WillNotOverflowUnsignedMul's smarts will live in ValueTracking as
computeOverflowForUnsignedMul. It now returns a tri-state result:
never overflows, always overflows and sometimes overflows.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225076 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is necessary to allow the disassembler to be able to handle AdSize32 instructions in 64-bit mode when address size prefix is used.
Eventually we should probably also support 'addr32' and 'addr16' in the assembler to override the address size on some of these instructions. But for now we'll just use special operand types that will lookup the current mode size to select the right instruction.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225075 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a pre-splitting pass over loads and stores.
Historically, splitting could cause enough problems that I hamstrung the
entire process with a requirement that splittable integer loads and
stores must cover the entire alloca. All smaller loads and stores were
unsplittable to prevent chaos from ensuing. With the new pre-splitting
logic that does load/store pair splitting I introduced in r225061, we
can now very nicely handle arbitrarily splittable loads and stores. In
order to fully benefit from these smarts, we need to mark all of the
integer loads and stores as splittable.
However, we don't actually want to rewrite partitions with all integer
loads and stores marked as splittable. This will fail to extract scalar
integers from aggregates, which is kind of the point of SROA. =] In
order to resolve this, what we really want to do is only do
pre-splitting on the alloca slices with integer loads and stores fully
splittable. This allows us to uncover all non-integer uses of the alloca
that would benefit from a split in an integer load or store (and where
introducing the split is safe because it is just memory transfer from
a load to a store). Once done, we make all the non-whole-alloca integer
loads and stores unsplittable just as they have historically been,
repartition and rewrite.
The result is that when there are integer loads and stores anywhere
within an alloca (such as from a memcpy of a sub-object of a larger
object), we can split them up if there are non-integer components to the
aggregate hiding beneath. I've added the challenging test cases to
demonstrate how this is able to promote to scalars even a case where we
have even *partially* overlapping loads and stores.
This restores the single-store behavior for small arrays of i8s which is
really nice. I've restored both the little endian testing and big endian
testing for these exactly as they were prior to r225061. It also forced
me to be more aggressive in an alignment test to actually defeat SROA.
=] Without the added volatiles there, we actually split up the weird i16
loads and produce nice double allocas with better alignment.
This also uncovered a number of bugs where we failed to handle
splittable load and store slices which didn't have a begininng offset of
zero. Those fixes are included, and without them the existing test cases
explode in glorious fireworks. =]
I've kept support for leaving whole-alloca integer loads and stores as
splittable even for the purpose of rewriting, but I think that's likely
no longer needed. With the new pre-splitting, we might be able to remove
all the splitting support for loads and stores from the rewriter. Not
doing that in this patch to try to isolate any performance regressions
that causes in an easy to find and revert chunk.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225074 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
instructions.
I noticed this when working on dialing up how aggressively we can
pre-split loads and stores. My test case wasn't passing because dead
GEPs into the allocas persisted when they were built by this routine.
This isn't terribly harmful, we still rewrote and promoted the alloca
and I can't conceive of how to cause this to happen in a case where we
will keep the exact same alloca but rewrite and promote the uses of it.
If that ever happened, we'd get an assert out of mem2reg.
So I don't have a direct test case yet, but the subsequent commit's test
case wouldn't pass without this. There are other problems fixed by this
patch that I spotted purely by inspection such as the fact that
getAdjustedPtr could have actually deleted dead base pointers. I don't
know how to get a base pointer to go into getAdjustedPtr today, so
I think this bug could never have manifested (and I certainly can't
write a test case for it) but, it wasn't the intent of the code. The
code really just wanted to GC the new instructions built. That can be
done more directly by comparing with the base pointer which is the only
non-new instruction that this code can return.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225073 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
array. This prevents it from walking out of bounds on the splits array.
Bug found with the existing tests by ASan and by the MSVC debug build.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225069 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a +asserts bootstrap, but my bootstrap had asserts off. Oops.
Anyways, in some places it is reasonable to cast (as a sanity check) the
pointer operand to a load or store to an instruction within SROA --
namely when the pointer operand is expected to be derived from an
alloca, and thus always an instruction. However, the pre-splitting code
also deals with loads and stores to non-alloca pointers and there we
need to just use the Value*. Nothing about the code relied on the
instruction cast, it was only there essentially as an invariant
assertion. Remove the two that don't actually hold.
This should fix the proximate issue in PR22080, but I'm also doing an
asserts bootstrap myself to see if there are other issues lurking.
I'll craft a reduced test case in a moment, but I wanted to get the tree
healthy as quickly as possible.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225068 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Attempting to fix PR22078 (building on 32-bit systems) by replacing my careless
use of 1ul to be a uint64_t constant with UINT64_C(1).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225066 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts commit r225059. I think MSVC 2012 has a problem with this. This is
an attempt to fix one of the MSVC 2012 bots.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225065 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This appears to have broken at least the windows build bots due to
compile errors in the predicate that didn't simply supress the overload.
