of apint codegen failure is the DAG combiner doing
the wrong thing because it was comparing MVT's using
< rather than comparing the number of bits. Removing
the < method makes this mistake impossible to commit.
Instead, add helper methods for comparing bits and use
them.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52098 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
and better control the abstraction. Rename the type
to MVT. To update out-of-tree patches, the main
thing to do is to rename MVT::ValueType to MVT, and
rewrite expressions like MVT::getSizeInBits(VT) in
the form VT.getSizeInBits(). Use VT.getSimpleVT()
to extract a MVT::SimpleValueType for use in switch
statements (you will get an assert failure if VT is
an extended value type - these shouldn't exist after
type legalization).
This results in a small speedup of codegen and no
new testsuite failures (x86-64 linux).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52044 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
crash the opt. Just fix this.
Test case in llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/2008-06-05-ashr-crash.ll
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52003 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
work and how to replace them into individual values. Also, when trying to
replace an aggregrate that is used by load or store with a single (large)
integer, don't crash (but don't replace the aggregrate either).
Also adds a testcase for both structs and arrays.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51997 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
are the same as in unpacked structs, only field
positions differ. This only matters for structs
containing x86 long double or an apint; it may
cause backwards compatibility problems if someone
has bitcode containing a packed struct with a
field of one of those types.
The issue is that only 10 bytes are needed to
hold an x86 long double: the store size is 10
bytes, but the ABI size is 12 or 16 bytes (linux/
darwin) which comes from rounding the store size
up by the alignment. Because it seemed silly not
to pack an x86 long double into 10 bytes in a
packed struct, this is what was done. I now
think this was a mistake. Reserving the ABI size
for an x86 long double field even in a packed
struct makes things more uniform: the ABI size is
now always used when reserving space for a type.
This means that developers are less likely to
make mistakes. It also makes life easier for the
CBE which otherwise could not represent all LLVM
packed structs (PR2402).
Front-end people might need to adjust the way
they create LLVM structs - see following change
to llvm-gcc.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51928 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
out of instcombine into a new file in libanalysis. This also teaches
ComputeNumSignBits about the number of sign bits in a constantint.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51863 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the conditions for performing the transform when only the
function declaration is available: no longer allow turning
i32 into i64 for example. Only allow changing between
pointer types, and between pointer types and integers of
the same size. For return values ptr -> intptr was already
allowed; I added ptr -> ptr and intptr -> ptr while there.
As shown by a recent objc testcase, changing the way
parameters/return values are passed can be fatal when calling
code written in assembler that directly manipulates call
arguments and return values unless the transform has no
impact on the way they are passed at the codegen level.
While it is possible to imagine an ABI that treats integers
of pointer size differently to pointers, I don't think LLVM
supports any so the transform should now be safe while still
being useful.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51834 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the one case that ADCE catches that normal DCE doesn't: non-induction variable
loop computations.
This implementation handles this problem without using postdominators.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51668 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the set of nodes. Fix makeEqual to handle this by creating the new node first
then iterating across them second.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51573 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
the section or the visibility from one global
value to another: copyAttributesFrom. This is
particularly useful for duplicating functions:
previously this was done by explicitly copying
each attribute in turn at each place where a
new function was created out of an old one, with
the result that obscure attributes were regularly
forgotten (like the collector or the section).
Hopefully now everything is uniform and nothing
is forgotten.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51567 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Analysis/ConstantFolding to fold ConstantExpr's, then make instcombine use it
to try to use targetdata to fold constant expressions on void instructions.
Also extend the icmp(inttoptr, inttoptr) folding to handle the case where
int size != ptr size.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51559 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The SimplifyCFG pass looks at basic blocks that contain only phi nodes,
followed by an unconditional branch. In a lot of cases, such a block (BB) can
be merged into their successor (Succ).
This merging is performed by TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock. It does
this by taking all phi nodes in the succesor block Succ and expanding them to
include the predecessors of BB. Furthermore, any phi nodes in BB are moved to
Succ and expanded to include the predecessors of Succ as well.
Before attempting this merge, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs checks to see if
all phi nodes can be properly merged. All functional changes are made to
this function, only comments were updated in
TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock.
In the original code, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs looks quite convoluted
and more like stack of checks added to handle different kinds of situations
than a comprehensive check. In particular the first check in the function did
some value checking for the case that BB and Succ have a common predecessor,
while the last check in the function simply rejected all cases where BB and
Succ have a common predecessor. The first check was still useful in the case
that BB did not contain any phi nodes at all, though, so it was not completely
useless.
Now, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs is restructured to to look a lot more
similar to the code that actually performs the merge. Both functions now look
at the same phi nodes in about the same order. Any conflicts (phi nodes with
different values for the same source) that could arise from merging or moving
phi nodes are detected. If no conflicts are found, the merge can happen.
Apart from only restructuring the checks, two main changes in functionality
happened.
Firstly, the old code rejected blocks with common predecessors in most cases.
The new code performs some extra checks so common predecessors can be handled
in a lot of cases. Wherever common predecessors still pose problems, the
blocks are left untouched.
Secondly, the old code rejected the merge when values (phi nodes) from BB were
used in any other place than Succ. However, it does not seem that there is any
situation that would require this check. Even more, this can be proven.
Consider that BB is a block containing of a single phi node "%a" and a branch
to Succ. Now, since the definition of %a will dominate all of its uses, BB
will dominate all blocks that use %a. Furthermore, since the branch from BB to
Succ is unconditional, Succ will also dominate all uses of %a.
Now, assume that one predecessor of Succ is not dominated by BB (and thus not
dominated by Succ). Since at least one use of %a (but in reality all of them)
is reachable from Succ, you could end up at a use of %a without passing
through it's definition in BB (by coming from X through Succ). This is a
contradiction, meaning that our original assumption is wrong. Thus, all
predecessors of Succ must also be dominated by BB (and thus also by Succ).
This means that moving the phi node %a from BB to Succ does not pose any
problems when the two blocks are merged, and any use checks are not needed.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@51478 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
