spotted by inspection, and I've crafted no test case that triggers it on
my machine, but some of the windows builders are hitting what looks like
memory corruption, so *something* is amiss here.
This patch takes a more generalized approach to eliminating
double-visits. Imagine code such as:
%x = ...
%y = add %x, 1
%z = add %x, %y
You can imagine that if we simplify %x, we would add %y and %z to the
list. If the use-chain order happens to cause us to add them in reverse
order, we could pull %y off first, and simplify it, adding %z to the
list. We now have %z on the list twice, and will reference it after it
is deleted.
Currently, all my test cases happen to not trigger this, likely due to
the use-chain ordering, but there seems no guarantee that such
a situation could not occur, so we should handle it correctly.
Again, if anyone knows how to craft a testcase that actually triggers
this, please let me know.
llvm-svn: 153397
worklist. This can happen in theory when an instruction uses itself,
such as a PHI node. This was spotted by inspection, and unfortunately
I've not been able to come up with a test case that would trigger it. If
anyone has ideas, let me know...
llvm-svn: 153396
regressed seriously here, we are no longer removing allocas during
inline cleanup. This appears to be because of lifetime markers "using"
them. =/ I'll look into this shortly.
llvm-svn: 153394
bit simpler by handling a common case explicitly.
Also, refactor the implementation to use a worklist based walk of the
recursive users, rather than trying to use value handles to detect and
recover from RAUWs during the recursive descent. This fixes a very
subtle bug in the previous implementation where degenerate control flow
structures could cause mutually recursive instructions (PHI nodes) to
collapse in just such a way that From became equal to To after some
amount of recursion. At that point, we hit the inf-loop that the assert
at the top attempted to guard against. This problem is defined away when
not using value handles in this manner. There are lots of comments
claiming that the WeakVH will protect against just this sort of error,
but they're not accurate about the actual implementation of WeakVHs,
which do still track RAUWs.
I don't have any test case for the bug this fixes because it requires
running the recursive simplification on unreachable phi nodes. I've no
way to either run this or easily write an input that triggers it. It was
found when using instruction simplification inside the inliner when
running over the nightly test-suite.
llvm-svn: 153393
The PPC64 SVR4 ABI requires integer stack arguments, and thus the var. args., that
are smaller than 64 bits be zero extended to 64 bits.
llvm-svn: 153373
Code such as:
%vreg100 = setcc %vreg10, -1, SETNE
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
was being incorrectly morphed into
%vreg100 = and %vreg10, 1
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
where the 'and' instruction could be eliminated since
such logic is on 1-bit types in the PTX back-end, leaving
us with just:
brcond %vreg10, %tgt
which essentially gives us inverted branch conditions.
llvm-svn: 153364
destination module, but one of them isn't used in the destination module. If
another module comes along and the uses the unused type, there could be type
conflicts when the modules are finally linked together. (This happened when
building LLVM.)
The test that was reduced is:
Module A:
%Z = type { %A }
%A = type { %B.1, [7 x x86_fp80] }
%B.1 = type { %C }
%C = type { i8* }
declare void @func_x(%C*, i64, i64)
declare void @func_z(%Z* nocapture)
Module B:
%B = type { %C.1 }
%C.1 = type { i8* }
%A.2 = type { %B.3, [5 x x86_fp80] }
%B.3 = type { %C.1 }
define void @func_z() {
%x = alloca %A.2, align 16
%y = getelementptr inbounds %A.2* %x, i64 0, i32 0, i32 0
call void @func_x(%C.1* %y, i64 37, i64 927) nounwind
ret void
}
declare void @func_x(%C.1*, i64, i64)
declare void @func_y(%B* nocapture)
(Unfortunately, this test doesn't fail under llvm-link, only during an LTO
linking.) The '%C' and '%C.1' clash. The destination module gets the '%C'
declaration. When merging Module B, it looks at the '%C.1' subtype of the '%B'
structure. It adds that in, because that's cool. And when '%B.3' is processed,
it uses the '%C.1'. But the '%B' has used '%C' and we prefer to use '%C'. So the
'@func_x' type is changed to 'void (%C*, i64, i64)', but the type of '%x' in
'@func_z' remains '%A.2'. The GEP resolves to a '%C.1', which conflicts with the
'@func_x' signature.
We can resolve this situation by making sure that the type is used in the
destination before saying that it should be used in the module being merged in.
With this fix, LLVM and Clang both compile under LTO.
<rdar://problem/10913281>
llvm-svn: 153351
same basic block, and it's not safe to insert code in the successor
blocks if the edges are critical edges. Splitting those edges is
possible, but undesirable, especially on the unwind side. Instead,
make the bottom-up code motion to consider invokes to be part of
their successor blocks, rather than part of their parent blocks, so
that it doesn't push code past them and onto the edges. This fixes
PR12307.
llvm-svn: 153343
This is necessary if the client wants to be able to mutate TargetOptions (for example, fast FP math mode) after the initial creation of the ExecutionEngine.
llvm-svn: 153342
dominated by Root, check that B is available throughout the scope. This
is obviously true (famous last words?) given the current logic, but the
check may be helpful if more complicated reasoning is added one day.
llvm-svn: 153323
