| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330688
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330683
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This encoding is recognized by the CPU, but the behavior is undefined. This makes the disassembler handle it correctly so we don't print bswapl with a 16-bit register.
llvm-svn: 330682
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This code path can very clearly be called in a context where we have
baselined all the cloned blocks to a particular loop and are trying to
handle nested subloops. There is no harm in this, so just relax the
assert. I've added a test case that will make sure we actually exercise
this code path.
llvm-svn: 330680
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330678
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330677
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330676
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
No functional change intended.
llvm-svn: 330675
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(notionally Scalar.h is part of libLLVMScalarOpts, so it shouldn't be
included by InstCombine which doesn't/shouldn't need to depend on
ScalarOpts)
llvm-svn: 330669
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I just tried to copy what was done for regular InstCombine. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.
llvm-svn: 330668
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I was reminded today that this patch got reverted in r301885. I can no
longer reproduce the failure that caused the revert locally (...almost
one year later), and the patch applied pretty cleanly, so I guess we'll
see if the bots still get angry about it.
The original breakage was InstSimplify complaining (in "assertion
failed" form) about getting passed some crazy IR when running `ninja
check-sanitizer`. I'm unable to find traces of what, exactly, said crazy
IR was. I suppose we'll find out pretty soon if that's still the case.
:)
Original commit:
Author: gbiv
Date: Mon May 1 18:12:08 2017
New Revision: 301880
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=301880&view=rev
Log:
[InstSimplify] Handle selects of GEPs with 0 offset
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 330667
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There're issues with IFUNC support on other platforms.
DIfferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45840
llvm-svn: 330665
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
AggressiveInstCombine library. Use it in bugpoint and llvm-opt-fuzzer to match regular InstCombine.
This should make aggressive instcombine usable with these tools.
llvm-svn: 330663
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We have test coverage for these with resources-sse*/avx*
llvm-svn: 330662
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: Add DIBuilder bindings for (global) variable expressions, variable value expressions, and debug value intrinsic insertion.
Reviewers: harlanhaskins, deadalnix, whitequark
Reviewed By: whitequark
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45979
llvm-svn: 330661
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We have test coverage for these with resources-bmi2.s
llvm-svn: 330659
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a loop with child loops becomes our new inner loop after
interchanging, we only need to update LoopInfo for the blocks defined in
the old outer loop. BBs in child loops will stay there.
Reviewers: efriedma, karthikthecool, mcrosier
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45970
llvm-svn: 330653
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330648
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37104 | PR37104 ]].
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]] will introduce an IR canonicalization that is likely bad for the end assembly.
Previously, `andl`+`andn`/`andps`+`andnps` / `bic`/`bsl` would be generated. (see `@out`)
Now, they would no longer be generated (see `@in`).
So we need to make sure that they are still generated.
If the mask is constant, we do nothing. InstCombine should have unfolded it.
Else, i use `hasAndNot()` TLI hook.
For now, only handle scalars.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bO6
----
I *really* don't like the code i wrote in `DAGCombiner::unfoldMaskedMerge()`.
It is super fragile. Is there something like IR Pattern Matchers for this?
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, javed.absar
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: andreadb, courbet, kristof.beyls, javed.absar, rengolin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45733
llvm-svn: 330646
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a constant.
Summary: We do not need nonull attribute if we know an argument is going to be constant.
Reviewers: junbuml, davide, fhahn
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45608
llvm-svn: 330641
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330640
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reviewers: craig.topper
llvm-svn: 330638
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Skip basic blocks not reachable from the entry node
in MemCpyOptPass::iterateOnFunction.
Code that is unreachable may have properties that do not exist
for reachable code (an instruction in a basic block can for
example be dominated by a later instruction in the same basic
block, for example if there is a single block loop).
MemCpyOptPass::processStore is only safe to use for reachable
basic blocks, since it may iterate past the basic block
beginning when used for unreachable blocks. By simply skipping
to optimize unreachable basic blocks we can avoid asserts such
as "Assertion `!NodePtr->isKnownSentinel()' failed."
in MemCpyOptPass::processStore.
The problem was detected by fuzz tests.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, dneilson, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45889
llvm-svn: 330635
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove the use of default argument in favor of a separate
startCustomSection method.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45794
llvm-svn: 330632
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
addresses.", with a fix for the bot failure.
This reland includes a check to prevent the DAG combiner from folding an
offset that is smaller than the existing one. This can cause oscillations
between two possible DAGs, which was the cause of the hang and later assertion
failure observed on the lnt-ctmark-aarch64-O3-flto bot.
http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/lnt-ctmark-aarch64-O3-flto/2024/
Original commit message:
> This is a code size win in code that takes offseted addresses
> frequently, such as C++ constructors that typically need to compute
> an offseted address of a vtable. This reduces the size of Chromium
> for Android's .text section by 108KB.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45199
llvm-svn: 330630
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This change teaches DSE that the atomic memory intrinsics are stores
that can be eliminated, and can allow other stores to be eliminated.
