"llvm/git@repo.hca.bsc.es:rferrer/llvm-epi-0.8.git" did not exist on "497d83196684ad2b0a6dbe21878e789bdfcef2aa"
- Jun 02, 2012
-
-
-
Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
No functional change intended. Sorry for the churn. The iterator classes are supposed to help avoid giant commits like this one in the future. The TableGen-produced register lists are getting quite large, and it may be necessary to change the table representation. This makes it possible to do so without changing all clients (again). llvm-svn: 157854
-
- Jun 01, 2012
-
-
Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
MCRegAliasIterator can optionally visit the register itself, allowing for simpler code. llvm-svn: 157837
-
- May 24, 2012
-
-
Bill Wendling authored
llvm-svn: 157349
-
Bill Wendling authored
llvm-svn: 157348
-
- Apr 23, 2012
-
-
Preston Gurd authored
on X86 Atom. Some of our tests failed because the tail merging part of the BranchFolding pass was creating new basic blocks which did not contain live-in information. When the anti-dependency code in the Post-RA scheduler ran, it would sometimes rename the register containing the function return value because the fact that the return value was live-in to the subsequent block had been lost. To fix this, it is necessary to run the RegisterScavenging code in the BranchFolding pass. This patch makes sure that the register scavenging code is invoked in the X86 subtarget only when post-RA scheduling is being done. Post RA scheduling in the X86 subtarget is only done for Atom. This patch adds a new function to the TargetRegisterClass to control whether or not live-ins should be preserved during branch folding. This is necessary in order for the anti-dependency optimizations done during the PostRASchedulerList pass to work properly when doing Post-RA scheduling for the X86 in general and for the Intel Atom in particular. The patch adds and invokes the new function trackLivenessAfterRegAlloc() instead of using the existing requiresRegisterScavenging(). It changes BranchFolding.cpp to call trackLivenessAfterRegAlloc() instead of requiresRegisterScavenging(). It changes the all the targets that implemented requiresRegisterScavenging() to also implement trackLivenessAfterRegAlloc(). It adds an assertion in the Post RA scheduler to make sure that post RA liveness information is available when it is needed. It changes the X86 break-anti-dependencies test to use –mcpu=atom, in order to avoid running into the added assertion. Finally, this patch restores the use of anti-dependency checking (which was turned off temporarily for the 3.1 release) for Intel Atom in the Post RA scheduler. Patch by Andy Zhang! Thanks to Jakob and Anton for their reviews. llvm-svn: 155395
-
- Mar 27, 2012
-
-
Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
Branch folding can use a register scavenger to update liveness information when required. Don't do that if liveness information is already invalid. llvm-svn: 153517
-
- Mar 07, 2012
-
-
Bill Wendling authored
the DebugLoc information can be maintained throughout by grabbing the DebugLoc before the RemoveBranch and then passing the result to the InsertBranch. Patch by Andrew Stanford-Jason! llvm-svn: 152212
-
- Mar 05, 2012
-
-
Craig Topper authored
llvm-svn: 152016
-
- Mar 04, 2012
-
-
Craig Topper authored
llvm-svn: 152001
-
- Feb 22, 2012
-
-
Chad Rosier authored
llvm-svn: 151169
-
- Feb 16, 2012
-
-
Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
Don't attempt to move instructions with regmask operands. They are most likely calls anyway. llvm-svn: 150634
-
- Feb 08, 2012
-
-
Andrew Trick authored
llvm-svn: 150095
-
Andrew Trick authored
llvm-svn: 150094
-
- Jan 20, 2012
-
-
David Blaikie authored
llvm-svn: 148578
-
- Jan 12, 2012
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
killed registers are needed below the insertion point, then unset the kill marker. Sorry I'm not able to find a reduced test case. rdar://10660944 llvm-svn: 148043
-
- Jan 07, 2012
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
up so branch folding pass can't use the scavenger. :-( This doesn't breaks anything currently. It just means targets which do not carefully update kill markers cannot run post-ra scheduler (not new, it has always been the case). We should fix this at some point since it's really hacky. llvm-svn: 147719
-
Evan Cheng authored
opportunities that only present themselves after late optimizations such as tail duplication .e.g. ## BB#1: movl %eax, %ecx movl %ecx, %eax ret The register allocator also leaves some of them around (due to false dep between copies from phi-elimination, etc.) This required some changes in codegen passes. Post-ra scheduler and the pseudo-instruction expansion passes have been moved after branch folding and tail merging. They were before branch folding before because it did not always update block livein's. That's fixed now. The pass change makes independently since we want to properly schedule instructions after branch folding / tail duplication. rdar://10428165 rdar://10640363 llvm-svn: 147716
-
- Dec 14, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
