updateTerminator code didn't correctly handle EH terminators in one very
specific case. AnalyzeBranch would find no terminator instruction, and
so the fallback in updateTerminator is to assume fallthrough. This is
correct, but the destination of the fallthrough was assumed to be the
first successor.
This is *almost always* true, but in certain cases the loop
transformations will cause the landing pad to be the first successor!
Instead of this brittle logic, actually look through the successors for
a non-landing-pad accessor, and to assert if more than one is found.
This will hopefully fix some (if not all) of the self host miscompiles
with block placement. Thanks to Benjamin Kramer for reporting, Nick
Lewycky for an initial stab at a reduction, and Duncan for endless
advice on EH (which I know nothing about) as well as reviewing the
actual fix.
llvm-svn: 145062
properly account for the *global* probability of the edge being taken.
This manifested as a very large number of unconditional branches to
blocks being merged against the CFG even though they weren't
particularly hot within the CFG.
The fix is to check whether the edge being merged is both locally hot
relative to other successors for the source block, and globally hot
compared to other (unmerged) predecessors of the destination block.
This introduces a new crasher on GCC single-source, but it's currently
behind a flag, and Ben has offered to work on the reduction. =]
llvm-svn: 145010
is actually being tested. Also add some FileCheck goodness to much more
carefully ensure that the result is the desired result. Before this test
would only have failed through an assert failure if the underlying fix
were reverted.
Also, add some weight metadata and a comment explaining exactly what is
going on to a trick section of the test case. Originally, we were
getting very unlucky and trying to form a block chain that isn't
actually profitable. I'm working on a fix to avoid forming these
unprofitable chains, and that would also have masked any failure from
this test case. The easy solution is to add some metadata that makes it
*really* profitable to form the bad chain here.
llvm-svn: 145006
formation phase and into the initial walk of the basic blocks. We
essentially pre-merge all blocks where unanalyzable fallthrough exists,
as we won't be able to update the terminators effectively after any
reorderings. This is quite a bit more principled as there may be CFGs
where the second half of the unanalyzable pair has some analyzable
predecessor that gets placed first. Then it may get placed next,
implicitly breaking the unanalyzable branch even though we never even
looked at the part that isn't analyzable. I've included a test case that
triggers this (thanks Benjamin yet again!), and I'm hoping to synthesize
some more general ones as I dig into related issues.
Also, to make this new scheme work we have to be able to handle branches
into the middle of a chain, so add this check. We always fallback on the
incoming ordering.
Finally, this starts to really underscore a known limitation of the
current implementation -- we don't consider broken predecessors when
merging successors. This can caused major missed opportunities, and is
something I'm planning on looking at next (modulo more bug reports).
llvm-svn: 144994
The loop tree's inclusive block lists are painful and expensive to
update. (I have no idea why they're inclusive). The design was
supposed to handle this case but the implementation missed it and my
unit tests weren't thorough enough.
Fixes PR11335: loop unroll update.
llvm-svn: 144970
The right way to check for a binary operation is
cast<BinaryOperator>. The original check: cast<Instruction> &&
numOperands() == 2 would match phi "instructions", leading to an
infinite loop in extreme corner case: a useless phi with operands
[self, constant] that prior optimization passes failed to remove,
being used in the loop by another useless phi, in turn being used by an
lshr or udiv.
Fixes PR11350: runaway iteration assertion.
llvm-svn: 144935
ADDs. MaxOffs is used as a threshold to limit the size of the offset. Tradeoffs
being: (1) If we can't materialize the large constant then we'll cause fast-isel
to bail. (2) Too large of an offset can't be directly encoded in the ADD
resulting in a MOV+ADD. Generally not a bad thing because otherwise we would
have had ADD+ADD, but on Thumb this turns into a MOVS+MOVT+ADD. Working on a fix
for that. (3) Conversely, too low of a threshold we'll miss opportunities to
coalesce ADDs.
rdar://10412592
llvm-svn: 144886
We don't (yet) have the granularity in the fixups to be specific about which
bitranges are affected. That's a future cleanup, but we're not there yet.
llvm-svn: 144852
For example,
vld1.f64 {d2-d5}, [r2,:128]!
Should be equivalent to:
vld1.f64 {d2,d3,d4,d5}, [r2,:128]!
It's not documented syntax in the ARM ARM, but it is consistent with what's
accepted for VLDM/VSTM and is unambiguous in meaning, so it's a good thing to
support.
rdar://10451128
llvm-svn: 144727
When the 3rd operand is not a low-register, and the first two operands are
the same low register, the parser was incorrectly trying to use the 16-bit
instruction encoding.
rdar://10449281
llvm-svn: 144679
