Even with the fix from r291630, this still causes problems. I get
widespread assertion failures in the Swift runtime's WeakRefCount::increment()
function. I sent a reduced testcase in reply to the commit.
llvm-svn: 292242
This was reverted because it would miscompile code where the cmp had
multiple uses. That was due to a deficiency in the existing code, which
was fixed in r291630 (see the PR for details).
This re-commit includes an extra test for the kind of code that got
miscompiled: @test_sub_1_setcc_jcc.
llvm-svn: 291640
We would miscompile the following:
void g(int);
int f(volatile long long *p) {
bool b = __atomic_fetch_add(p, 1, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) < 0;
g(b ? 12 : 34);
return b ? 56 : 78;
}
into
pushq %rax
lock incq (%rdi)
movl $12, %eax
movl $34, %edi
cmovlel %eax, %edi
callq g(int)
testq %rax, %rax <---- Bad.
movl $56, %ecx
movl $78, %eax
cmovsl %ecx, %eax
popq %rcx
retq
because the code failed to take into account that the cmp has multiple
uses, replaced one of them, and left the other one comparing garbage.
llvm-svn: 291630
Not sure whether it causes and ASAN false positive or whether it
actually leads to incorrect code or whether it even exposes bad code.
Hans, I'll get you instructions to reproduce this.
llvm-svn: 290066
atomic_load_add returns the value before addition, but sets EFLAGS based on the
result of the addition. That means it's setting the flags based on effectively
subtracting C from the value at x, which is also what the outer cmp does.
This targets a pattern that occurs frequently with reference counting pointers:
void decrement(long volatile *ptr) {
if (_InterlockedDecrement(ptr) == 0)
release();
}
Clang would previously compile it (for 32-bit at -Os) as:
00000000 <?decrement@@YAXPCJ@Z>:
0: 8b 44 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%eax
4: 31 c9 xor %ecx,%ecx
6: 49 dec %ecx
7: f0 0f c1 08 lock xadd %ecx,(%eax)
b: 83 f9 01 cmp $0x1,%ecx
e: 0f 84 00 00 00 00 je 14 <?decrement@@YAXPCJ@Z+0x14>
14: c3 ret
and with this patch it becomes:
00000000 <?decrement@@YAXPCJ@Z>:
0: 8b 44 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%eax
4: f0 ff 08 lock decl (%eax)
7: 0f 84 00 00 00 00 je d <?decrement@@YAXPCJ@Z+0xd>
d: c3 ret
(Equivalent variants with _InterlockedExchangeAdd, std::atomic<>'s fetch_add
or pre-decrement operator generate the same code.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27781
llvm-svn: 289955
An identity COPY like this:
%AL = COPY %AL, %EAX<imp-def>
has no semantic effect, but encodes liveness information: Further users
of %EAX only depend on this instruction even though it does not define
the full register.
Replace the COPY with a KILL instruction in those cases to maintain this
liveness information. (This reverts a small part of r238588 but this
time adds a comment explaining why a KILL instruction is useful).
llvm-svn: 274952
Re-apply r265450 which caused PR27245 and was reverted in r265559
because of a wrong generalization: the fetch_and_add->add_and_fetch
combine only works in specific, but pretty common, cases:
(icmp slt x, 0) -> (icmp sle (add x, 1), 0)
(icmp sge x, 0) -> (icmp sgt (add x, 1), 0)
(icmp sle x, 0) -> (icmp slt (sub x, 1), 0)
(icmp sgt x, 0) -> (icmp sge (sub x, 1), 0)
Original Message:
We only generate LOCKed versions of add/sub when the result is unused.
It often happens that the result is used, but only by a comparison. We
can optimize those out by reusing EFLAGS, which lets us use the proper
instructions, instead of having to fallback to LXADD.
Instead of doing this as an MI peephole (as we do for the other
non-LOCKed (really, non-MR) forms), do it in ISel. It becomes quite
tricky later.
This also makes it eventually possible to stop expanding and/or/xor
if the only user is an icmp (also see D18141).
This uses the LOCK ISD opcodes added by r262244.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17633
llvm-svn: 265636
We only generate LOCKed versions of add/sub when the result is unused.
It often happens that the result is used, but only by a comparison. We
can optimize those out by reusing EFLAGS, which lets us use the proper
instructions, instead of having to fallback to LXADD.
Instead of doing this as an MI peephole (as we do for the other
non-LOCKed (really, non-MR) forms), do it in ISel. It becomes quite
tricky later.
This also makes it eventually possible to stop expanding and/or/xor
if the only user is an icmp (also see D18141).
This uses the LOCK ISD opcodes added by r262244.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17633
llvm-svn: 265450
Bob Wilson