Previously, AVRTargetLowering::LowerCall attempted to keep stack stores
in order with chains. Perhaps this worked in the past, but it does not
work now: it appears that the SelectionDAG legalization phase removes
these chains. Therefore, I've removed these chains entirely to match
X86 (which, similar to AVR, also prefers to use push instructions over
stack-relative stores to set up a call frame). With this change, all the
stack stores are in a somewhat reasonable order.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97853
An instruction like this will need to allocate some stack space for the
last parameter:
%x = call addrspace(1) i16 @bar(i64 undef, i64 undef, i16 undef, i16 0)
This worked fine when passing an actual value (in this case 0). However,
when passing undef, no value was pushed to the stack and therefore no
push instructions were created. This caused an unbalanced stack leading
to interesting results.
This commit fixes that by replacing the push logic with a regular stack
adjustment and stack-relative load/stores. This is less efficient but at
least it correctly compiles the code.
I can think of a few improvements in the future:
* The stack should have been adjusted in the function prologue when
there are no allocas in the function.
* Many (if not most) stack adjustments can be replaced by
pushing/popping the values directly. Exactly like the previous code
attempted but didn't do correctly.
* Small stack adjustments can be done more efficiently with a few
push/pop instructions (pushing/popping bogus values), both for code
size and for speed.
All in all, as long as there are no allocas in the function I think that
it is almost always more efficient to emit regular push/pop
instructions. This is however left for future optimizations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78581
Summary:
A lot of the pseudo instructions are required because LLVM assumes that
all integers of the same size as the pointer size are legal. This means
that it will not currently expand 16-bit instructions to their 8-bit
variants because it thinks 16-bit types are legal for the operations.
This also adds all of the CodeGen tests that required the pass to run.
Reviewers: arsenm, kparzysz
Subscribers: wdng, mgorny, modocache, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26577
llvm-svn: 287162
Ayke van Laethem