to finalize MI bundles (i.e. add BUNDLE instruction and computing register def and use lists of the BUNDLE instruction) and a pass to unpack bundles. - Teach more of MachineBasic and MachineInstr methods to be bundle aware. - Switch Thumb2 IT block to MI bundles and delete the hazard recognizer hack to prevent IT blocks from being broken apart. llvm-svn: 146542
-
- Dec 07, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
generator to it. For non-bundle instructions, these behave exactly the same as the MC layer API. For properties like mayLoad / mayStore, look into the bundle and if any of the bundled instructions has the property it would return true. For properties like isPredicable, only return true if *all* of the bundled instructions have the property. For properties like canFoldAsLoad, isCompare, conservatively return false for bundles. llvm-svn: 146026
-
- Oct 26, 2011
-
-
Bill Wendling authored
An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging. In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do. <rdar://problem/10334833> llvm-svn: 143001
-
- Oct 25, 2011
-
-
Duncan Sands authored
down to this commit. Original commit message: An MBB which branches to an EH landing pad shouldn't be considered for tail merging. In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do. <rdar://problem/10334833> llvm-svn: 142920
-
Bill Wendling authored
In SjLj EH, the jump to the landing pad is not done explicitly through a branch statement. The EH landing pad is added as a successor to the throwing BB. Because of that however, the branch folding pass could mistakenly think that it could merge the throwing BB with another BB. This isn't safe to do. <rdar://problem/10334833> llvm-svn: 142891
-
- Aug 05, 2011
-
-
Jakob Stoklund Olesen authored
The old code would look at kills and defs in one pass over the instruction operands, causing problems with this code: %R0<def>, %CPSR<def,dead> = tLSLri %R5<kill>, 2, pred:14, pred:%noreg %R0<def>, %CPSR<def,dead> = tADDrr %R4<kill>, %R0<kill>, pred:14, %pred:%noreg The last instruction kills and redefines %R0, so it is still live after the instruction. This caused a register scavenger crash when compiling 483.xalancbmk for armv6. I am not including a test case because it requires too much bad luck to expose this old bug. First you need to convince the register allocator to use %R0 twice on the tADDrr instruction, then you have to convince BranchFolding to do something that causes it to run the register scavenger on he bad block. <rdar://problem/9898200> llvm-svn: 136973
-
- Jul 07, 2011
-
-
Eli Friedman authored
When tail-merging multiple blocks, make sure to correctly update the live-in list on the merged block to correctly account for the live-outs of all the predecessors. They might not be the same in all cases (the testcase I have involves a PHI node where one of the operands is an IMPLICIT_DEF). Unfortunately, the testcase I have is large and confidential, so I don't have a test to commit at the moment; I'll see if I can come up with something smaller where this issue reproduces. <rdar://problem/9716278> llvm-svn: 134565
-
- Jun 28, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
sink them into MC layer. - Added MCInstrInfo, which captures the tablegen generated static data. Chang TargetInstrInfo so it's based off MCInstrInfo. llvm-svn: 134021
-
- Jun 14, 2011
-
-
Rafael Espindola authored
llvm-svn: 132995
-
Rafael Espindola authored
llvm-svn: 132988
-
Rafael Espindola authored
sharp all or nothing transition when one extra predecessor was added. Now we still test first ones for merging. llvm-svn: 132974
-
- May 26, 2011
-
-
Devang Patel authored
llvm-svn: 132149
-
Devang Patel authored
llvm-svn: 132148
-
- May 13, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
llvm-svn: 131258
-
- May 12, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
Re-enable branchfolding common code hoisting optimization. Fixed a liveness test bug and also taught it to update liveins. llvm-svn: 131241
-
Evan Cheng authored
llvm-svn: 131235
-
Evan Cheng authored
markers. In some cases a register def is dead on one path, but not on another. This is passing Clang self-hosting. llvm-svn: 131214
-
- May 11, 2011
-
-
Rafael Espindola authored
to provide a reduced testcase. llvm-svn: 131176
-
Evan Cheng authored
at the start of basic blocks to their common predecessor. It's actually quite common (e.g. about 50 times in JM/lencod) and has shown to be a nice code size benefit. e.g. pushq %rax testl %edi, %edi jne LBB0_2 ## BB#1: xorb %al, %al popq %rdx ret LBB0_2: xorb %al, %al callq _foo popq %rdx ret => pushq %rax xorb %al, %al testl %edi, %edi je LBB0_2 ## BB#1: callq _foo LBB0_2: popq %rdx ret rdar://9145558 llvm-svn: 131172
-
- Apr 22, 2011
-
-
Bill Wendling authored
An exception is thrown via a call to _cxa_throw, which we don't expect to return. Therefore, the "true" part of the invoke goes to a BB that has 'unreachable' as its only instruction. This is lowered into an empty MachineBB. The landing pad for this invoke, however, is directly after the "true" MBB. When the empty MBB is removed, the landing pad is directly below the BB with the invoke call. The unconditional branch is removed and then the two blocks are merged together. The testcase is too big for a regression test. <rdar://problem/9305728> llvm-svn: 129965
-
- Feb 22, 2011
-
-
Evan Cheng authored
llvm-svn: 126158
-
- Aug 06, 2010
-
-
Owen Anderson authored
llvm-svn: 110460
-