other SPEC breakage. I'll be reverting all recent
changes shortly, this checking is mostly so this
change doesn't get lost.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61402 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This removes all the _8, _16, _32, and _64 opcodes and replaces each
group with an unsuffixed opcode. The MemoryVT field of the AtomicSDNode
is now used to carry the size information. In tablegen, the size-specific
opcodes are replaced by size-independent opcodes that utilize the
ability to compose them with predicates.
This shrinks the per-opcode tables and makes the code that handles
atomics much more concise.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61389 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
several places. isTerminator() returns true for a superset
of cases, and includes things like FP_REG_KILL, which are
nither return or branch but aren't safe to move/remat/etc.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61373 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
my last patch to this file.
The issue there was that all uses of an IV inside a loop
are actually references to Base[IV*2], and there was one
use outside that was the same but LSR didn't see the base
or the scaling because it didn't recurse into uses outside
the loop; thus, it used base+IV*scale mode inside the loop
instead of pulling base out of the loop. This was extra bad
because register pressure later forced both base and IV into
memory. Doing that recursion, at least enough
to figure out addressing modes, is a good idea in general;
the change in AddUsersIfInteresting does this. However,
there were side effects....
It is also possible for recursing outside the loop to
introduce another IV where there was only 1 before (if
the refs inside are not scaled and the ref outside is).
I don't think this is a common case, but it's in the testsuite.
It is right to be very aggressive about getting rid of
such introduced IVs (CheckForIVReuse and the handling of
nonzero RewriteFactor in StrengthReduceStridedIVUsers).
In the testcase in question the new IV produced this way
has both a nonconstant stride and a nonzero base, neither
of which was handled before. And when inserting
new code that feeds into a PHI, it's right to put such
code at the original location rather than in the PHI's
immediate predecessor(s) when the original location is outside
the loop (a case that couldn't happen before)
(RewriteInstructionToUseNewBase); better to avoid making
multiple copies of it in this case.
Also, the mechanism for keeping SCEV's corresponding to GEP's
no longer works, as the GEP might change after its SCEV
is remembered, invalidating the SCEV, and we might get a bad
SCEV value when looking up the GEP again for a later loop.
This also couldn't happen before, as we weren't recursing
into GEP's outside the loop.
I owe some testcases for this, want to get it in for nightly runs.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61362 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
reallocations. We don't do cloning on MachineInstr schedule DAGs,
but this is a worthwhile sanity check regardless.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61343 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
constant shift count that doesn't fit in the shift instruction's
immediate field. This fixes PR3242.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61281 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
