r243250 appeared to break clang/test/Analysis/dead-store.c on one of the build
slaves, but I couldn't reproduce this failure locally. Probably a false
positive as I saw this test was broken by r243246 or r243247 too but passed
later without people fixing anything.
llvm-svn: 243253
Summary:
This patch updates TargetTransformInfoImplCRTPBase::getGEPCost to consider
addressing modes. It now returns TCC_Free when the GEP can be completely folded
to an addresing mode.
I started this patch as I refactored SLSR. Function isGEPFoldable looks common
and is indeed used by some WIP of mine. So I extracted that logic to getGEPCost.
Furthermore, I noticed getGEPCost wasn't directly tested anywhere. The best
testing bed seems CostModel, but its getInstructionCost method invokes
getAddressComputationCost for GEPs which provides very coarse estimation. So
this patch also makes getInstructionCost call the updated getGEPCost for GEPs.
This change inevitably breaks some tests because the cost model changes, but
nothing looks seriously wrong -- if we believe the new cost model is the right
way to go, these tests should be updated.
This patch is not perfect yet -- the comments in some tests need to be updated.
I want to know whether this is a right approach before fixing those details.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: aschwaighofer, llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9819
llvm-svn: 243250
Around 10 year ago Chris limited this code to a single iteration by just
dropping a break into the loop body. We now make the number of trim iterations
a compile time constant to be able to play with it and see if this can
improve the bugpoint results. We currently use with '3' still a small and
conservative value, but this can be adjusted in the future, if needed.
I tried to look for a trivial test case, but did not succeed yet.
llvm-svn: 243247
There is currently no support in MSVC for using i128 as an integer
literal suffix. In fact, there appears to be no evidence that they have
ever supported this feature in any of their compilers. This was an over
generalization of their actual feature and is a nasty source of bugs.
Why is it a source of bugs? Because most code in clang expects that
evaluation of an integer constant expression won't give them something
that 'long long' can't represent. Instead of providing a meaningful
feature, i128 gives us cute ways of exploding the compiler.
llvm-svn: 243243
Some tools used to rely on a global static variable to keep track of the
return value for main(). I changed llvm-cxxdump to use exit(1)
and Rafael shortly after did the same with llvm-readobj. This is
(yet) another step towards the goal.
llvm-svn: 243240
Summary:
The goal is to start moving us closer to the model where
RuntimePointerChecking will compute and store the checks. Then a client
can filter the check according to its requirements and then use the
filtered list of checks with addRuntimeCheck.
Before the patch, this is all done in addRuntimeCheck. So the patch
starts to split up addRuntimeCheck while providing the old API under
what's more or less a wrapper now.
The new underlying addRuntimeCheck takes a collection of checks now,
expands the code for the bounds then generates the code for the checks.
I am not completely happy with making expandBounds static because now it
needs so many explicit arguments but I don't want to make the type
PointerBounds part of LAI. This should get fixed when addRuntimeCheck
is moved to LoopVersioning where it really belongs, IMO.
Audited the assembly diff of the testsuite (including externals). There
is a tiny bit of assembly churn that is due to the different order the
code for the bounds is expanded now
(MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/bison/conflicts.s and with LoopDist
on 456.hmmer/fast_algorithms.s).
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: klimek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11205
llvm-svn: 243239
This boilerplate code was necessary to move arguments between threads in
C++98, lambdas make this much easier. No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 243227
RecordLayoutBuilder is an inaccruate name because it does not build all
records. It only builds layouts for targets using the Itanium C++ ABI.
llvm-svn: 243225
This lets us pass functors (and lambdas) without void * tricks. On the
downside we can't pass CXXRecordDecl's Find* members (which are now type
safe) to lookupInBases directly, but a lambda trampoline is a small
price to pay. No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 243217
Oleksiy Vyalov