Go back to allocating memory for each constant separately. Since SPARCs do not

allow unaligned loads, that is probably the problem I've been seeing in numerous
SPARC test cases failing. X86, on the other hand, just slows down unaligned
accesses, since it must make 2 aligned accesses for each unaligned one.

llvm-svn: 10266

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/Emitter.cpp b/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/Emitter.cpp
index be60b239a3e..32d0651f226 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/Emitter.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/Emitter.cpp
@@ -187,28 +187,13 @@ void Emitter::finishFunction(MachineFunction &F) {
 
 void Emitter::emitConstantPool(MachineConstantPool *MCP) {
   const std::vector<Constant*> &Constants = MCP->getConstants();
-  if (Constants.size() == 0) return;
-
-  std::vector<unsigned> ConstantSizes;
-  unsigned TotalSize = 0;
-  // Calculate how much space we will need for all the constants
   for (unsigned i = 0, e = Constants.size(); i != e; ++i) {
+    // For now we just allocate some memory on the heap, this can be
+    // dramatically improved.
     const Type *Ty = ((Value*)Constants[i])->getType();
-    unsigned TySize = TheVM->getTargetData().getTypeSize(Ty);
-    ConstantSizes.push_back(TySize);
-    TotalSize += TySize;
-  }
-  // Allocate a 'pool' of memory just once
-  void *ConstPool = malloc(TotalSize);
-  if (!ConstPool) {
-    perror("malloc");
-    abort();
-  }
-  // Initialize each slot in the 'pool' appropriately
-  for (unsigned i = 0, e = Constants.size(); i != e; ++i) {
-    TheVM->InitializeMemory(Constants[i], ConstPool);
-    ConstantPoolAddresses.push_back(ConstPool);
-    ConstPool = (void*) ((intptr_t)ConstPool + ConstantSizes[i]);
+    void *Addr = malloc(TheVM->getTargetData().getTypeSize(Ty));
+    TheVM->InitializeMemory(Constants[i], Addr);
+    ConstantPoolAddresses.push_back(Addr);
   }
 }