This code makes different decisions when compiled into x87 instructions
because of different rounding behavior. That caused phase 2/3
miscompares on 32-bit Linux when the phase 1 compiler was built with gcc
(using x87), and the phase 2 compiler was built with clang (using SSE).
This fixes PR11200.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143006 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging.
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143001 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
fix up later. For this special case, allow such a mask to be considered valid.
<rdar://problem/8622574>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142992 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
LLVM 2.9. My understanding is that we plan to maintain compatibility with 2.9
until the 3.1 release. At that time we can generate new test cases using LLVM
3.0.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142958 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
compile and use a bunch of stuff using o32 abi). Also the rt-rk.com team
claims that the JIT support they contributed, is complete for the mips
"static" relocation model.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142950 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
down to this commit. Original commit message:
An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging.
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142920 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
bots. Original commit messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142919 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
classifying many edges as exiting which were in fact not. These mainly
formed edges into sub-loops. It was also not correctly classifying all
returning edges out of loops as leaving the loop. With this match most
of the loop heuristics are more rational.
Several serious regressions on loop-intesive benchmarks like perlbench's
loop tests when built with -enable-block-placement are fixed by these
updated heuristics. Unfortunately they in turn uncover some other
regressions. There are still several improvemenst that should be made to
loop heuristics including trip-count, and early back-edge management.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142917 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the dragonegg and llvm-gcc self-host buildbots. Original commit
messages:
- Reapply r142781 with fix. Original message:
Enhance SCEV's brute force loop analysis to handle multiple PHI nodes in the
loop header when computing the trip count.
With this, we now constant evaluate:
struct ListNode { const struct ListNode *next; int i; };
static const struct ListNode node1 = {0, 1};
static const struct ListNode node2 = {&node1, 2};
static const struct ListNode node3 = {&node2, 3};
int test() {
int sum = 0;
for (const struct ListNode *n = &node3; n != 0; n = n->next)
sum += n->i;
return sum;
}
- Now that we look at all the header PHIs, we need to consider all the header PHIs
when deciding that the loop has stopped evolving. Fixes miscompile in the gcc
torture testsuite!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142916 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch
statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing
BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that
it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do.
<rdar://problem/10334833>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142891 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
