This is a continuation of my prior work to move some of the inner workings for CodeGenRegister to use bit vectors when computing about register units. This is highly beneficial to TableGen runtime on targets with large, dense register files. This patch represents a ~40% runtime reduction over and above my earlier improvement on a stress test of this case.
llvm-svn: 227678
Add a trivial binary (int main() { return 0; }) built for Windows on ARM to
ensure that we can correctly identify ARM_MOV32(T) base relocations. Addresses
post-commit review comments.
llvm-svn: 227673
These fields were made protected in r193585. The aim of that change is to
expose these fields to SimpleFileWrapper. Because SimpleFileWrapper class
was removed in r227549, we can make them private.
llvm-svn: 227672
This adds some comments and splits the flag calculation on type boundaries to
make the table more readable. Addresses some post-commit review comments to SVN
r227603. NFC.
llvm-svn: 227670
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
Now that -mstack-probe-size is piped through to the backend via the function
attribute as on Windows x86, honour the value to permit handling of non-default
values for stack probes. This is needed /Gs with the clang-cl driver or
-mstack-probe-size with the clang driver when targeting Windows on ARM.
llvm-svn: 227667
Previously we applied the LayoutPass to order atoms and then
apply elf::ArrayOrderPass to sort them again. The first pass is
basically supposed to sort atoms in the normal fashion (which
is to sort symbols in the same order as the input files).
The second pass sorts atoms in {init,fini}_array.<priority> by
priority.
The problem is that the LayoutPass is overkill. It analyzes
references between atoms to make a decision how to sort them.
It's slow, hard to understand, and above all, it doesn't seem
that we need its feature for ELF in the first place.
This patch remove the LayoutPass from ELF pass list. Now all
reordering is done in elf::OrderPass. That pass sorts atoms by
{init,fini}_array, and if they are not in the special section,
they are ordered as the same order as they appear in the command
line. The new code is far easier to understand, faster, and
still able to create valid executables.
Unlike the previous layout pass, elf::OrderPass doesn't count
any attributes of an atom (e.g. permissions) except its
position. It's OK because the writer takes care of them if we
have to.
This patch changes the order of final output, although that's
benign. Tests are updated.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7278
llvm-svn: 227666
segname,sectname to specify a Mach-O section to print. The printing is based on
the section type or section attributes.
The printing of the module initialization and termination section types is printed
with this change. Printing of other section types will be added next.
llvm-svn: 227649
Same sort of bug as on ARM where the cmp+branch are lowered to br_cc
(choosing the branch's debugloc for the br_cc's debugloc) then expanded
out to a cmp and a br, but both using the debug loc of the br_cc, thus
losing fidelity.
llvm-svn: 227645
Create a new TargetCodeGenInfo for Windows on ARM to permit annotating the
functions with stack-probe-size (for /Gs and -mstack-probe-support) for
generating the stack probe necessary for Windows targets. This will be used by
the backend when lowering the frame to generate the stack probe appropriately.
llvm-svn: 227641
Patch by: Igor Laevsky
"Simple refactoring. This is done in preparation to support verification of invokable statepoints."
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7276
llvm-svn: 227640
Patch by: Igor Laevsky
"Statepoint verifier tests were using wrong names for the statepoint and gc.relocate intrinsics. This change renames them to use correct names and fixes all uncovered issues."
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7266
llvm-svn: 227636
Some of those didn't even have run lines: they were removed
inadvertently during the Great Merge of 2014.
They used to check for DUPs, but now we go through W-regs?
Filed PR22418 for that potential regression.
For now, just make the tests explicit, so we now where we stand.
llvm-svn: 227635
Also revert r227489 since it didn't actually fix the thing I thought I
was fixing (since the test case was targeting the wrong architecture
initially). The change might be correct & demonstrated by other test
cases, but it's not a priority for me to find those test cases right
now.
Filed PR22417 for the failure.
llvm-svn: 227632
Craig Topper