Summary:
No more (potenital) false negatives due to red zones or fake stack
frames.
Reviewers: kcc, samsonov
Reviewed By: samsonov
CC: llvm-commits, samsonov
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2359
llvm-svn: 196778
Summary:
The MSA ld.[bhwd] and st.[bhwd] instructions scale the immediate by the
element size before use as an offset. The offset must therefore be a
multiple of the element size to be valid in these instructions. However,
an unaligned base address is valid in MSA.
This commit causes the compiler to emit valid code when the calculated
offset is not a multiple of the element size by accounting for the offset
using addiu and using a zero offset in the load/store.
Depends on D2338
Reviewers: matheusalmeida
Reviewed By: matheusalmeida
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2339
llvm-svn: 196777
Changed from:
keyword '__is_empty' will be treated as an identifier for the remainder of the translation unit
To:
keyword '__is_empty' will be made available as an identifier for the remainder of the translation unit
This is a more accurate description of clang's keyword compatibility feature,
given that some of the keywords are turned into context-sensitive keywords
(e.g. REVERTIBLE_TYPE_TRAIT) rather than being fully disabled.
llvm-svn: 196776
Summary:
The immediate in these instructions is scaled before use as an offset.
They therefore have a wider reach than ld.b/st.b.
Reviewers: matheusalmeida
Reviewed By: matheusalmeida
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2338
llvm-svn: 196775
As we can't make a complete solution now it has been decided to enable .set directive to handle long jump expressions. This will cause parser to report errors when parsing integer based register assignments, for example:
.set r3, will be reported as error. Still, the need for expressions is higher priority as the integer based register assignments are Mips specific and can be avoided using register names.
llvm-svn: 196773
Testing has revealed that large integral constants (i.e. > INT64_MAX)
are always mangled as-if they are negative, even in places where it
would not make sense for them to be negative (like non-type template
parameters of type unsigned long long).
To address this, we change the way we model number mangling: always
mangle as-if our number is an int64_t. This should result in correct
results when we have large unsigned numbers.
N.B. Bizarrely, things that are 32-bit displacements like vbptr offsets
are mangled as-if they are unsigned 32-bit numbers. This is a pretty
egregious waste of space, it would be a 4x savings if we could mangle it
like a signed 32-bit number. Instead, we explicitly cast these
displacements to uint32_t and let the mangler proceed.
llvm-svn: 196771
not support as a possible reason for choosing GCC instead of Clang (and vice
versa). Weaken some of the claimed advantages of Clang in light of GCC
improvements.
llvm-svn: 196758
Before this patch GetOrCreateLLVMFunction would add a decl to
DeferredDeclsToEmit even when it was being called by the function trying to
emit that decl.
llvm-svn: 196753
While testing our ability to mangle large constants (PR18175), I
incidentally discovered that we did not properly mangle enums correctly.
Previously, we would append the width of the enum in bytes after the
type-tag differentiator.
This would mean "enum : short" would be mangled as 'W2' while "enum :
char" would be mangled as 'W1'. Upon testing this with several versions
of MSVC, I found that this did not match their behavior: they always use
'W4'.
N.B. Quick testing uncovered that undname allows different numbers to
follow the 'W' in the following way:
'W0' -> "enum char"
'W1' -> "enum unsigned char"
'W2' -> "enum short"
'W3' -> "enum unsigned short"
'W4' -> "enum"
'W5' -> "enum unsigned int"
'W6' -> "enum long"
'W7' -> "enum unsigned long"
However this scheme appears abandoned, I cannot get MSVC to trigger it.
Furthermore, it's incomplete: it doesn't handle "bool" or "long long".
llvm-svn: 196752
/ALTERNATENAME is a rarely-used, undocumented command line option that is
needed to link LLD for release build. It seems that the option is for defining
an weak alias; /alternatename:foo=bar defines weak symbol "foo" for "bar".
If "foo" is defined in an input file, it'll be linked normally and the command
line option will have no effect. If it's not defined, "foo" will be handled
as an alias for "bar".
This patch implements the parser for the option. The actual weak alias handling
will be implemented in a separate patch.
llvm-svn: 196743
VerifyDiagnosticConsumer is long-lived so the two additional members shouldn't
have any impact on release builds.
The clang headers are now free of NDEBUG conditionals. Let's keep it that way!
Note that they're not yet structurally stable, pending a few fixes in the LLVM
core headers.
llvm-svn: 196739
Add -verify and update the test directives to match current expectations.
Also add a FIXME to an ObjC test that has expected-* directives but no -verify.
llvm-svn: 196737
Going by PR6913 it looks like this one can no longer reach CodeGen so remove
the redundant -emit-llvm case and treat it as an ordinary Sema test.
llvm-svn: 196736
Due to a missing -verify, 2007-10-01-BuildArrayRef.c was a no-op.
The message was changed 5 years ago so also update the test to reflect the new wording.
llvm-svn: 196729
When trying to eliminate an "sub sp, sp, #N" instruction by folding
it into an existing push/pop using dummy registers, we need to account
for the fact that this might affect precisely how "fp" gets set in the
prologue.
We were attempting this, but assuming that *whenever* we performed a
fold it would make a difference. This is false, for example, in:
push {r4, r7, lr}
add fp, sp, #4
vpush {d8}
sub sp, sp, #8
we can fold the "sub" into the "vpush", forming "vpush {d7, d8}".
However, in that case the "add fp" instruction mustn't change, which
we were getting wrong before.
Should fix PR18160.
llvm-svn: 196725
We already support using "r" on 64-bit values (a GPRPair is
allocated), but Sema doesn't know this yet so issues a warning. This
should fix it.
llvm-svn: 196724
Add back the test that was triggering the assertion (which I removed mistakenly thinking it was triggering just a warning and not an assertion). My error was brought to my attention by Rafael (Thanks!).
llvm-svn: 196721
Alexey Samsonov