| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a lifetime.end marker occurs along one path through the extraction
region, but not another, then it's still incorrect to lift the marker,
because there is some path through the extracted function which would
ordinarily not reach the marker. If the call to the extracted function
is in a loop, unrolling can cause inputs to the function to become
optimized out as undef after the first iteration.
To prevent incorrect stack slot merging in the calling function, it
should be sufficient to lift lifetime.start markers for region inputs.
I've tested this theory out by doing a stage2 check-all with randomized
splitting enabled.
This is a follow-up to r353973, and there's additional context for this
change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834.
rdar://47896986
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58253
llvm-svn: 354159
|
|
|
When CodeExtractor finds liftime markers referencing inputs to the
extraction region, it lifts these markers out of the region and inserts
them around the call to the extracted function (see r350420, PR39671).
However, it should *only* lift lifetime markers that are actually
present in the extraction region. I.e., if a start marker is present in
the extraction region but a corresponding end marker isn't (or vice
versa), only the start marker (or end marker, resp.) should be lifted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834
llvm-svn: 353973
|
