before creating the SUnit for the operation that it was unfolded from. This
allows each SUnit to have all of its predecessor SUnits available at the time
it is created. I don't know yet if this will be absolutely required, but it
is a little tidier to do it this way.
llvm-svn: 59083
The CC was changed, but wasn't checked to see if it was legal if the DAG
combiner was being run after legalization. Threw in a couple of checks just to
make sure that it's okay. As far as the PR is concerned, no back-end target
actually exhibited this problem, so there isn't an associated testcase.
llvm-svn: 59035
support targets that support these conversions. Users should avoid using
this node as the current targets don't generating code for it.
llvm-svn: 59001
inform the optimizers that the result must be zero/
sign extended from the smaller type. For example,
if a fp to unsigned i16 is promoted to fp to i32,
then we are allowed to assume that the extra 16 bits
are zero (because the result of fp to i16 is undefined
if the result does not fit in an i16). This is
quite aggressive, but should help the optimizers
produce better code. This requires correcting a
test which thought that fp_to_uint is some kind
of truncation, which it is not: in the testcase
(which does fp to i1), either the fp value converts
to 0 or 1 or the result is undefined, which is
quite different to truncation.
llvm-svn: 58991
This is Chris' patch from the PR, modified to realize that
SETUGT/SETULT occur legitimately with integers, plus
two fixes in LegalizeDAG to pass a valid result type into
LegalizeSetCC. The argument of TLI.getSetCCResultType is
ignored on PPC, but I think I'm following usage elsewhere.
llvm-svn: 58871
the condition for a BRCOND, according to what is
returned by getSetCCResultContents. Since all
targets return the same thing (ZeroOrOneSetCCResult),
this should be harmless! The point is that all over
the place the result of SETCC is fed directly into
BRCOND. On machines for which getSetCCResultContents
returns ZeroOrNegativeOneSetCCResult, this is a
sign-extended boolean. So it seems dangerous to
also feed BRCOND zero-extended booleans in some
circumstances - for example, when promoting the
condition.
llvm-svn: 58861
(e.g. a bitfield test) narrow the load as much as possible.
The has the potential to avoid unnecessary partial-word
load-after-store conflicts, which cause stalls on several targets.
Also a size win on x86 (testb vs testl).
llvm-svn: 58825
LLVM IR code and not in the selection DAG ISel. This is a cleaner solution.
- Fix the heuristic for determining if protectors are necessary. The previous
one wasn't checking the proper type size.
llvm-svn: 58824
- stackprotector_prologue creates a stack object and stores the guard there.
- stackprotector_epilogue reads the stack guard from the stack position created
by stackprotector_prologue.
- The PrologEpilogInserter was changed to make sure that the stack guard is
first on the stack frame.
llvm-svn: 58791
sized integers like i129, and also reduce the number
of assumptions made about how vaarg is implemented.
This still doesn't work correctly for small integers
like (eg) i1 on x86, since x86 passes each of them
(essentially an i8) in a 4 byte stack slot, so the
pointer needs to be advanced by 4 bytes not by 1 byte
as now. But this is no longer a LegalizeTypes problem
(it was also wrong in LT before): it is a bug in the
operation expansion in LegalizeDAG: now LegalizeTypes
turns an i1 vaarg into an i8 vaarg which would work
fine if only the i8 vaarg was turned into correct code
later.
llvm-svn: 58635
type for the shift amount type. Add a check
that shifts and rotates use the type returned
by getShiftAmountTy for the amount. This
exposed some problems in CellSPU and PPC,
which have already been fixed.
llvm-svn: 58455
other day that PPC custom lowering could create
a BUILD_PAIR of two f64 with a result type of...
f64! - already fixed). Fix a place that triggers
the sanity check.
llvm-svn: 58378
is morphed by AnalyzeNewNode into a previously
processed node, and different result values of
that node are remapped to values with different
nodes, then we could end up using wrong values
here [we were assuming that all results remap
to values with the same underlying node]. This
seems theoretically possible, but I don't have
a testcase. The meat of the patch is in the
changes to AnalyzeNewNode/AnalyzeNewValue and
ReplaceNodeWith. While there, I changed names
like RemapNode to RemapValue, since it really
remaps values. To tell the truth, I would be
much happier if we were only remapping nodes
(it would simplify a bunch of logic, and allow
for some cute speedups) but I haven't yet worked
out how to do that.
llvm-svn: 58372
