Commit Graph

9 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Chandler Carruth ba9319925e Teach SROA to cope with wrapper aggregates. These show up a lot in ABI
type coercion code, especially when targetting ARM. Things like [1
x i32] instead of i32 are very common there.

The goal of this logic is to ensure that when we are picking an alloca
type, we look through such wrapper aggregates and across any zero-length
aggregate elements to find the simplest type possible to form a type
partition.

This logic should (generally speaking) rarely fire. It only ends up
kicking in when an alloca is accessed using two different types (for
instance, i32 and float), and the underlying alloca type has wrapper
aggregates around it. I noticed a significant amount of this occurring
looking at stepanov_abstraction generated code for arm, and suspect it
happens elsewhere as well.

Note that this doesn't yet address truly heinous IR productions such as
PR14059 is concerning. Those result in mismatched *sizes* of types in
addition to mismatched access and alloca types.

llvm-svn: 165870
2012-10-13 10:49:33 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 43c8b46deb Teach the integer-promotion rewrite strategy to be endianness aware.
Sorry for this being broken so long. =/

As part of this, switch all of the existing tests to be Little Endian,
which is the behavior I was asserting in them anyways! Add in a new
big-endian test that checks the interesting behavior there.

Another part of this is to tighten the rules abotu when we perform the
full-integer promotion. This logic now rejects cases where there fully
promoted integer is a non-multiple-of-8 bitwidth or cases where the
loads or stores touch bits which are in the allocated space of the
alloca but are not loaded or stored when accessing the integer. Sadly,
these aren't really observable today as the rest of the pass will
already ensure the invariants hold. However, the latter situation is
likely to become a potential concern in the future.

Thanks to Benjamin and Duncan for early review of this patch. I'm still
looking into whether there are further endianness issues, please let me
know if anyone sees BE failures persisting past this.

llvm-svn: 165219
2012-10-04 10:39:28 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 08e5f49f90 Fix an issue where we failed to adjust the alignment constraint on
a memcpy to reflect that '0' has a different meaning when applied to
a load or store. Now we correctly use underaligned loads and stores for
the test case added.

llvm-svn: 165101
2012-10-03 08:26:28 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 4b2b38d398 Try to use a better set of abstractions for computing the alignment
necessary during rewriting. As part of this, fix a real think-o here
where we might have left off an alignment specification when the address
is in fact underaligned. I haven't come up with any way to trigger this,
as there is always some other factor that reduces the alignment, but it
certainly might have been an observable bug in some way I can't think
of. This also slightly changes the strategy for placing explicit
alignments on loads and stores to only do so when the alignment does not
match that required by the ABI. This causes a few redundant alignments
to go away from test cases.

I've also added a couple of tests that really push on the alignment that
we end up with on loads and stores. More to come here as I try to fix an
underlying bug I have conjectured and produced test cases for, although
it's not clear if this bug is the one currently hitting dragonegg's
gcc47 bootstrap.

llvm-svn: 165100
2012-10-03 08:14:02 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 9866b97f94 Fix more misspellings found by Duncan during review.
llvm-svn: 164940
2012-10-01 12:30:45 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 176ca71a82 Fix several issues with alignment. We weren't always accounting for type
alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.

llvm-svn: 164937
2012-10-01 12:16:54 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 903790eff5 Fix a somewhat surprising miscompile where code relying on an ABI
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.

Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.

Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]

llvm-svn: 164891
2012-09-29 10:41:21 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 3e4273dd0c When rewriting the pointer operand to a load or store which has
alignment guarantees attached, re-compute the alignment so that we
consider offsets which impact alignment.

llvm-svn: 164690
2012-09-26 10:45:28 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 871ba7249c Teach all of the loads, stores, memsets and memcpys created by the
rewriter in SROA to carry a proper alignment. This involves
interrogating various sources of alignment, etc. This is a more complete
and principled fix to PR13920 as well as related bugs pointed out by Eli
in review and by inspection in the area.

Also by inspection fix the integer and vector promotion paths to create
aligned loads and stores. I still need to work up test cases for
these... Sorry for the delay, they were found purely by inspection.

llvm-svn: 164689
2012-09-26 10:27:46 +00:00