This partially fixes PR13007 (ARM CodeGen fails with large stack
alignment): for ARM and Thumb2 targets, but not for Thumb1, as it
seems stack alignment for Thumb1 targets hasn't been supported at
all.
Producing an aligned stack pointer is done by zero-ing out the lower
bits of the stack pointer. The BIC instruction was used for this.
However, the immediate field of the BIC instruction only allows to
encode an immediate that can zero out up to a maximum of the 8 lower
bits. When a larger alignment is requested, a BIC instruction cannot
be used; llvm was silently producing incorrect code in this case.
This commit fixes code generation for large stack aligments by
using the BFC instruction instead, when the BFC instruction is
available. When not, it uses 2 instructions: a right shift,
followed by a left shift to zero out the lower bits.
The lowering of ARM::Int_eh_sjlj_dispatchsetup still has code
that unconditionally uses BIC to realign the stack pointer, so it
very likely has the same problem. However, I wasn't able to
produce a test case for that. This commit adds an assert so that
the compiler will fail the assert instead of silently generating
wrong code if this is ever reached.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@225446 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
r223862 tried to also combine base-updating load/stores.
r224198 reverted it, as "it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown."
Reapply, with a fix to ignore non-normal load/stores.
Truncstores are handled elsewhere (you can actually write a pattern for
those, whereas for postinc loads you can't, since they return two values),
but it should be possible to also combine extloads base updates, by checking
that the memory (rather than result) type is of the same size as the addend.
Original commit message:
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@224203 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This reverts commit r223862, as it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown. We'll investigate the issue and re-apply
when safe.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@224198 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@223862 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Function attributes are the future! So just query whether we want to realign the
stack directly from the function instead of through a random target options
structure.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@187618 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Aside from the question of whether we report a warning or an error when we
can't satisfy a requested stack object alignment, the current implementation
of this is not good. We're not providing any source location in the diagnostics
and the current warning is not connected to any warning group so you can't
control it. We could improve the source location somewhat, but we can do a
much better job if this check is implemented in the front-end, so let's do that
instead. <rdar://problem/13127907>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@174741 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
requirement when creating stack objects in MachineFrameInfo.
Add CreateStackObjectWithMinAlign to throw error when the minimal alignment
can't be achieved and to clamp the alignment when the preferred alignment
can't be achieved. Same is true for CreateVariableSizedObject.
Will not emit error in CreateSpillStackObject or CreateStackObject.
As long as callers of CreateStackObject do not assume the object will be
aligned at the requested alignment, we should not have miscompile since
later optimizations which look at the object's alignment will have the correct
information.
rdar://12713765
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@172027 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the alignment is clamped to TargetFrameLowering.getStackAlignment if the target
does not support stack realignment or the option "realign-stack" is off.
This will cause miscompile if the address is treated as aligned and add is
replaced with or in DAGCombine.
Added a bool StackRealignable to TargetFrameLowering to check whether stack
realignment is implemented for the target. Also added a bool RealignOption
to MachineFrameInfo to check whether the option "realign-stack" is on.
rdar://12713765
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@169197 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
