it impossible to create a MERGE_VALUES node with
only one result: sometimes it is useful to be able
to create a node with only one result out of one of
the results of a node with more than one result, for
example because the new node will eventually be used
to replace a one-result node using ReplaceAllUsesWith,
cf X86TargetLowering::ExpandFP_TO_SINT. On the other
hand, most users of MERGE_VALUES don't need this and
for them the optimization was valuable. So add a new
utility method getMergeValues for creating MERGE_VALUES
nodes which by default performs the optimization.
Change almost everywhere to use getMergeValues (and
tidy some stuff up at the same time).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52893 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
<16 x float> is 64-byte aligned (for some reason),
which gets us into the stack realignment code. The
computation changing FP-relative offsets to SP-relative
was broken, assiging a spill temp to a location
also used for parameter passing. This
fixes it by rounding up the stack frame to a multiple
of the largest alignment (I concluded it wasn't fixable
without doing this, but I'm not very sure.)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52750 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
shift.
- Add a readme entry for a missing vector_shuffle optimization that results in
awful codegen.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52740 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
InvalidateInstructionCache method instead of calling through
a hook on the JIT. This is a host feature, not a target feature.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52734 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Added abstract class MemSDNode for any Node that have an associated MemOperand
Changed atomic.lcs => atomic.cmp.swap, atomic.las => atomic.load.add, and
atomic.lss => atomic.load.sub
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52706 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
shuffle could be skipped. The check is invalid because the loop index i
doesn't correspond to the element actually inserted. The correct check is
already done a few lines earlier, for whether the element is already in
the right spot, so this shouldn't have any effect on the codegen for
code that was already correct.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52486 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
wrong for volatile loads and stores. In fact this
is almost all of them! There are three types of
problems: (1) it is wrong to change the width of
a volatile memory access. These may be used to
do memory mapped i/o, in which case a load can have
an effect even if the result is not used. Consider
loading an i32 but only using the lower 8 bits. It
is wrong to change this into a load of an i8, because
you are no longer tickling the other three bytes. It
is also unwise to make a load/store wider. For
example, changing an i16 load into an i32 load is
wrong no matter how aligned things are, since the
fact of loading an additional 2 bytes can have
i/o side-effects. (2) it is wrong to change the
number of volatile load/stores: they may be counted
by the hardware. (3) it is wrong to change a volatile
load/store that requires one memory access into one
that requires several. For example on x86-32, you
can store a double in one processor operation, but to
store an i64 requires two (two i32 stores). In a
multi-threaded program you may want to bitcast an i64
to a double and store as a double because that will
occur atomically, and be indivisible to other threads.
So it would be wrong to convert the store-of-double
into a store of an i64, because this will become two
i32 stores - no longer atomic. My policy here is
to say that the number of processor operations for
an illegal operation is undefined. So it is alright
to change a store of an i64 (requires at least two
stores; but could be validly lowered to memcpy for
example) into a store of double (one processor op).
In short, if the new store is legal and has the same
size then I say that the transform is ok. It would
also be possible to say that transforms are always
ok if before they were illegal, whether after they
are illegal or not, but that's more awkward to do
and I doubt it buys us anything much.
However this exposed an interesting thing - on x86-32
a store of i64 is considered legal! That is because
operations are marked legal by default, regardless of
whether the type is legal or not. In some ways this
is clever: before type legalization this means that
operations on illegal types are considered legal;
after type legalization there are no illegal types
so now operations are only legal if they really are.
But I consider this to be too cunning for mere mortals.
Better to do things explicitly by testing AfterLegalize.
So I have changed things so that operations with illegal
types are considered illegal - indeed they can never
map to a machine operation. However this means that
the DAG combiner is more conservative because before
it was "accidentally" performing transforms where the
type was illegal because the operation was nonetheless
marked legal. So in a few such places I added a check
on AfterLegalize, which I suppose was actually just
forgotten before. This causes the DAG combiner to do
slightly more than it used to, which resulted in the X86
backend blowing up because it got a slightly surprising
node it wasn't expecting, so I tweaked it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@52254 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
