putc, puts, perror, vscanf and vsscanf from getting annotations.
Add annotations for eight printf functions, memalign, pread and pwrite.
On Linux, llvm-gcc sometimes renames strdup, getc, putc, strtok_r, scanf and
sscanf. Match the alternate function names.
Fix a crash annotating opendir.
Don't mark fsetpos's second parameter as nocapture. It's supposed to be
captured.
Do mark fopen's path and mode strings as nocapture. Mark ferror as readonly,
but not fileno which may set errno.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@62456 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
- Looking at the number of sign bits of the a sext instruction to determine whether new trunc + sext pair should be added when its source is being evaluated in a different type.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@62263 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
my earlier 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.
Also, when we build an expression that involves a (possibly
non-affine) IV from a different loop as well as an IV from
the one we're interested in (containsAddRecFromDifferentLoop),
don't recurse into that. We can't do much with it and will
get in trouble if we try to create new non-affine IVs or something.
More testcases are coming.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@62212 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
canonicalization transform based on duncan's comments:
1) improve the comment about %.
2) within our index loop make sure the offset stays
within the *type size*, instead of within the *abi size*.
This allows us to reason explicitly about landing in tail
padding and means that issues like non-zero offsets into
[0 x foo] types don't occur anymore.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@62045 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
loads from allocas that cover the entire aggregate. This handles
some memcpy/byval cases that are produced by llvm-gcc. This triggers
a few times in kc++ (with std::pair<std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator
<kc::impl_abstract_phylum*>,bool>) and once in 176.gcc (with %struct..0anon).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61915 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
integer to a (transitive) bitcast the alloca and if that integer
has the full size of the alloca, then it clobbers the whole thing.
Handle this by extracting pieces out of the stored integer and
filing them away in the SROA'd elements.
This triggers fairly frequently because the CFE uses integers to
pass small structs by value and the inliner exposes these. For
example, in kimwitu++, I see a bunch of these with i64 stores to
"%struct.std::pair<std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator<kc::impl_abstract_phylum*>,bool>"
In 176.gcc I see a few i32 stores to "%struct..0anon".
In the testcase, this is a difference between compiling test1 to:
_test1:
subl $12, %esp
movl 20(%esp), %eax
movl %eax, 4(%esp)
movl 16(%esp), %eax
movl %eax, (%esp)
movl (%esp), %eax
addl 4(%esp), %eax
addl $12, %esp
ret
vs:
_test1:
movl 8(%esp), %eax
addl 4(%esp), %eax
ret
The second half of this will be to handle loads of the same form.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61853 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
as template arguments instead of as instance variables, exposing more
optimization opportunities to the compiler earlier.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61776 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Finalization occurs after all the FunctionPasses in the group have run, which
is clearly not what we want.
This also means that we have to make sure that we apply the right param
attributes when creating a new function.
Also, add a missed optimization: strdup and strndup. NoCapture and
NoAlias return!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@61658 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
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
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
