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

Zap unnecessary isIntDivCheap() check.  PR11485.  No testcase because this doesn't affect any in-tree target.

llvm-svn: 146015

llvm-svn: 146004

llvm-svn: 146001

This flag is used when bundling machine instructions.  It indicates
whether the operand reads a value defined inside or outside its bundle.

llvm-svn: 145997

llvm-svn: 145996

llvm-svn: 145995

- Remove unused types/fields.
- Add some constantness.

llvm-svn: 145993

1. Added opcode BUNDLE
2. Taught MachineInstr class to deal with bundled MIs
3. Changed MachineBasicBlock iterator to skip over bundled MIs; added an iterator to walk all the MIs
4. Taught MachineBasicBlock methods about bundled MIs

llvm-svn: 145975

llvm-svn: 145965

llvm-svn: 145944

llvm-svn: 145943

llvm-svn: 145903

The new register allocator is much more able to split back up ranges too constrained by register classes.

Fixes <rdar://problem/10466609>

llvm-svn: 145899

llvm-svn: 145897

llvm-svn: 145893

This was actually a bit of a mess. TLI.setPrefLoopAlignment was clearly
documented as taking log2(bytes) units, but the x86 target would still
set a preferred loop alignment of '16'.

CodePlacementOpt passed this number on to the basic block, and
AsmPrinter interpreted it as bytes.

Now both MachineFunction and MachineBasicBlock use logarithmic
alignments.

Obviously, MachineConstantPool still measures alignments in bytes, so we
can emulate the thrill of using as.

llvm-svn: 145889

Add support for vectors of pointers.

llvm-svn: 145801

not get there any other way.

llvm-svn: 145789

Maybe some targets should use this as well.

Patch by Evgeniy Stepanov!

llvm-svn: 145781

-3% on ARMDissasembler.cpp.

llvm-svn: 145773

change, now you need a TargetOptions object to create a TargetMachine. Clang
patch to follow.

One small functionality change in PTX. PTX had commented out the machine
verifier parts in their copy of printAndVerify. That now calls the version in
LLVMTargetMachine. Users of PTX who need verification disabled should rely on
not passing the command-line flag to enable it.

llvm-svn: 145714

make sure ScheduleDAGInstrs::EmitSchedule does not crash when the first instruction in Sequence is a Noop

llvm-svn: 145677

Missing file from r145629.

llvm-svn: 145634

llvm-svn: 145629

attempt.  

llvm-svn: 145425

llvm-svn: 145420

non_lazy_symbol_pointers section (__IMPORT,__pointers). Ignore the 'hidden' part
since that will place it in the wrong section.
<rdar://problem/10443720>

llvm-svn: 145356

Make SelectionDAG::InferPtrAlignment use llvm::ComputeMaskedBits instead of duplicating the logic for globals.  Make llvm::ComputeMaskedBits handle GlobalVariables slightly more aggressively, to match what InferPtrAlignment knew how to do.

llvm-svn: 145304

Conservatively returns zero when the GV does not specify an alignment nor is it
initialized. Previously it returns ABI alignment for type of the GV. However, if
the type is a "packed" type, then the under-specified alignments is attached to
the load / store instructions. In that case, the alignment of the type cannot be
trusted.
rdar://10464621

llvm-svn: 145300

than ABI alignment. These are loads / stores from / to "packed" data structures.
Their alignments are intentionally under-specified.

rdar://10301431

llvm-svn: 145273

llvm-svn: 145267

llvm-svn: 145263

fallthrough) in cases where we might fail to rotate an exit to an outer
loop onto the end of the loop chain.

Having *some* rotation, but not performing this rotation, is the primary
fix of thep performance regression with -enable-block-placement for
Olden/em3d (a whopping 30% regression). Still working on reducing the
test case that actually exercises this and the new rotation strategy out
of this code, but I want to check if this regresses other test cases
first as that may indicate it isn't the correct fix.

llvm-svn: 145195

was centered around the premise of laying out a loop in a chain, and
then rotating that chain. This is good for preserving contiguous layout,
but bad for actually making sane rotations. In order to keep it safe,
I had to essentially make it impossible to rotate deeply nested loops.
The information needed to correctly reason about a deeply nested loop is
actually available -- *before* we layout the loop. We know the inner
loops are already fused into chains, etc. We lose information the moment
we actually lay out the loop.

The solution was the other alternative for this algorithm I discussed
with Benjamin and some others: rather than rotating the loop
after-the-fact, try to pick a profitable starting block for the loop's
layout, and then use our existing layout logic. I was worried about the
complexity of this "pick" step, but it turns out such complexity is
needed to handle all the important cases I keep teasing out of benchmarks.

This is, I'm afraid, a bit of a work-in-progress. It is still
misbehaving on some likely important cases I'm investigating in Olden.
It also isn't really tested. I'm going to try to craft some interesting
nested-loop test cases, but it's likely to be extremely time consuming
and I don't want to go there until I'm sure I'm testing the correct
behavior. Sadly I can't come up with a way of getting simple, fine
grained test cases for this logic. We need complex loop structures to
even trigger much of it.

llvm-svn: 145183

llvm-svn: 145181

heavily on AnalyzeBranch. That routine doesn't behave as we want given
that rotation occurs mid-way through re-ordering the function. Instead
merely check that there are not unanalyzable branching constructs
present, and then reason about the CFG via successor lists. This
actually simplifies my mental model for all of this as well.

The concrete result is that we now will rotate more loop chains. I've
added a test case from Olden highlighting the effect. There is still
a bit more to do here though in order to regain all of the performance
in Olden.

llvm-svn: 145179

pass. This is designed to achieve one of the important optimizations
that the old code placement pass did, but more simply.

This is a somewhat rough and *very* conservative version of the
transform. We could get a lot fancier here if there are profitable cases
to do so. In particular, this only looks for a single pattern, it
insists that the loop backedge being rotated away is the last backedge
in the chain, and it doesn't provide any means of doing better in-loop
placement due to the rotation. However, it appears that it will handle
the important loops I am finding in the LLVM test suite.

llvm-svn: 145158

llvm-svn: 145154

need lots of fanciness around retaining a reference to a Chain's slot in
the BlockToChain map, but that's all gone now. We can just go directly
to allocating the new chain (which will update the mapping for us) and
using it.

Somewhat gross mechanically generated test case replicates the issue
Duncan spotted when actually testing this out.

llvm-svn: 145120