appear in the InlineFunctionInfo.

llvm-svn: 206308

beginning of the first new block after inlining.

llvm-svn: 206307

Also updated as many loops as I could find using df_begin/idf_begin -
strangely I found no uses of idf_begin. Is that just used out of tree?

Also a few places couldn't use df_begin because either they used the
member functions of the depth first iterators or had specific ordering
constraints (I added a comment in the latter case).

Based on a patch by Jim Grosbach. (Jim - you just had iterator_range<T>
where you needed iterator_range<idf_iterator<T>>)

llvm-svn: 206016

llvm-svn: 204981

Summary:
Tested with a unit test because we don't appear to have any transforms
that use this other than ASan, I think.

Fixes PR17935.

Reviewers: nicholas

CC: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3194

llvm-svn: 204866

This option caused LowerInvoke to generate code using SJLJ-based
exception handling, but there is no code left that interprets the
jmp_buf stack that the resulting code maintained (llvm.sjljeh.jblist).
This option has been obsolete for a while, and replaced by
SjLjEHPrepare.

This leaves the default behaviour of LowerInvoke, which is to convert
invokes to calls.

Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3136

llvm-svn: 204388

llvm-svn: 204230

Also changes the iterators to return actual DI type over MDNode.

llvm-svn: 204130

This allows us to generate table lookups for code such as:

  unsigned test(unsigned x) {
    switch (x) {
      case 100: return 0;
      case 101: return 1;
      case 103: return 2;
      case 105: return 3;
      case 107: return 4;
      case 109: return 5;
      case 110: return 6;
      default: return f(x);
    }
  }

Since cases 102, 104, etc. are not constants, the lookup table has holes
in those positions. We therefore guard the table lookup with a bitmask check.

Patch by Jasper Neumann!

llvm-svn: 203694

llvm-svn: 203687

llvm-svn: 203662

llvm-svn: 203520

optimize a call to a llvm intrinsic to something that invovles a call to a C
library call, make sure it sets the right calling convention on the call.

e.g.
extern double pow(double, double);
double t(double x) {
  return pow(10, x);
}

Compiles to something like this for AAPCS-VFP:
define arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @t(double %x) #0 {
entry:
  %0 = call double @llvm.pow.f64(double 1.000000e+01, double %x)
  ret double %0
}

declare double @llvm.pow.f64(double, double) #1

Simplify libcall (part of instcombine) will turn the above into:
define arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @t(double %x) #0 {
entry:
  %__exp10 = call double @__exp10(double %x) #1
  ret double %__exp10
}

declare double @__exp10(double)

The pre-instcombine code works because calls to LLVM builtins are special.
Instruction selection will chose the right calling convention for the call.
However, the code after instcombine is wrong. The call to __exp10 will use
the C calling convention.

I can think of 3 options to fix this.

1. Make "C" calling convention just work since the target should know what CC
   is being used.

   This doesn't work because each function can use different CC with the "pcs"
   attribute.

2. Have Clang add the right CC keyword on the calls to LLVM builtin.

   This will work but it doesn't match the LLVM IR specification which states
   these are "Standard C Library Intrinsics".

3. Fix simplify libcall so the resulting calls to the C routines will have the
   proper CC keyword. e.g.
   %__exp10 = call arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @__exp10(double %x) #1

   This works and is the solution I implemented here.

Both solutions #2 and #3 would work. After carefully considering the pros and
cons, I decided to implement #3 for the following reasons.

1. It doesn't change the "spec" of the intrinsics.
2. It's a self-contained fix.

There are a couple of potential downsides.
1. There could be other places in the optimizer that is broken in the same way
   that's not addressed by this.
2. There could be other calling conventions that need to be propagated by
   simplify-libcall that's not handled.

But for now, this is the fix that I'm most comfortable with.

llvm-svn: 203488

No change in functionality.

llvm-svn: 203413

This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
   detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
   iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
   Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
   they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
   needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
   opaque.

Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.

The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.

However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]

llvm-svn: 203364

This compiles with no changes to clang/lld/lldb with MSVC and includes
overloads to various functions which are used by those projects and llvm
which have OwningPtr's as parameters. This should allow out of tree
projects some time to move. There are also no changes to libs/Target,
which should help out of tree targets have time to move, if necessary.

llvm-svn: 203083

already lives.

llvm-svn: 203046

already lives.

llvm-svn: 203038

llvm-svn: 202957

llvm-svn: 202953

a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.

llvm-svn: 202838

hardcoded to use IR BasicBlocks.

llvm-svn: 202835

instructions.

llvm-svn: 202834

IR types.

llvm-svn: 202827

Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.

This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.

llvm-svn: 202821

obviously is coupled to the IR.

llvm-svn: 202818

abstracting between a CallInst and an InvokeInst, both of which are IR
concepts.

llvm-svn: 202816

name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.

Another step of modularizing the support library.

llvm-svn: 202815

llvm-svn: 202811

DWARF discriminators are used to distinguish multiple control flow paths
on the same source location. When this happens, instructions across
basic block boundaries will share the same debug location.

This pass detects this situation and creates a new lexical scope to one
of the two instructions. This lexical scope is a child scope of the
original and contains a new discriminator value. This discriminator is
then picked up from MCObjectStreamer::EmitDwarfLocDirective to be
written on the object file.

This fixes http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18270.

llvm-svn: 202752

Remove the old functions.

llvm-svn: 202636

Instead, have a DataLayoutPass that holds one. This will allow parts of LLVM
don't don't handle passes to also use DataLayout.

llvm-svn: 202168

llvm-svn: 201833

I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.

llvm-svn: 201827

TargetData was renamed DataLayout back in r165242.

llvm-svn: 201581

The crux of the issue is that LCSSA doesn't preserve stateful alias
analyses. Before r200067, LICM didn't cause LCSSA to run in the LTO pass
manager, where LICM runs essentially without any of the other loop
passes. As a consequence the globalmodref-aa pass run before that loop
pass manager was able to survive the loop pass manager and be used by
DSE to eliminate stores in the function called from the loop body in
Adobe-C++/loop_unroll (and similar patterns in other benchmarks).

When LICM was taught to preserve LCSSA it had to require it as well.
This caused it to be run in the loop pass manager and because it did not
preserve AA, the stateful AA was lost. Most of LLVM's AA isn't stateful
and so this didn't manifest in most cases. Also, in most cases LCSSA was
already running, and so there was no interesting change.

The real kicker is that LCSSA by its definition (injecting PHI nodes
only) trivially preserves AA! All we need to do is mark it, and then
everything goes back to working as intended. It probably was blocking
some other weird cases of stateful AA but the only one I have is
a 1000-line IR test case from loop_unroll, so I don't really have a good
test case here.

Hopefully this fixes the regressions on performance that have been seen
since that revision.

llvm-svn: 201104

For the odd case of platforms with exp2 available but not ldexp.

llvm-svn: 200795

rdar://problem/13729466

llvm-svn: 200771

Add the missing transformation strchr(p, 0) -> p + strlen(p) to SimplifyLibCalls
and remove the ToDo comment.

Reviewer: Duncan P.N. Exan Smith
llvm-svn: 200736

LowerExpectIntrinsic previously only understood the idiom of an expect
intrinsic followed by a comparison with zero. For llvm.expect.i1, the
comparison would be stripped by the early-cse pass.

Patch by Daniel Micay.

llvm-svn: 200664