- Update maximal stack alignment when stack arguments are prepared before a
call.
- Test cases are enhanced to show it's not a Win32 specific issue but a generic
one.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164946 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Reduces runtime of i386-large-relocations.s by 10x in Release builds, even more
in Debug+Asserts builds.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164945 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
alignment requirements of the new alloca. As one consequence which was
reported as a bug by Duncan, we overaligned memcpy calls to ranges of
allocas after they were rewritten to types with lower alignment
requirements. Other consquences are possible, but I don't have any test
cases for them.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164937 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
could probably be factored still further to hoist this logic into
a generic helper, but currently I don't have particularly clean ideas
about how to handle that.
This at least allows us to drop custom load rewriting from the
speculation logic, which in turn allows the existing load rewriting
logic to fire. In theory, this could enable vector promotion or other
tricks after speculation occurs, but I've not dug into such issues. This
is primarily just cleaning up the factoring of the code and the
resulting logic.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164933 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a pair of instructions, one for the used pointer and the second for the
user. This simplifies the representation and also makes it more dense.
This was noticed because of the miscompile in PR13926. In that case, we
were running up against a fundamental "bad idea" in the speculation of
PHI and select instructions: the speculation and rewriting are
interleaved, which requires phi speculation to also perform load
rewriting! This is bad, and causes us to miss opportunities to do (for
example) vector rewriting only exposed after PHI speculation, etc etc.
It also, in the old system, required us to insert *new* load uses into
the current partition's use list, which would then be ignored during
rewriting because we had already extracted an end iterator for the use
list. The appending behavior (and much of the other oddities) stem from
the strange de-duplication strategy in the PartitionUse builder.
Amusingly, all this went without notice for so long because it could
only be triggered by having *different* GEPs into the same partition of
the same alloca, where both different GEPs were operands of a single
PHI, and where the GEP which was not encountered first also had multiple
uses within that same PHI node... Hence the insane steps required to
reproduce.
So, step one in fixing this fundamental bad idea is to make the
PartitionUse actually contain a Use*, and to make the builder do proper
deduplication instead of funky de-duplication. This is enough to remove
the appending behavior, and fix the miscompile in PR13926, but there is
more work to be done here. Subsequent commits will lift the speculation
into its own visitor. It'll be a useful step toward potentially
extracting all of the speculation logic into a generic utility
transform.
The existing PHI test case for repeated operands has been made more
extreme to catch even these issues. This test case, run through the old
pass, will exactly reproduce the miscompile from PR13926. ;] We were so
close here!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164925 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
source of false positives due to globals being declared in a header with some
kind of incomplete (small) type, but the actual definition being bigger.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164912 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164910 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.
Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.
Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164891 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
buildbots. Original commit message:
A DAGCombine optimization for merging consecutive stores. This optimization is not profitable in many cases
because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164890 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164885 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
