Users often call getArgumentList().size(), which is a linear way to get
the number of function arguments. arg_size(), on the other hand, is
constant time.
In general, the fact that arguments are stored in an iplist is an
implementation detail, so I've removed it from the Function interface
and moved all other users to the argument container APIs (arg_begin(),
arg_end(), args(), arg_size()).
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31052
llvm-svn: 298010
mfvrd and mffprd are both alias to mfvrsd.
This patch enables correct parsing of the aliases, but we still emit a mfvrsd.
Committing on behalf of brunoalr (Bruno Rosa).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29177
llvm-svn: 297849
After inspection, it's an UB in our code base. Someone cast a var-arg
function pointer to a non-var-arg one. :/
Re-commit r296771 to continue testing on the patch.
Sorry for the trouble!
llvm-svn: 297256
This reverts commit r296771.
We found some wide spread test failures internally. I'm working on a
testcase. Politely revert the patch in the mean time. :)
llvm-svn: 297124
select Cond, C +/- 1, C --> add(ext Cond), C -- with a target hook.
This is part of the ongoing process to obsolete D24480. The motivation is to
canonicalize to select IR in InstCombine whenever possible, so we need to have a way to
undo that easily in codegen.
PowerPC is an obvious winner for this kind of transform because it has fast and complete
bit-twiddling abilities but generally lousy conditional execution perf (although this might
have changed in recent implementations).
x86 also sees some wins, but the effect is limited because these transforms already mostly
exist in its target-specific combineSelectOfTwoConstants(). The fact that we see any x86
changes just shows that that code is a mess of special-case holes. We may be able to remove
some of that logic now.
My guess is that other targets will want to enable this hook for most cases. The likely
follow-ups would be to add value type and/or the constants themselves as parameters for the
hook. As the tests in select_const.ll show, we can transform any select-of-constants to
math/logic, but the general transform for any 2 constants needs one more instruction
(multiply or 'and').
ARM is one target that I think may not want this for most cases. I see infinite loops there
because it wants to use selects to enable conditionally executed instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30537
llvm-svn: 296977
This patch fixes pr32063.
Current code in PPCTargetLowering::PerformDAGCombine can transform
bswap
store
into a single PPCISD::STBRX instruction. but it doesn't consider the case that the operand size of bswap may be larger than store size. When it occurs, we need 2 modifications,
1 For the last operand of PPCISD::STBRX, we should not use DAG.getValueType(N->getOperand(1).getValueType()), instead we should use cast<StoreSDNode>(N)->getMemoryVT().
2 Before PPCISD::STBRX, we need to shift the original operand of bswap to the right side.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30362
llvm-svn: 296811
This patch reduces the stack frame size by not allocating the parameter area if
it is not required. In the current implementation LowerFormalArguments_64SVR4
already handles the parameter area, but LowerCall_64SVR4 does not
(when calculating the stack frame size). What this patch does is make
LowerCall_64SVR4 consistent with LowerFormalArguments_64SVR4.
Committing on behalf of Hiroshi Inoue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29881
llvm-svn: 296771
Provide a 64-bit pattern to use SUBFIC for subtracting from a 16-bit immediate.
The corresponding pattern already exists for 32-bit integers.
Committing on behalf of Hiroshi Inoue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29387
llvm-svn: 296144
Emit clrrdi (extended mnemonic for rldicr) for AND-ing with masks that
clear bits from the right hand size.
Committing on behalf of Hiroshi Inoue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29388
llvm-svn: 296143
Newer ppc supports unaligned memory access, it reduces the cost of unaligned memory access significantly. This patch handles this case in PPCTTIImpl::getMemoryOpCost.
This patch fixes pr31492.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28630
This is resubmit of r292680, which was reverted by r293092. The internal application failures were actually caused by a source code bug.
llvm-svn: 295506
Summary:
powerpc64 big-endian is not supported, but I believe that most logic can
be shared, except for xray_powerpc64.cc.
Also add a function InvalidateInstructionCache to xray_util.h, which is
copied from llvm/Support/Memory.cpp. I'm not sure if I need to add a unittest,
and I don't know how.
Reviewers: dberris, echristo, iteratee, kbarton, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, nemanjai, mgorny, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29742
llvm-svn: 294781
until we can get better TargetMachine::isCompatibleDataLayout to compare - otherwise
we can't code generate existing bitcode without a string equality data layout.
This reverts commit r294702.
llvm-svn: 294709
For other platforms we should find out what they need and likely
make the same change, however, a smaller additional change is easier
for platforms we know have it specified in the ABI. As part of this
rewrite some of the handling in the backends for data layout and update
a bunch of testcases.
Based on a patch by Simonas Kazlauskas!
llvm-svn: 294702
Adds the vnot extended mnemonic for the vnor instruction.
Committing on behalf of brunoalr (Bruno Rosa).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29225
llvm-svn: 294330
The the following instructions:
- LD/LWZ (expanded from sjLj pseudo-instructions)
- LXVL/LXVLL vector loads
- STXVL/STXVLL vector stores
all require G8RC_NO0X class registers for RA.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29289
Committed for Lei Huang
llvm-svn: 293769
Just adds the vmr (Vector Move Register) mnemonic for the VOR instruction in
the PPC back end.
Committing on behalf of brunoalr (Bruno Rosa).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29133
llvm-svn: 293626
Summary:
Adds the following instructions:
* mfpmr
* mtpmr
* icblc
* icblq
* icbtls
Fix the scheduling for mtspr on e5500, which uses CFX0, instead of
SFX0/SFX1 as on e500mc.
Addresses PR 31538.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29002
llvm-svn: 293417
We had various variants of defining dump() functions in LLVM. Normalize
them (this should just consistently implement the things discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2014-January/034323.html
For reference:
- Public headers should just declare the dump() method but not use
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD or #if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
- The definition of a dump method should look like this:
#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD void MyClass::dump() {
// print stuff to dbgs()...
