| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: Split off of D67120.
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: hiraditya, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, MaskRay, zzheng, edward-jones, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, PkmX, jocewei, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, sameer.abuasal, apazos, luismarques, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71288
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Targets can potentially emit more efficient code if they know address
computations never overflow. For example ILP32 code on AArch64 (which only has
64-bit address computation) can ignore the possibility of overflow with this
extra information.
llvm-svn: 355926
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The extra comma meant it wasn't correctly checking that we weren't getting an
extra getelementptr.
llvm-svn: 318406
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Issue found by llvm-isel-fuzzer on OSS fuzz, https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=3725
If anyone actually cares about > 64 bit arithmetic, there's a lot more to do in this area. There's a bunch of obviously wrong code in the same function. I don't have the time to fix all of them and am just using this to understand what the workflow for fixing fuzzer cases might look like.
llvm-svn: 316967
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This lets us optimize away selects that perform the same address computation in
two different ways and is also the first step towards being able to handle
selects between two different, but compatible, address computations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38242
llvm-svn: 314794
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Allowing cycles in Phi traversal increases the scope of optimize memory instruction
in case we are in loop.
The added test shows an example of enabling optimization inside a loop.
Reviewers: loladiro, spatel, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35294
llvm-svn: 308419
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we fail to sink an instruction, we must make sure not to modify
the function; otherwise, we end up in an infinite loop because
CodeGenPrepare iterates until it doesn't make any changes.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33608 .
llvm-svn: 307866
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The new codepath has been in the tree for years, and there isn't any
reason to use two codepaths here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30596
llvm-svn: 299723
|
|
|
addressing mode
This patch teaches CGP to duplicate addressing mode computations into cold paths (detected via explicit cold attribute on calls) if required to let addressing mode be safely sunk into the basic block containing each load and store.
In general, duplicating code into cold blocks may result in code growth, but should not effect performance. In this case, it's better to duplicate some code than to put extra pressure on the register allocator by making it keep the address through the entirely of the fast path.
This patch only handles addressing computations, but in principal, we could implement a more general cold cold scheduling heuristic which tries to reduce register pressure in the fast path by duplicating code into the cold path. Getting the profitability of the general case right seemed likely to be challenging, so I stuck to the existing case (addressing computation) we already had.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17652
llvm-svn: 263074
|
