GCC 4.9 gives the following warning:
warning: enumeral and non-enumeral type in conditional expression
Cast the enumeral value to an integer within the ternary operation. NFC.
llvm-svn: 227692
Summary:
This variable is only used inside an assert. This breaks builds with
asserts disabled.
OK for trunk?
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7314
llvm-svn: 227691
This patch adds shuffle mask decodes for integer zero extends (pmovzx** and movq xmm,xmm) and scalar float/double loads/moves (movss/movsd).
Also adds shuffle mask decodes for integer loads (movd/movq).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7228
llvm-svn: 227688
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
llvm-svn: 227685
This adds some comments and splits the flag calculation on type boundaries to
make the table more readable. Addresses some post-commit review comments to SVN
r227603. NFC.
llvm-svn: 227670
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
Now that -mstack-probe-size is piped through to the backend via the function
attribute as on Windows x86, honour the value to permit handling of non-default
values for stack probes. This is needed /Gs with the clang-cl driver or
-mstack-probe-size with the clang driver when targeting Windows on ARM.
llvm-svn: 227667
Patch by: Igor Laevsky
"Simple refactoring. This is done in preparation to support verification of invokable statepoints."
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7276
llvm-svn: 227640
Also revert r227489 since it didn't actually fix the thing I thought I
was fixing (since the test case was targeting the wrong architecture
initially). The change might be correct & demonstrated by other test
cases, but it's not a priority for me to find those test cases right
now.
Filed PR22417 for the failure.
llvm-svn: 227632
MSDN's x64 software conventions page says that this is one of the fixed
list of legal epilogues:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tawsa7cb.aspx
Presumably this is how the unwinder distinguishes epilogue jumps from
in-function control flow.
Also normalize the way we place "## TAILCALL" comments on such jumps.
llvm-svn: 227611
Add tie breaker to colorChainSet() sort so that processing order doesn't
depend on std::set order, which depends on pointer order, which is
unstable from run to run.
No test case as this is nearly impossible to reproduce.
Phabricator Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7265
Patch by Geoff Berry <gberry@codeaurora.org>!
llvm-svn: 227606
If the original FPU specification involved a restricted VFP unit (d16), ensure
that we reset the functionality when we encounter a new FPU type. In
particular, if the user specified vfpv3-d16, but switched to a VFPv3 (which has
32 double precision registers), we would fail to reset the D16 feature, and
treat it as being equivalent to vfpv3-d16.
llvm-svn: 227603
In preparation for adding PDB support to LLVM, this moves the
DWARF parsing code to its own subdirectory under DebugInfo, and
renames LLVMDebugInfo to LLVMDebugInfoDWARF.
This is purely a mechanical / build system change.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7269
Reviewed by: Eric Christopher
llvm-svn: 227586
The FPU directive permits the user to switch the target FPU, enabling
instructions that would be otherwise unavailable. However, when configuring the
new subtarget features, we would not enable the implied functions for newer
FPUs. This would result in invalid rejection of valid input. Ensure that we
inherit the implied FPU functionality when enabling newer versions of the FPU.
Fortunately, these are mostly hierarchical, unlike the CPUs.
Addresses PR22395.
llvm-svn: 227584
analyses back into the LTO code generator.
The pass manager builder (and the transforms library in general)
shouldn't be referencing the target machine at all.
This makes the LTO population work like the others -- the data layout
and target transform info need to be pre-populated.
llvm-svn: 227576
Chandler Carruth