}
#endif
llvm-svn: 293359
1) Explicitly sets mayLoad/mayStore property in the tablegen files on load/store
instructions.
2) Updated the flags on a number of intrinsics indicating that they write
memory.
3) Added SDNPMemOperand flags for some target dependent SDNodes so that they
propagate their memory operand
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28818
llvm-svn: 293200
And teach shouldAssumeDSOLocal that ppc has no copy relocations.
The resulting code handle a few more case than before. For example, it
knows that a weak symbol can be resolved to another .o file, but it
will still be in the main executable.
llvm-svn: 293180
This reverts commit r292680. It is causing significantly worse
performance and test timeouts in our internal builds. I have already
routed reproduction instructions your way.
llvm-svn: 293092
Change getReservedRegs() to not mark a register as reserved and then
revert that decision in some cases. Motivated by the discussion in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29056
llvm-svn: 293073
When a register like R1 is reserved, X1 should be reserved as well. This
was already done "manually" when 64bit code was enabled, however using
the markSuperRegs() function on the base register is more convenient and
allows to use the checksAllSuperRegsMarked() function even in 32bit mode
to avoid accidental breakage in the future.
This is also necessary to allow https://reviews.llvm.org/D28881
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29056
llvm-svn: 292870
Summary:
The LibFunc::Func enum holds enumerators named for libc functions.
Unfortunately, there are real situations, including libc implementations, where
function names are actually macros (musl uses "#define fopen64 fopen", for
example; any other transitively visible macro would have similar effects).
Strictly speaking, a conforming C++ Standard Library should provide any such
macros as functions instead (via <cstdio>). However, there are some "library"
functions which are not part of the standard, and thus not subject to this
rule (fopen64, for example). So, in order to be both portable and consistent,
the enum should not use the bare function names.
The old enum naming used a namespace LibFunc and an enum Func, with bare
enumerators. This patch changes LibFunc to be an enum with enumerators prefixed
with "LibFFunc_". (Unfortunately, a scoped enum is not sufficient to override
macros.)
There are additional changes required in clang.
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28476
llvm-svn: 292848
Newer ppc supports unaligned memory access, it reduces the cost of unaligned memory access significantly. This patch handles this case in PPCTTIImpl::getMemoryOpCost.
This patch fixes pr31492.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28630
llvm-svn: 292680
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292154
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292128
Rename from addOperand to just add, to match the other method that has been
added to MachineInstrBuilder for adding more than just 1 operand.
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D28057 for the whole discussion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28556
llvm-svn: 291891
updated instructions:
pmulld, pmullw, pmulhw, mulsd, mulps, mulpd, divss, divps, divsd, divpd, addpd and subpd.
special optimization case which replaces pmulld with pmullw\pmulhw\pshuf seq.
In case if the real operands bitwidth <= 16.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28104
llvm-svn: 291657
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. Unfortunately, because of the way
that the ABI works, we need to generate code as if we supported interposition
whenever the linker might insert stubs for the purpose of supporting it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 291003
PWR9 processor model for instruction scheduling. A subsequent patch will migrate
PWR9 to Post RA MIScheduler.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24525
llvm-svn: 290102
This patch appears to result in trampolines in vtables being miscompiled
when they in turn tail call a method.
I've posted some preliminary details about the failure on the thread for
this commit and talked to Hal. He was comfortable going ahead and
reverting until we sort out what is wrong.
llvm-svn: 289928
In some situations, the BUILD_VECTOR node that builds a v18i8 vector by
a splat of an i8 constant will end up with signed 8-bit values and other
situations, it'll end up with unsigned ones. Handle both situations.
Fixes PR31340.
llvm-svn: 289804
Most of the PowerPC64 code generation for the ELF ABI is already PIC.
There are four main exceptions:
(1) Constant pointer arrays etc. should in writeable sections.
(2) The TOC restoration NOP after a call is needed for all global
symbols. While GNU ld has a workaround for questionable GCC self-calls,
we trigger the checks for calls from COMDAT sections as they cross input
sections and are therefore not considered self-calls. The current
decision is questionable and suboptimal, but outside the scope of the
change.
(3) TLS access can not use the initial-exec model.
(4) Jump tables should use relative addresses. Note that the current
encoding doesn't work for the large code model, but it is more compact
than the default for any non-trivial jump table. Improving this is again
beyond the scope of this change.
At least (1) and (3) are assumptions made in target-independent code and
introducing additional hooks is a bit messy. Testing with clang shows
that a -fPIC binary is 600KB smaller than the corresponding -fno-pic
build. Separate testing from improved jump table encodings would explain
only about 100KB or so. The rest is expected to be a result of more
aggressive immediate forming for -fno-pic, where the -fPIC binary just
uses TOC entries.
This change brings the LLVM output in line with the GCC output, other
PPC64 compilers like XLC on AIX are known to produce PIC by default
as well. The relocation model can still be provided explicitly, i.e.
when using MCJIT.
One test case for case (1) is included, other test cases with relocation
mode sensitive behavior are wired to static for now. They will be
reviewed and adjusted separately.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26566
llvm-svn: 289743
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. This will yield subtle bugs if
interposition is attempted. As a result, regardless of whether we're in PIC
mode, we don't assume that we need to add the nop to support the possibility of
ELF interposition. However, the necessary check is in place (i.e. calling
GV->isInterposable and TM.shouldAssumeDSOLocal) so when we have functions for
which interposition is allowed at the IR level, we'll add the nop as necessary.
In the mean time, we'll generate more tail calls and fewer nops when compiling
position-independent code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 289638
Nirav Dave