This change specifically does not teach DSE that these intrinsics
can be partially eliminated (i.e. length reduced, and dest/src changed);
that will be handled in another change.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, skatkov, apilipenko, efriedma, rsmith
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45535
llvm-svn: 330629
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For now switch back to fixed shadow mapping for x86-64 due to the issues
with IFUNC linking on older binutils. More details will be added to
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=835864
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45840
llvm-svn: 330623
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This helps debug issues where selection-dag assigns the wrong location
to an instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45913
llvm-svn: 330618
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330614
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's possible to validly spill the frame offset register
in a call sequence to a VGPR. There are definitely issues
with SGPR spilling to memory, so move the assert later.
llvm-svn: 330612
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330611
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We use llvm-symbolizer in some production systems, and we run it
against all possibly related files, including some that are not
ELF. We noticed that for some of those invalid files, llvm-symbolizer
would crash with SEGFAULT. Here is an example of such a file.
It is due to that in computeSymbolSizes, a loop uses condition
for (unsigned I = 0, N = Addresses.size() - 1; I < N; ++I) {
where if Addresses.size() is 0, N would overflow and causing the loop
to access invalid memory.
Instead of patching the loop conditions, the commit makes so that the
function returns early if Addresses is empty.
Validated by checking that llvm-symbolizer no longer crashes.
Patch by Teng Qin!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44285
llvm-svn: 330610
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also assert that it is correct for SGPRs. There is currently a bug
where stack slot coloring replaces SGPR spill FIs with one with
the default ID, which results in a more confusing assert later
about a dead object.
llvm-svn: 330607
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330606
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This just refactors the lowering of the atomic memory intrinsics to more
closely match the code patterns used in the lowering of the non-atomic
memory intrinsics. Specifically, we encapsulate the lowering in
SelectionDAG::getAtomicMem*() functions rather than embedding
the code directly in the SelectionDAGBuilder code.
llvm-svn: 330603
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: Move Go bindings for subranges and DINode arrays.
Reviewers: harlanhaskins, whitequark, deadalnix
Reviewed By: whitequark
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45933
llvm-svn: 330594
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: Adds bindings for Module and NameSpace scopes and LLVMDIBuilderCreateForwardDecl, a counterpart to LLVMDIBuilderCreateReplaceableCompositeType.
Reviewers: harlanhaskins, whitequark, deadalnix
Reviewed By: whitequark
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45934
llvm-svn: 330591
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Note - noticed this as the STAC case as it was unintentionally matching against *STACK* pseudo instructions.
llvm-svn: 330588
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330587
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Found by inspection. We care about the operand that *doesn't*
contain the immediate.
I believe this is currently not hit because we fold 0xff / 0xffff
immediates only later.
Change-Id: Ic3cf8538bc7da5eff3200d96eccf9d339e6345a7
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec
Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45886
llvm-svn: 330586
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
See the new test case; this is really unlikely to happen with real code,
but I ran into this while attempting to bugpoint-reduce a different issue.
Change-Id: I9ade1dc1aa8fd9c4d9fc83661d7b80e310b5c4a6
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec
Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45885
llvm-svn: 330585
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330584
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
load instructions
Reviewers: fhahn, rengolin, javed.absar, huntergr, SjoerdMeijer, t.p.northover, echristo, evandro
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: tschuett, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45684
llvm-svn: 330583
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
LoopRotate only invalidates innermost loops while the changes that it makes may
also affert any of this parents. With patch rL329047, SCEV becomes much smarter
about calculation of exit counts for outer loops, so we cannot assume that they are
not affected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45945
llvm-svn: 330582
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330581
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Current runtime unrolling invalidates parent loop saying that it might have changed
after the inner loop has changed, but it doesn't bother to do the same to its parents.
With patch rL329047, SCEV becomes much smarter about calculation of exit counts for
outer loops. We might need to invalidate not only the immediate parent, but also
any of its parents as well.
There is no clear evidence that there is some miscompile happening because of this
(at least I don't have such test), but the common sense says that the current code
is wrong.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45940
Reviewed By: chandlerc
llvm-svn: 330577
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the function `simplifyOneLoop` we optimistically assume that changes in the
inner loop only affect this very loop and have no impact on its parents. In fact,
after rL329047 has been merged, we can now calculate exit counts for outer
loops which may depend on inner loops. Thus, we need to invalidate all parents
when we do something to a loop.
There is an evidence of incorrect behavior of `simplifyOneLoop`: when we insert
`SE->verify()` check in the end of this funciton, it fails on a bunch of existing
test, in particular:
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-not-forced.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-pgo.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop.ll
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop2.ll
Note that previously we have fixed issues of this variety, see rL328483.
This patch makes this function invalidate the outermost loop properly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45937
Reviewed By: chandlerc
llvm-svn: 330576
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
store instructions.
Reviewers: fhahn, rengolin, javed.absar, SjoerdMeijer, t.p.northover, echristo, evandro, huntergr
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: tschuett, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45681
llvm-svn: 330565
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The condition this was asserting doesn't actually hold. I've added
comments to explain why, removed the assert, and added a fun test case
reduced out of 403.gcc.
llvm-svn: 330564
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 330563
|