I'm not sure what the fix is, and the bots have been broken for a long
time now so I'm just reverting until Michael can figure out a fix.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225064 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
of my new load and store splitting, and fix a bug where it logged
a totally irrelevant slice rather than the actual slice in question.
The logging here previously worked because we used to place new slices
onto the back of the core sequence, but that caused other problems.
I updated the actual code to store new slices in their own vector but
didn't update the logging. There isn't a good way to reuse the logging
any more, and frankly it wasn't needed. We can directly log this bit
more easily.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225063 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
stores.
When there are accesses to an entire alloca with an integer
load or store as well as accesses to small pieces of the alloca, SROA
splits up the large integer accesses. In order to do that, it uses bit
math to merge the small accesses into large integers. While this is
effective, it produces insane IR that can cause significant problems in
the rest of the optimizer:
- It can cause load and store mismatches with GVN on the non-alloca side
where we end up loading an i64 (or some such) rather than loading
specific elements that are stored.
- We can't always get rid of the integer bit math, which is why we can't
always fix the loads and stores to work well with GVN.
- This is especially bad when we have operations that mix poorly with
integer bit math such as floating point operations.
- It will block things like the vectorizer which might be able to handle
the scalar stores that underly the aggregate.
At the same time, we can't just directly split up these loads and stores
in all cases. If there is actual integer arithmetic involved on the
values, then using integer bit math is actually the perfect lowering
because we can often combine it heavily with the surrounding math.
The solution this patch provides is to find places where SROA is
partitioning aggregates into small elements, and look for splittable
loads and stores that it can split all the way to some other adjacent
load and store. These are uniformly the cases where failing to split the
loads and stores hurts the optimizer that I have seen, and I've looked
extensively at the code produced both from more and less aggressive
approaches to this problem.
However, it is quite tricky to actually do this in SROA. We may have
loads and stores to the same alloca, or other complex patterns that are
hard to handle. This complexity leads to the somewhat subtle algorithm
implemented here. We have to do this entire process as a separate pass
over the partitioning of the alloca, and split up all of the loads prior
to splitting the stores so that we can handle safely the cases of
overlapping, including partially overlapping, loads and stores to the
same alloca. We also have to reconstitute the post-split slice
configuration so we can avoid iterating again over all the alloca uses
(the slow part of SROA). But we also have to ensure that when we split
up loads and stores to *other* allocas, we *do* re-iterate over them in
SROA to adapt to the more refined partitioning now required.
With this, I actually think we can fix a long-standing TODO in SROA
where I avoided splitting as many loads and stores as probably should be
splittable. This limitation historically mitigated the fallout of all
the bad things mentioned above. Now that we have more intelligent
handling, I plan to remove the FIXME and more aggressively mark integer
loads and stores as splittable. I'll do that in a follow-up patch to
help with bisecting any fallout.
The net result of this change should be more fine-grained and accurate
scalars being formed out of aggregates. At the very least, Clang now
generates perfect code for this high-level test case using
std::complex<float>:
#include <complex>
void g1(std::complex<float> &x, float a, float b) {
x += std::complex<float>(a, b);
}
void g2(std::complex<float> &x, float a, float b) {
x -= std::complex<float>(a, b);
}
void foo(const std::complex<float> &x, float a, float b,
std::complex<float> &x1, std::complex<float> &x2) {
std::complex<float> l1 = x;
g1(l1, a, b);
std::complex<float> l2 = x;
g2(l2, a, b);
x1 = l1;
x2 = l2;
}
This code isn't just hypothetical either. It was reduced out of the hot
inner loops of essentially every part of the Eigen math library when
using std::complex<float>. Those loops would consistently and
pervasively hop between the floating point unit and the integer unit due
to bit math extraction and insertion of floating point values that were
"stored" in a 64-bit integer register around the loop backedge.
So far, this change has passed a bootstrap and I have done some other
testing and so far, no issues. That doesn't mean there won't be though,
so I'll be prepared to help with any fallout. If you performance swings
in particular, please let me know. I'm very curious what all the impact
of this change will be. Stay tuned for the follow-up to also split more
integer loads and stores.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225061 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is the second installment of improvements to instruction selection for "bit
permutation" instruction sequences. r224318 added logic for instruction
selection for 32-bit bit permutation sequences, and this adds lowering for
64-bit sequences. The 64-bit sequences are more complicated than the 32-bit
ones because:
a) the 64-bit versions of the 32-bit rotate-and-mask instructions
work by replicating the lower 32-bits of the value-to-be-rotated into the
upper 32 bits -- and integrating this into the cost modeling for the various
bit group operations is non-trivial
b) unlike the 32-bit instructions in 32-bit mode, the rotate-and-mask instructions
cannot, in one instruction, specify the
mask starting index, the mask ending index, and the rotation factor. Also,
forming arbitrary 64-bit constants is more complicated than in 32-bit mode
because the number of instructions necessary is value dependent.
