once we start changing the block layout, so just nuke it. If anyone has
ideas about how to craft a code layout agnostic form of the test please
let me know.
llvm-svn: 154815
rotation. When there is a loop backedge which is an unconditional
branch, we will end up with a branch somewhere no matter what. Try
placing this backedge in a fallthrough position above the loop header as
that will definitely remove at least one branch from the loop iteration,
where whole loop rotation may not.
I haven't seen any benchmarks where this is important but loop-blocks.ll
tests for it, and so this will be covered when I flip the default.
llvm-svn: 154812
and retrieving it from instructions. I don't have a use for this but is seems
logical for it to exist. While there, remove some 'const' markings from methods
which are in fact 'const' in practice, but aren't logically 'const'.
llvm-svn: 154811
The test change is to account for the fact that the default disassembler behaviour has changed with regards to specifying the assembly syntax to use.
llvm-svn: 154809
so we don't want it to show up in the stable 3.1 interface.
While at it, add a comment about why LTOCodeGenerator manually creates the
internalize pass.
llvm-svn: 154807
laid out in a form with a fallthrough into the header and a fallthrough
out of the bottom. In that case, leave the loop alone because any
rotation will introduce unnecessary branches. If either side looks like
it will require an explicit branch, then the rotation won't add any, do
it to ensure the branch occurs outside of the loop (if possible) and
maximize the benefit of the fallthrough in the bottom.
llvm-svn: 154806
This is a complex change that resulted from a great deal of
experimentation with several different benchmarks. The one which proved
the most useful is included as a test case, but I don't know that it
captures all of the relevant changes, as I didn't have specific
regression tests for each, they were more the result of reasoning about
what the old algorithm would possibly do wrong. I'm also failing at the
moment to craft more targeted regression tests for these changes, if
anyone has ideas, it would be welcome.
The first big thing broken with the old algorithm is the idea that we
can take a basic block which has a loop-exiting successor and a looping
successor and use the looping successor as the layout top in order to
get that particular block to be the bottom of the loop after layout.
This happens to work in many cases, but not in all.
The second big thing broken was that we didn't try to select the exit
which fell into the nearest enclosing loop (to which we exit at all). As
a consequence, even if the rotation worked perfectly, it would result in
one of two bad layouts. Either the bottom of the loop would get
fallthrough, skipping across a nearer enclosing loop and thereby making
it discontiguous, or it would be forced to take an explicit jump over
the nearest enclosing loop to earch its successor. The point of the
rotation is to get fallthrough, so we need it to fallthrough to the
nearest loop it can.
The fix to the first issue is to actually layout the loop from the loop
header, and then rotate the loop such that the correct exiting edge can
be a fallthrough edge. This is actually much easier than I anticipated
because we can handle all the hard parts of finding a viable rotation
before we do the layout. We just store that, and then rotate after
layout is finished. No inner loops get split across the post-rotation
backedge because we check for them when selecting the rotation.
That fix exposed a latent problem with our exitting block selection --
we should allow the backedge to point into the middle of some inner-loop
chain as there is no real penalty to it, the whole point is that it
*won't* be a fallthrough edge. This may have blocked the rotation at all
in some cases, I have no idea and no test case as I've never seen it in
practice, it was just noticed by inspection.
Finally, all of these fixes, and studying the loops they produce,
highlighted another problem: in rotating loops like this, we sometimes
fail to align the destination of these backwards jumping edges. Fix this
by actually walking the backwards edges rather than relying on loopinfo.
This fixes regressions on heapsort if block placement is enabled as well
as lots of other cases where the previous logic would introduce an
abundance of unnecessary branches into the execution.
llvm-svn: 154783
As an example, attach range info to the "invalid instruction" message:
$ clang -arch arm -c asm.c
asm.c:2:11: error: invalid instruction
__asm__("foo r0");
^
<inline asm>:1:2: note: instantiated into assembly here
foo r0
^~~
llvm-svn: 154765
thinking of generalizing it to be able to specify other freedoms beyond accuracy
(such as that NaN's don't have to be respected). I'd like the 3.1 release (the
first one with this metadata) to have the more generic name already rather than
having to auto-upgrade it in 3.2.
llvm-svn: 154744
When vectorizing pointer types it is important to realize that potential
pairs cannot be connected via the address pointer argument of a load or store.
This is because even after vectorization, the address is still a scalar because
the address of the higher half of the pair is implicit from the address of the
lower half (it need not be, and should not be, explicitly computed).
llvm-svn: 154735
This is a special flag for targets that really want their block
terminators in the DAG. The default scheduler cannot handle this
correctly, so it becomes the specialized scheduler's responsibility to
schedule terminators.
llvm-svn: 154712
