name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
The work on this project was left in an unfinished and inconsistent state.
Hopefully someone will eventually get a chance to implement this feature, but
in the meantime, it is better to put things back the way the were. I have
left support in the bitcode reader to handle the case-range bitcode format,
so that we do not lose bitcode compatibility with the llvm 3.3 release.
This reverts the following commits: 155464, 156374, 156377, 156613, 156704,
156757, 156804 156808, 156985, 157046, 157112, 157183, 157315, 157384, 157575,
157576, 157586, 157612, 157810, 157814, 157815, 157880, 157881, 157882, 157884,
157887, 157901, 158979, 157987, 157989, 158986, 158997, 159076, 159101, 159100,
159200, 159201, 159207, 159527, 159532, 159540, 159583, 159618, 159658, 159659,
159660, 159661, 159703, 159704, 160076, 167356, 172025, 186736
llvm-svn: 190328
This patch implements vector support for select instruction and adds specific vector instructions : shuffle and insertelement. (tests are also included)
and functions lle_X_memset, lle_X_memcpy added.
Done by Veselov, Yuri (mailto:Yuri.Veselov@intel.com)
llvm-svn: 189735
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
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
IntItem cleanup. IntItemBase, IntItemConstantIntImp and IntItem merged into IntItem. All arithmetic operators was propogated from APInt. Also added comparison operators <,>,<=,>=. Currently you will find set of macros that propogates operators from APInt to IntItem in the beginning of IntegerSubset. Note that THESE MACROS WILL REMOVED after all passes will case-ranges compatible. Also note that these macros much smaller pain that something like this:
if (V->getValue().ugt(AnotherV->getValue()) { ... }
These changes made IntItem full featured integer object. It allows to make IntegerSubset class generic (move out all ConstantInt references inside and add unit-tests) in next commits.
llvm-svn: 157810
Implemented IntItem - the wrapper around APInt. Why not to use APInt item directly right now?
1. It will very difficult to implement case ranges as series of small patches. We got several large and heavy patches. Each patch will about 90-120 kb. If you replace ConstantInt with APInt in SwitchInst you will need to changes at the same time all Readers,Writers and absolutely all passes that uses SwitchInst.
2. We can implement APInt pool inside and save memory space. E.g. we use several switches that works with 256 bit items (switch on signatures, or strings). We can avoid value duplicates in this case.
3. IntItem can be easyly easily replaced with APInt.
4. Currenly we can interpret IntItem both as ConstantInt and as APInt. It allows to provide SwitchInst methods that works with ConstantInt for non-updated passes.
Why I need it right now? Currently I need to update SimplifyCFG pass (EqualityComparisons). I need to work with APInts directly a lot, so peaces of code
ConstantInt *V = ...;
if (V->getValue().ugt(AnotherV->getValue()) {
...
}
will look awful. Much more better this way:
IntItem V = ConstantIntVal->getValue();
if (AnotherV < V) {
}
Of course any reviews are welcome.
P.S.: I'm also going to rename ConstantRangesSet to IntegersSubset, and CRSBuilder to IntegersSubsetMapping (allows to map individual subsets of integers to the BasicBlocks).
Since in future these classes will founded on APInt, it will possible to use them in more generic ways.
llvm-svn: 157576
Renamed methods caseBegin, caseEnd and caseDefault with case_begin, case_end, and case_default.
Added some notes relative to case iterators.
llvm-svn: 152532
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120130/136146.html
Implemented CaseIterator and it solves almost all described issues: we don't need to mix operand/case/successor indexing anymore. Base iterator class is implemented as a template since it may be initialized either from "const SwitchInst*" or from "SwitchInst*".
ConstCaseIt is just a read-only iterator.
CaseIt is read-write iterator; it allows to change case successor and case value.
Usage of iterator allows totally remove resolveXXXX methods. All indexing convertions done automatically inside the iterator's getters.
Main way of iterator usage looks like this:
SwitchInst *SI = ... // intialize it somehow
for (SwitchInst::CaseIt i = SI->caseBegin(), e = SI->caseEnd(); i != e; ++i) {
BasicBlock *BB = i.getCaseSuccessor();
ConstantInt *V = i.getCaseValue();
// Do something.
}
If you want to convert case number to TerminatorInst successor index, just use getSuccessorIndex iterator's method.
If you want initialize iterator from TerminatorInst successor index, use CaseIt::fromSuccessorIndex(...) method.
There are also related changes in llvm-clients: klee and clang.
llvm-svn: 152297
The purpose of refactoring is to hide operand roles from SwitchInst user (programmer). If you want to play with operands directly, probably you will need lower level methods than SwitchInst ones (TerminatorInst or may be User). After this patch we can reorganize SwitchInst operands and successors as we want.
What was done:
1. Changed semantics of index inside the getCaseValue method:
getCaseValue(0) means "get first case", not a condition. Use getCondition() if you want to resolve the condition. I propose don't mix SwitchInst case indexing with low level indexing (TI successors indexing, User's operands indexing), since it may be dangerous.
2. By the same reason findCaseValue(ConstantInt*) returns actual number of case value. 0 means first case, not default. If there is no case with given value, ErrorIndex will returned.
3. Added getCaseSuccessor method. I propose to avoid usage of TerminatorInst::getSuccessor if you want to resolve case successor BB. Use getCaseSuccessor instead, since internal SwitchInst organization of operands/successors is hidden and may be changed in any moment.
4. Added resolveSuccessorIndex and resolveCaseIndex. The main purpose of these methods is to see how case successors are really mapped in TerminatorInst.
4.1 "resolveSuccessorIndex" was created if you need to level down from SwitchInst to TerminatorInst. It returns TerminatorInst's successor index for given case successor.
4.2 "resolveCaseIndex" converts low level successors index to case index that curresponds to the given successor.
Note: There are also related compatability fix patches for dragonegg, klee, llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, safecode, clang.
llvm-svn: 149481
the new predicates I added) instead of going through a context and doing a
pointer comparison. Besides being cheaper, this allows a smart compiler
to turn the if sequence into a switch.
llvm-svn: 83297
Craig Topper