Plus, support for 'late masking' was added: it is sometimes more efficient to
treat the overall value as if it had no mandatory zero bits when planning the
bit-group insertions, and then mask them in at the very end. Unfortunately, as
the structure of the bit groups is different in the two cases, the more
feasible implementation technique was to generate both instruction sequences,
and then pick the shorter one.
And finally, we now generate reasonable code for i64 bswap:
rldicl 5, 3, 16, 0
rldicl 4, 3, 8, 0
rldicl 6, 3, 24, 0
rldimi 4, 5, 8, 48
rldicl 5, 3, 32, 0
rldimi 4, 6, 16, 40
rldicl 6, 3, 48, 0
rldimi 4, 5, 24, 32
rldicl 5, 3, 56, 0
rldimi 4, 6, 40, 16
rldimi 4, 5, 48, 8
rldimi 4, 3, 56, 0
vs. what we used to produce:
li 4, 255
rldicl 5, 3, 24, 40
rldicl 6, 3, 40, 24
rldicl 7, 3, 56, 8
sldi 8, 3, 8
sldi 10, 3, 24
sldi 12, 3, 40
rldicl 0, 3, 8, 56
sldi 9, 4, 32
sldi 11, 4, 40
sldi 4, 4, 48
andi. 5, 5, 65280
andis. 6, 6, 255
andis. 7, 7, 65280
sldi 3, 3, 56
and 8, 8, 9
and 4, 12, 4
and 9, 10, 11
or 6, 7, 6
or 5, 5, 0
or 3, 3, 4
or 7, 9, 8
or 4, 6, 5
or 3, 3, 7
or 3, 3, 4
which is 12 instructions, instead of 25, and seems optimal (at least in terms
of code size).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225056 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The issues was that AArch64 has additional restrictions on when local
relocations can be used. We have to take those into consideration when
deciding to put a L symbol in the symbol table or not.
Original message:
Remove doesSectionRequireSymbols.
In an assembly expression like
bar:
.long L0 + 1
the intended semantics is that bar will contain a pointer one byte past L0.
In sections that are merged by content (strings, 4 byte constants, etc), a
single position in the section doesn't give the linker enough information.
For example, it would not be able to tell a relocation must point to the
end of a string, since that would look just like the start of the next.
The solution used in ELF to use relocation with symbols if there is a non-zero
addend.
In MachO before this patch we would just keep all symbols in some sections.
This would miss some cases (only cstrings on x86_64 were implemented) and was
inefficient since most relocations have an addend of 0 and can be represented
without the symbol.
This patch implements the non-zero addend logic for MachO too.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225048 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We are allowed to move the 'B' to the right hand side if we an prove
there is no signed overflow and if the comparison itself is signed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225034 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Too many different comment characters - instead of trying to account for
them all, instead disable the comments and just check for end-of-line
instead.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225020 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This fixes the DSO build for now. Eventually we should develop some
other mechanism to make this work correctly with DSOs.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225014 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
GCC does this for non-zero discriminators and since GCC doesn't produce
column info, that was the only place it comes up there. For LLVM, since
we can emit discriminators and/or column info, it makes more sense to
invert the condition and just test for changes in line number.
This should resolve at least some of the GDB 7.5 test suite failures
created by recent Clang changes that increase the location fidelity
(which, since Clang defaults to including column info on Linux by
default created a bunch of cases that confused GDB).
In theory we could do this better/differently by grouping actual source
statements together in a similar manner to the way lexical scopes are
handled but given that GDB isn't really in a position to consume that (&
users are probably somewhat used to different lines being different
'statements') this seems the safest and cheapest change. (I'm concerned
that doing this 'right' would bloat the debugloc data even further -
something Duncan's working hard to address)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225011 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Under the large code model, we cannot assume that __morestack lives within
2^31 bytes of the call site, so we cannot use pc-relative addressing. We
cannot perform the call via a temporary register, as the rax register may
be used to store the static chain, and all other suitable registers may be
either callee-save or used for parameter passing. We cannot use the stack
at this point either because __morestack manipulates the stack directly.
To avoid these issues, perform an indirect call via a read-only memory
location containing the address.
This solution is not perfect, as it assumes that the .rodata section
is laid out within 2^31 bytes of each function body, but this seems to
be sufficient for JIT.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6787
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225003 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If a linker directive is already quoted, don't try to quote it again, otherwise it creates a mess.
This pops up in places like:
#pragma comment(linker,"\"/foo bar'\"")
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6792
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@224998 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
