The reason for generating mv a0, a0 instruction is when the stack object offset is large then int<12>. To deal this situation, in the elimintateFrameIndex function, it will
create a virtual register, which needs the register scavenger to scavenge it. If the machine instruction that contains the stack object and the opcode is ADDI(the addi
was generated by frameindexNode), and then this instruction's destination register was the same as the register that was generated by the register scavenger, then the
mv a0, a0 was generated. So to eliminnate this instruction, in the eliminateFrameIndex function, if the instrution opcode is ADDI, then the virtual register can't be created.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92479
This regenerates these tests using utils/update_llc_test_checks.py so
that future changes in this area don't have the noise of lots of `@plt`
lines being added.
I also removed the `nounwind`s from the stack-realignment.ll test to
increase coverage on the generated call frame information.
This is a first change needed to fix a crash in which the emergency
spill splot ends being out of reach. This happens when we run the
register scavenger after we have eliminated the frame indexes. The fix
for the actual crash will come in a later change.
This change removes an extra stack size increase we do in
RISCVFrameLowering::determineFrameLayout.
We don't have to change the size of the stack here as
PEI::calculateFrameObjectOffsets is already doing this with the right
size accounting the extra alignment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89237
Regenerated using:
./llvm/utils/update_llc_test_checks.py -u llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/*.ll
This has added comments to spill-related instructions and added @plt to
some symbols.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92841
We would like to split the SP adjustment to reduce the instructions in
prologue and epilogue as the following case. In this way, the offset of
the callee saved register could fit in a single store.
add sp,sp,-2032
sw ra,2028(sp)
sw s0,2024(sp)
sw s1,2020(sp)
sw s3,2012(sp)
sw s4,2008(sp)
add sp,sp,-64
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68011
llvm-svn: 373688
Summary:
Currently the RISC-V backend does not realign the stack. This can be an issue even for the RV32I/RV64I ABIs (where the stack is 16-byte aligned), though is rare. It will be much more comment with RV32E (though the alignment requirements for common data types remain under-documented...).
This patch adds minimal support for stack realignment. It should cope with large realignments. It will error out if the stack needs realignment and variable sized objects are present.
It feels like a lot of the code like getFrameIndexReference and determineFrameLayout could be refactored somehow, as right now it feels fiddly and brittle. We also seem to allocate a lot more memory than GCC does for equivalent C code.
Reviewers: asb
Reviewed By: asb
Subscribers: wwei, jrtc27, s.egerton, MaskRay, Jim, lenary, hiraditya, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, apazos, sabuasal, niosHD, kito-cheng, shiva0217, zzheng, edward-jones, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, rkruppe, PkmX, jocewei, psnobl, benna, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62007
llvm-svn: 368300
luxufan