svn: 153396
bit simpler by handling a common case explicitly.
Also, refactor the implementation to use a worklist based walk of the
recursive users, rather than trying to use value handles to detect and
recover from RAUWs during the recursive descent. This fixes a very
subtle bug in the previous implementation where degenerate control flow
structures could cause mutually recursive instructions (PHI nodes) to
collapse in just such a way that From became equal to To after some
amount of recursion. At that point, we hit the inf-loop that the assert
at the top attempted to guard against. This problem is defined away when
not using value handles in this manner. There are lots of comments
claiming that the WeakVH will protect against just this sort of error,
but they're not accurate about the actual implementation of WeakVHs,
which do still track RAUWs.
I don't have any test case for the bug this fixes because it requires
running the recursive simplification on unreachable phi nodes. I've no
way to either run this or easily write an input that triggers it. It was
found when using instruction simplification inside the inliner when
running over the nightly test-suite.
llvm-svn: 153393
not attched to a basic block or function. There are conservatively
correct answers in these cases, and this makes the analysis more useful
in contexts where we have a partially formed bit of IR.
I don't have any way to test this directly... suggestions welcome here,
but I'm not seeing anything sadly. I only found this using a subsequent
patch to the inliner which runs instsimplify on partially inlined
instructions, and even then only on a quite large program. I never got
a reasonable testcase out of it, and anything I do get is likely to be
quite fragile due to requiring an interaction of two different passes,
and the only result being a segfault if it goes wrong.
llvm-svn: 153176
theoretical fix since it only matters for types with >= 2^63 bits (!) and also
only matters if pointers have more than 64 bits, which is not supported anyway.
llvm-svn: 152831
take a TargetLibraryInfo parameter. Internally, rather than passing TD, TLI
and DT parameters around all over the place, introduce a struct for holding
them.
llvm-svn: 152623
offset accumulation to use a boring APInt instead of ConstantExprs.
I didn't go all the way to an 'int64_t' because I wanted APInt to handle
any magic required to properly wrap the arithmetic when the pointer
width is <64 bits. If there is a significant penalty from using APInt
here, first off WTF, and secondly let me know and I'll do the math by
hand.
I've left one layer still operating w/ ConstantExpr because it makes the
interface quite a bit simpler, and that one isn't iterative so has much
lower cost.
I suppose this may potentially speed up some strang compilation
situations, but I don't really expect much. It should have no functional
impact either way.
llvm-svn: 152590
Typically instcombine has handled this, but pointer differences show up
in several contexts where we would like to get constant folding, and
cannot afford to run instcombine. Specifically, I'm working on improving
the constant folding of arguments used in inline cost analysis with
instsimplify.
Doing this in instsimplify implies some algorithm changes. We have to
handle multiple layers of all-constant GEPs because instsimplify cannot
fold them into a single GEP the way instcombine can. Also, we're only
interested in all-constant GEPs. The result is that this doesn't really
replace the instcombine logic, it's just complimentary and focused on
constant folding.
Reviewed on IRC by Benjamin Kramer.
llvm-svn: 152555
The 'CmpInst::isFalseWhenEqual' function returns 'false' for values other than
simply equality. For instance, it returns 'false' for <= or >=. This isn't the
correct behavior for this transformation, which is checking for strict equality
and non-equality. It was causing the gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c test
to fail because it would completely (and incorrectly) optimize a whole function
into a 'ret i32 0'.
llvm-svn: 152497
a common collection of methods on Value, and share their implementation.
We had two variations in two different places already, and I need the
third variation for inline cost estimation.
Reviewed by Duncan Sands on IRC, but further comments here welcome.
llvm-svn: 152490
Duncan Sands