llvm-svn: 51955

llvm-svn: 51947

are the same as in unpacked structs, only field
positions differ.  This only matters for structs
containing x86 long double or an apint; it may
cause backwards compatibility problems if someone
has bitcode containing a packed struct with a
field of one of those types.
The issue is that only 10 bytes are needed to
hold an x86 long double: the store size is 10
bytes, but the ABI size is 12 or 16 bytes (linux/
darwin) which comes from rounding the store size
up by the alignment.  Because it seemed silly not
to pack an x86 long double into 10 bytes in a
packed struct, this is what was done.  I now
think this was a mistake.  Reserving the ABI size
for an x86 long double field even in a packed
struct makes things more uniform: the ABI size is
now always used when reserving space for a type.
This means that developers are less likely to
make mistakes.  It also makes life easier for the
CBE which otherwise could not represent all LLVM
packed structs (PR2402).
Front-end people might need to adjust the way
they create LLVM structs - see following change
to llvm-gcc.

llvm-svn: 51928

Don't crash when we encounter one of these.

llvm-svn: 51915

llvm-svn: 51890

llvm-svn: 51887

llvm-svn: 51864

out of instcombine into a new file in libanalysis.  This also teaches
ComputeNumSignBits about the number of sign bits in a constantint.

llvm-svn: 51863

char a[200];
init(a, a+200);

OR

int a[200];
char* b = (char*)a;
char* c = (char*)a;
foo(b, c);

llvm-svn: 51850

llvm-svn: 51848

the conditions for performing the transform when only the
function declaration is available: no longer allow turning
i32 into i64 for example.  Only allow changing between
pointer types, and between pointer types and integers of
the same size.  For return values ptr -> intptr was already
allowed; I added ptr -> ptr and intptr -> ptr while there.
As shown by a recent objc testcase, changing the way
parameters/return values are passed can be fatal when calling
code written in assembler that directly manipulates call
arguments and return values unless the transform has no
impact on the way they are passed at the codegen level.
While it is possible to imagine an ABI that treats integers
of pointer size differently to pointers, I don't think LLVM
supports any so the transform should now be safe while still
being useful.

llvm-svn: 51834

llvm-svn: 51819

llvm-svn: 51817

llvm-svn: 51816

llvm-svn: 51789

Since LCSSA switched over to DenseMap, we have to be more careful to avoid iterator invalidation.  Fixes PR2385.

llvm-svn: 51777

llvm-svn: 51770

llvm-svn: 51698

llvm-svn: 51680

the one case that ADCE catches that normal DCE doesn't: non-induction variable
loop computations.

This implementation handles this problem without using postdominators.

llvm-svn: 51668

llvm-svn: 51666

llvm-svn: 51663

llvm-svn: 51636

llvm-svn: 51591

the set of nodes. Fix makeEqual to handle this by creating the new node first
then iterating across them second.

llvm-svn: 51573

llvm-svn: 51572

the section or the visibility from one global
value to another: copyAttributesFrom.  This is
particularly useful for duplicating functions:
previously this was done by explicitly copying
each attribute in turn at each place where a
new function was created out of an old one, with
the result that obscure attributes were regularly
forgotten (like the collector or the section).
Hopefully now everything is uniform and nothing
is forgotten.

llvm-svn: 51567

llvm-svn: 51565

Analysis/ConstantFolding to fold ConstantExpr's, then make instcombine use it
to try to use targetdata to fold constant expressions on void instructions.

Also extend the icmp(inttoptr, inttoptr) folding to handle the case where
int size != ptr size.

llvm-svn: 51559

This fixes PR2359

llvm-svn: 51536

llvm-svn: 51535

Remove x86.sse2.loadh.pd and x86.sse2.loadl.pd. These will be lowered into load and shuffle instructions.

llvm-svn: 51521

use it instead of duplicating its functionality.

llvm-svn: 51499

llvm-svn: 51482

The SimplifyCFG pass looks at basic blocks that contain only phi nodes,
followed by an unconditional branch. In a lot of cases, such a block (BB) can
be merged into their successor (Succ).

This merging is performed by TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock. It does
this by taking all phi nodes in the succesor block Succ and expanding them to
include the predecessors of BB. Furthermore, any phi nodes in BB are moved to
Succ and expanded to include the predecessors of Succ as well.

Before attempting this merge, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs checks to see if
all phi nodes can be properly merged. All functional changes are made to
this function, only comments were updated in
TryToSimplifyUncondBranchFromEmptyBlock.

In the original code, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs looks quite convoluted
and more like stack of checks added to handle different kinds of situations
than a comprehensive check. In particular the first check in the function did
some value checking for the case that BB and Succ have a common predecessor,
while the last check in the function simply rejected all cases where BB and
Succ have a common predecessor. The first check was still useful in the case
that BB did not contain any phi nodes at all, though, so it was not completely
useless.

Now, CanPropagatePredecessorsForPHIs is restructured to to look a lot more
similar to the code that actually performs the merge. Both functions now look
at the same phi nodes in about the same order.  Any conflicts (phi nodes with
different values for the same source) that could arise from merging or moving
phi nodes are detected. If no conflicts are found, the merge can happen.

Apart from only restructuring the checks, two main changes in functionality
happened.

Firstly, the old code rejected blocks with common predecessors in most cases.
The new code performs some extra checks so common predecessors can be handled
in a lot of cases. Wherever common predecessors still pose problems, the
blocks are left untouched.

Secondly, the old code rejected the merge when values (phi nodes) from BB were
used in any other place than Succ. However, it does not seem that there is any
situation that would require this check. Even more, this can be proven.

Consider that BB is a block containing of a single phi node "%a" and a branch
to Succ. Now, since the definition of %a will dominate all of its uses, BB
will dominate all blocks that use %a. Furthermore, since the branch from BB to
Succ is unconditional, Succ will also dominate all uses of %a.

Now, assume that one predecessor of Succ is not dominated by BB (and thus not
dominated by Succ). Since at least one use of %a (but in reality all of them)
is reachable from Succ, you could end up at a use of %a without passing
through it's definition in BB (by coming from X through Succ). This is a
contradiction, meaning that our original assumption is wrong. Thus, all
predecessors of Succ must also be dominated by BB (and thus also by Succ).

This means that moving the phi node %a from BB to Succ does not pose any
problems when the two blocks are merged, and any use checks are not needed.

llvm-svn: 51478

llvm-svn: 51477

llvm-svn: 51476

llvm-svn: 51475

llvm-svn: 51474

llvm-svn: 51472