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
has a reference to it. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for codegen passes
since we don't get notified of MBB's being deleted (the original BB stays).
Use that fact to our advantage and after printing a function, check if
any of the IL BBs corresponds to a symbol that was not printed. This fixes
pr11202.
llvm-svn: 144674
block sequence when recovering from unanalyzable control flow
constructs, *always* use the function sequence. I'm not sure why I ever
went down the path of trying to use the loop sequence, it is
fundamentally not the correct sequence to use. We're trying to preserve
the incoming layout in the cases of unreasonable control flow, and that
is only encoded at the function level. We already have a filter to
select *exactly* the sub-set of blocks within the function that we're
trying to form into a chain.
The resulting code layout is also significantly better because of this.
In several places we were ending up with completely unreasonable control
flow constructs due to the ordering chosen by the loop structure for its
internal storage. This change removes a completely wasteful vector of
basic blocks, saving memory allocation in the common case even though it
costs us CPU in the fairly rare case of unnatural loops. Finally, it
fixes the latest crasher reduced out of GCC's single source. Thanks
again to Benjamin Kramer for the reduction, my bugpoint skills failed at
it.
llvm-svn: 144627
Two new TargetInstrInfo hooks lets the target tell ExecutionDepsFix
about instructions with partial register updates causing false unwanted
dependencies.
The ExecutionDepsFix pass will break the false dependencies if the
updated register was written in the previoius N instructions.
The small loop added to sse-domains.ll runs twice as fast with
dependency-breaking instructions inserted.
llvm-svn: 144602
and stores capture) to permit the caller to see each capture point and decide
whether to continue looking.
Use this inside memdep to do an analysis that basicaa won't do. This lets us
solve another devirtualization case, fixing PR8908!
llvm-svn: 144580
instructions of the two-address operands) in order to avoid inserting copies.
This fixes the few regressions introduced when the two-address hack was
disabled (without regressing the improvements).
rdar://10422688
llvm-svn: 144559
the sum of the edge weights not overflowing uint32, and crashed when
they did. This is generally safe as BranchProbabilityInfo tries to
provide this guarantee. However, the CFG can get modified during codegen
in a way that grows the *sum* of the edge weights. This doesn't seem
unreasonable (imagine just adding more blocks all with the default
weight of 16), but it is hard to come up with a case that actually
triggers 32-bit overflow. Fortuately, the single-source GCC build is
good at this. The solution isn't very pretty, but its no worse than the
previous code. We're already summing all of the edge weights on each
query, we can sum them, check for an overflow, compute a scale, and sum
them again.
I've included a *greatly* reduced test case out of the GCC source that
triggers it. It's a pretty lame test, as it clearly is just barely
triggering the overflow. I'd like to have something that is much more
definitive, but I don't understand the fundamental pattern that triggers
an explosion in the edge weight sums.
The buggy code is duplicated within this file. I'll colapse them into
a single implementation in a subsequent commit.
llvm-svn: 144526
get loop info structures associated with them, and so we need some way
to make forward progress selecting and placing basic blocks. The
technique used here is pretty brutal -- it just scans the list of blocks
looking for the first unplaced candidate. It keeps placing blocks like
this until the CFG becomes tractable.
The cost is somewhat unfortunate, it requires allocating a vector of all
basic block pointers eagerly. I have some ideas about how to simplify
and optimize this, but I'm trying to get the logic correct first.
Thanks to Benjamin Kramer for the reduced test case out of GCC. Sadly
there are other bugs that GCC is tickling that I'm reducing and working
on now.
llvm-svn: 144516
second algorithm, but only loosely. It is more heavily based on the last
discussion I had with Andy. It continues to walk from the inner-most
loop outward, but there is a key difference. With this algorithm we
ensure that as we visit each loop, the entire loop is merged into
a single chain. At the end, the entire function is treated as a "loop",
and merged into a single chain. This chain forms the desired sequence of
blocks within the function. Switching to a single algorithm removes my
biggest problem with the previous approaches -- they had different
behavior depending on which system triggered the layout. Now there is
exactly one algorithm and one basis for the decision making.
The other key difference is how the chain is formed. This is based
heavily on the idea Andy mentioned of keeping a worklist of blocks that
are viable layout successors based on the CFG. Having this set allows us
to consistently select the best layout successor for each block. It is
expensive though.
The code here remains very rough. There is a lot that needs to be done
to clean up the code, and to make the runtime cost of this pass much
lower. Very much WIP, but this was a giant chunk of code and I'd rather
folks see it sooner than later. Everything remains behind a flag of
course.
I've added a couple of tests to exercise the issues that this iteration
was motivated by: loop structure preservation. I've also fixed one test
that was exhibiting the broken behavior of the previous version.
llvm-svn: 144495
