clients to decide whether to look inside bundled instructions and whether
the query should return true if any / all bundled instructions have the
queried property.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146168 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We must not issue a bitcast operation for integer-promotion of vector types, because the
location of the values in the vector may be different.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146150 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
generator to it. For non-bundle instructions, these behave exactly the same
as the MC layer API.
For properties like mayLoad / mayStore, look into the bundle and if any of the
bundled instructions has the property it would return true.
For properties like isPredicable, only return true if *all* of the bundled
instructions have the property.
For properties like canFoldAsLoad, isCompare, conservatively return false for
bundles.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146026 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This flag is used when bundling machine instructions. It indicates
whether the operand reads a value defined inside or outside its bundle.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145997 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
1. Added opcode BUNDLE
2. Taught MachineInstr class to deal with bundled MIs
3. Changed MachineBasicBlock iterator to skip over bundled MIs; added an iterator to walk all the MIs
4. Taught MachineBasicBlock methods about bundled MIs
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145975 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The new register allocator is much more able to split back up ranges too constrained by register classes.
Fixes <rdar://problem/10466609>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145899 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This was actually a bit of a mess. TLI.setPrefLoopAlignment was clearly
documented as taking log2(bytes) units, but the x86 target would still
set a preferred loop alignment of '16'.
CodePlacementOpt passed this number on to the basic block, and
AsmPrinter interpreted it as bytes.
Now both MachineFunction and MachineBasicBlock use logarithmic
alignments.
Obviously, MachineConstantPool still measures alignments in bytes, so we
can emulate the thrill of using as.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145889 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
change, now you need a TargetOptions object to create a TargetMachine. Clang
patch to follow.
One small functionality change in PTX. PTX had commented out the machine
verifier parts in their copy of printAndVerify. That now calls the version in
LLVMTargetMachine. Users of PTX who need verification disabled should rely on
not passing the command-line flag to enable it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145714 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
non_lazy_symbol_pointers section (__IMPORT,__pointers). Ignore the 'hidden' part
since that will place it in the wrong section.
<rdar://problem/10443720>
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145356 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Conservatively returns zero when the GV does not specify an alignment nor is it
initialized. Previously it returns ABI alignment for type of the GV. However, if
the type is a "packed" type, then the under-specified alignments is attached to
the load / store instructions. In that case, the alignment of the type cannot be
trusted.
rdar://10464621
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145300 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
than ABI alignment. These are loads / stores from / to "packed" data structures.
Their alignments are intentionally under-specified.
rdar://10301431
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
fallthrough) in cases where we might fail to rotate an exit to an outer
loop onto the end of the loop chain.
Having *some* rotation, but not performing this rotation, is the primary
fix of thep performance regression with -enable-block-placement for
Olden/em3d (a whopping 30% regression). Still working on reducing the
test case that actually exercises this and the new rotation strategy out
of this code, but I want to check if this regresses other test cases
first as that may indicate it isn't the correct fix.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145195 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
was centered around the premise of laying out a loop in a chain, and
then rotating that chain. This is good for preserving contiguous layout,
but bad for actually making sane rotations. In order to keep it safe,
I had to essentially make it impossible to rotate deeply nested loops.
The information needed to correctly reason about a deeply nested loop is
actually available -- *before* we layout the loop. We know the inner
loops are already fused into chains, etc. We lose information the moment
we actually lay out the loop.
The solution was the other alternative for this algorithm I discussed
with Benjamin and some others: rather than rotating the loop
after-the-fact, try to pick a profitable starting block for the loop's
layout, and then use our existing layout logic. I was worried about the
complexity of this "pick" step, but it turns out such complexity is
needed to handle all the important cases I keep teasing out of benchmarks.
This is, I'm afraid, a bit of a work-in-progress. It is still
misbehaving on some likely important cases I'm investigating in Olden.
It also isn't really tested. I'm going to try to craft some interesting
nested-loop test cases, but it's likely to be extremely time consuming
and I don't want to go there until I'm sure I'm testing the correct
behavior. Sadly I can't come up with a way of getting simple, fine
grained test cases for this logic. We need complex loop structures to
even trigger much of it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
heavily on AnalyzeBranch. That routine doesn't behave as we want given
that rotation occurs mid-way through re-ordering the function. Instead
merely check that there are not unanalyzable branching constructs
present, and then reason about the CFG via successor lists. This
actually simplifies my mental model for all of this as well.
The concrete result is that we now will rotate more loop chains. I've
added a test case from Olden highlighting the effect. There is still
a bit more to do here though in order to regain all of the performance
in Olden.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145179 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
pass. This is designed to achieve one of the important optimizations
that the old code placement pass did, but more simply.
This is a somewhat rough and *very* conservative version of the
transform. We could get a lot fancier here if there are profitable cases
to do so. In particular, this only looks for a single pattern, it
insists that the loop backedge being rotated away is the last backedge
in the chain, and it doesn't provide any means of doing better in-loop
placement due to the rotation. However, it appears that it will handle
the important loops I am finding in the LLVM test suite.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145158 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
