Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
In LLVM IR, `AlignmentBitfieldElementT` is 5-bit wide
But that means that the maximal alignment exponent is `(1<<5)-2`,
which is `30`, not `29`. And indeed, alignment of `1073741824`
roundtrips IR serialization-deserialization.
While this doesn't seem all that important, this doubles
the maximal supported alignment from 512MiB to 1GiB,
and there's actually one noticeable use-case for that;
On X86, the huge pages can have sizes of 2MiB and 1GiB (!).
So while this doesn't add support for truly huge alignments,
which i think we can easily-ish do if wanted, i think this adds
zero-cost support for a not-trivially-dismissable case.
I don't believe we need any upgrade infrastructure,
and since we don't explicitly record the IR version,
we don't need to bump one either.
As @craig.topper speculates in D108661#2963519,
this might be an artificial limit imposed by the original implementation
of the `getAlignment()` functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661
I think byval/sret and the others are close to being able to rip out
the code to support the missing type case. A lot of this code is
shared with inalloca, so catch this up to the others so that can
happen.
Fix the sort of expected order in the reader to correctly return `false`
when comparing a `Use` against itself.
This was caught by test/Bitcode/binaryIntInstructions.3.2.ll, so I'm
adding a `RUN` line using `llvm-uselistorder` for every test in
`test/Bitcode` that passes.
A few tests still fail, so I'll investigate those next.
This is part of PR5680.
llvm-svn: 214157
This was an oversight in the original support. As it is, I stuffed this
bit into the alignment. The alignment is stored in log2 form, so it
doesn't need more than 5 bits, given that Value::MaximumAlignment is 1
<< 29.
Reviewers: nicholas
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3943
llvm-svn: 213118
Arthur Eubanks