because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164910 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
alignment could lose it due to the alloca type moving down to a much
smaller alignment guarantee.
Now SROA will actively compute a proper alignment, factoring the target
data, any explicit alignment, and the offset within the struct. This
will in some cases lower the alignment requirements, but when we lower
them below those of the type, we drop the alignment entirely to give
freedom to the code generator to align it however is convenient.
Thanks to Duncan for the lovely test case that pinned this down. =]
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164891 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
buildbots. Original commit message:
A DAGCombine optimization for merging consecutive stores. This optimization is not profitable in many cases
because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164890 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
because moden processos can store multiple values in parallel, and preparing the consecutive store requires
some work. We only handle these cases:
1. Consecutive stores where the values and consecutive loads. For example:
int a = p->a;
int b = p->b;
q->a = a;
q->b = b;
2. Consecutive stores where the values are constants. Foe example:
q->a = 4;
q->b = 5;
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164885 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If the width is very large it gets truncated from uint64_t to uint32_t when
passed to TD->fitsInLegalInteger. The truncated value can fit in a register.
This manifested in massive memory usage or crashes (PR13946).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164784 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This is a preliminary step towards ELF support; currently ARMFastISel hasn't
been used for ELF object files yet.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164759 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If the offset is more than 24-bits, it won't fit in a scattered
relocation offset field, so we fall back to using a non-scattered
relocation.
rdar://12358909
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164724 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
teach the callgraph logic to not create callgraph edges to intrinsics for invoke
instructions; it already skips this for call instructions. Fixes PR13903.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164707 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
- Put statistics in alphabetical order
- Don't use getZextValue when building TableInt, just use APInts
- Introduce Create{Z,S}ExtOrTrunc in IRBuilder.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164696 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
alignment guarantees attached, re-compute the alignment so that we
consider offsets which impact alignment.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164690 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
rewriter in SROA to carry a proper alignment. This involves
interrogating various sources of alignment, etc. This is a more complete
and principled fix to PR13920 as well as related bugs pointed out by Eli
in review and by inspection in the area.
Also by inspection fix the integer and vector promotion paths to create
aligned loads and stores. I still need to work up test cases for
these... Sorry for the delay, they were found purely by inspection.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164689 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
tables in bitmaps when they fit in a target-legal register.
This saves some space, and it also allows for building tables that would
otherwise be deemed too sparse.
One interesting case that this hits is example 7 from
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320. We currently generate good code
for this when lowering the switch to the selection DAG: we build a
bitmask to decide whether to jump to one block or the other. My patch
will result in the same bitmask, but it removes the need for the jump,
as the return value can just be retrieved from the mask.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164684 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This should really, really fix PR13916. For real this time. The
underlying bug is... a bit more subtle than I had imagined.
The setup is a code pattern that leads to an @llvm.memcpy call with two
equal pointers to an alloca in the source and dest. Now, not any pattern
will do. The alloca needs to be formed just so, and both pointers should
be wrapped in different bitcasts etc. When this precise pattern hits,
a funny sequence of events transpires. First, we correctly detect the
potential for overlap, and correctly optimize the memcpy. The first
time. However, we do simplify the set of users of the alloca, and that
causes us to run the alloca back through the SROA pass in case there are
knock-on simplifications. At this point, a curious thing has happened.
If we happen to have an i8 alloca, we have direct i8 pointer values. So
we don't bother creating a cast, we rewrite the arguments to the memcpy
to dircetly refer to the alloca.
Now, in an unrelated area of the pass, we have clever logic which
ensures that when visiting each User of a particular pointer derived
from an alloca, we only visit that User once, and directly inspect all
of its operands which refer to that particular pointer value. However,
the mechanism used to detect memcpy's with the potential to overlap
relied upon getting visited once per *Use*, not once per *User*. This is
always true *unless* the same exact value is both source and dest. It
turns out that almost nothing actually produces that pattern though.
We can hand craft test cases that more directly test this behavior of
course, and those are included. Also, note that there is a significant
missed optimization here -- we prove in many cases that there is
a non-volatile memcpy call with identical source and dest addresses. We
shouldn't prevent splitting the alloca in that case, and in fact we
should just remove such memcpy calls eagerly. I'll address that in
a subsequent commit.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
