llvm-svn: 169720

When SROA was evaluating a mixture of i1 and i8 loads and stores, in
just a particular case, it would tickle a latent bug where we compared
bits to bytes rather than bits to bits. As a consequence of the latent
bug, we would allow integers through which were not byte-size multiples,
a situation the later rewriting code was never intended to handle.

In release builds this could trigger all manner of oddities, but the
reported issue in PR14548 was forming invalid bitcast instructions.

The only downside of this fix is that it makes it more clear that SROA
in its current form is not capable of handling mixed i1 and i8 loads and
stores. Sometimes with the previous code this would work by luck, but
usually it would crash, so I'm not terribly worried. I'll watch the LNT
numbers just to be sure.

llvm-svn: 169719

llvm-svn: 169718

llvm-svn: 169717

llvm-svn: 169716

llvm-svn: 169715

Patch by Anthony Mykhailenko with small fixes by me.

llvm-svn: 169714

llvm-svn: 169713

llvm-svn: 169712

- added function to VectorTargetTransformInfo to query cost of intrinsics
- vectorize trivially vectorizable intrinsic calls such as sin, cos, log, etc.

Reviewed by: Nadav

llvm-svn: 169711

llvm-svn: 169710

llvm-svn: 169709

llvm-svn: 169705

llvm-svn: 169704

No functionality change.

llvm-svn: 169703

Patch by Alexander Zinenko!

llvm-svn: 169702

llvm-svn: 169701

llvm-svn: 169700

Thanks to Sean Silva for pointing out!

llvm-svn: 169699

This will more closely match the behavior of the new PtrUseVisitor that
I am adding. Hopefully this will not change the actual behavior in any
way, but by making the processing order more similar help in debugging.

llvm-svn: 169697

llvm-svn: 169696

The limit seems to break newer pythons (see PR13598) so just drop it for now.
Eventually lit should learn to set limits for its children instead of a global
limit in the makefile.

If some PPC bots fail after this change: That's a good thing, they actually run
clang tests now.

llvm-svn: 169695

Note that there is no test suite update. This was found by a couple of
tests failing when the test suite was run on a powerpc64 host (thanks
Roman!). The tests don't specify a triple, which might seem surprising
for a codegen test. But in fact, these tests don't even inspect their
output. Not at all. I could add a bunch of triples to these tests so
that we'd get the test coverage for normal builds, but really someone
needs to go through and add actual *tests* to these tests. =[ The ones
in question are:

  test/CodeGen/bitfield-init.c
  test/CodeGen/union.c

llvm-svn: 169694

both LE and BE targets.

AFAICT, Clang get's this correct for PPC64. I've compared it to GCC 4.8
output for PPC64 (thanks Roman!) and to my limited ability to read power
assembly, it looks functionally equivalent. It would be really good to
fill in the assertions on this test case for x86-32, PPC32, ARM, etc.,
but I've reached the limit of my time and energy... Hopefully other
folks can chip in as it would be good to have this in place to test any
subsequent changes.

To those who care about PPC64 performance, a side note: there is some
*obnoxiously* bad code generated for these test cases. It would be worth
someone's time to sit down and teach the PPC backend to pattern match
these IR constructs better. It appears that things like '(shr %foo,
<imm>)' turn into 'rldicl R, R, 64-<imm>, <imm>' or some such. They
don't even get combined with other 'rldicl' instructions *immediately
adjacent*. I'll add a couple of these patterns to the README, but
I think it would be better to look at all the patterns produced by this
and other bitfield access code, and systematically build up a collection
of patterns that efficiently reduce them to the minimal code.

llvm-svn: 169693

llvm-svn: 169692

This was an egregious bug due to the several iterations of refactorings
that took place. Size no longer meant what it original did by the time
I finished, but this line of code never got updated. Unfortunately we
had essentially zero tests for this in the regression test suite. =[

I've added a PPC64 run over the bitfield test case I've been primarily
using. I'm still looking at adding more tests and making sure this is
the *correct* bitfield access code on PPC64 linux, but it looks pretty
close to me, and it is *worlds* better than before this patch as it no
longer asserts! =] More commits to follow with at least additional tests
and maybe more fixes.

Sorry for the long breakage due to this....

llvm-svn: 169691

array from a braced-init-list. There seems to be a core wording wart
here (it suggests we should be testing whether the elements of the init
list are implicitly convertible to the array element type, not whether
there is an implicit conversion sequence) but our prior behavior appears
to be a bug, not a deliberate effort to implement the standard as written.

llvm-svn: 169690

don't mark the function as invalid, since we suppress the error.

llvm-svn: 169689

llvm-svn: 169688

- fix a bug which cause sigfault.
- add two testing cases which was causing crash

llvm-svn: 169687

llvm-svn: 169686

Teach DAG combine to handle vector logical operations with vectors of all 1s or all 0s. These cases can show up when vectors are split for legalizing. Fix some tests that were dependent on these cases not being combined.

llvm-svn: 169684

There are still bugs in this pass, as well as other issues that are
being worked on, but the bugs are crashers that occur pretty easily in
the wild. Test cases have been sent to the original commit's review
thread.

This reverts the commits:
  r169671: Fix a logic error.
  r169604: Move the popcnt tests to an X86 subdirectory.
  r168931: Initial commit adding the pass.

llvm-svn: 169683

Escape % in the TextDiagnosticBuffer so they aren't interpreted twice when fed into the diagnostic formatting machinery again.

Fixes PR14543.

llvm-svn: 169677

llvm-svn: 169676

Linux too, as I think we inherited it from there.  The ABI spec says 128-bit,
although I think SGI's compiler on IRIX may be the only thing ever to support
this.

llvm-svn: 169674

the cases where we can't determine whether special members would be trivial
while building the class, we eagerly declare those special members. The impact
of this is bounded, since it does not trigger implicit declarations of special
members in classes which merely *use* those classes.

In order to determine whether we need to apply this rule, we also need to
eagerly declare move operations and destructors in cases where they might be
deleted. If a move operation were supposed to be deleted, it would instead
be suppressed, and we could need overload resolution to determine if we fall
back to a trivial copy operation. If a destructor were implicitly deleted,
it would cause the move constructor of any derived classes to be suppressed.

As discussed on cxx-abi-dev, C++11's selected constructor rules are also
retroactively applied as a defect resolution in C++03 mode, in order to
identify that class B has a non-trivial copy constructor (since it calls
A's constructor template, not A's copy constructor):

struct A { template<typename T> A(T &); };
struct B { mutable A a; };

llvm-svn: 169673

Windows does not have <stdint.h>, should include
"llvm/Support/DataTypes.h" instead.

llvm-svn: 169672

llvm-svn: 169671

flavour of special member.

llvm-svn: 169670