Changes:
There was a condition for `!NeedsFrameRecord` missing in the assert. The
assert in question has changed to:
+ assert((!RPI.isPaired() || !NeedsFrameRecord || RPI.Reg2 != AArch64::FP ||
+ RPI.Reg1 == AArch64::LR) &&
+ "FrameRecord must be allocated together with LR");
This addresses PR43016.
llvm-svn: 369122
This patch changes the location of the frame-record (FP, LR) to the
bottom of the callee-saved area. According to the AAPCS the location of
the frame-record within the stackframe is unspecified (section 5.2.3 The
Frame Pointer), so the compiler should be free to choose a different
location.
The reason for changing the location of the frame-record is to prepare
the frame for allocating an SVE area below the callee-saves. This way the
compiler can use the VL-scaled addressing modes to directly access SVE
objects from the frame-pointer.
: :
| stack | | stack |
| args | | args |
+-------+ +-------+
| x30 | | x19 |
| x29 | | x20 |
FP -> |- - - -| | x21 |
| x19 | ==> | x22 |
| x20 | |- - - -|
| x21 | | x30 |
| x22 | | x29 |
+-------+ +-------+ <- FP
|///////| |///////| // realignment gap
|- - - -| |- - - -|
|spills/| |spills/|
| locals| | locals|
SP -> +-------+ +-------+ <- SP
Things to point out:
- The algorithm to find a paired register should be prevented from
accidentally pairing some callee-saved register with LR that is not
FP, since they should always be paired together when the frame
has a frame-record.
- For Darwin platforms the location of the frame-record is unchanged,
since the unwind encoding does not allow for encoding this position
dynamically and other tools currently depend on the former layout.
Reviewers: efriedma, rovka, rengolin, thegameg, greened, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65653
llvm-svn: 368987
Fold (x & ~y) | y and it's four commuted variants to x | y. This pattern
can in particular appear when a vselect c, x, -1 is expanded to
(x & ~c) | (-1 & c) and combined to (x & ~c) | c.
This change has some overlap with D59066, which avoids creating a
vselect of this form in the first place during uaddsat expansion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59174
llvm-svn: 356333
If this is not a valid way to assign an SDLoc, then we get this
wrong all over SDAG.
I don't know enough about the SDAG to explain this. IIUC, theoretically,
debug info is not supposed to affect codegen. But here it has clearly
affected 3 different targets, and the x86 change is an actual improvement.
llvm-svn: 348552
For instructions that spill/fill to and from multiple frame-indices
in a single instruction, hasStoreToStackSlot and hasLoadFromStackSlot
should return an array of accesses, rather than just the first encounter
of such an access.
This better describes FI accesses for AArch64 (paired) LDP/STP
instructions.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, gberry, thegameg, rengolin, javed.absar, MatzeB
Reviewed By: MatzeB
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51537
llvm-svn: 341301
Summary:
Split off form D46031.
It seems we don't want to transform the pattern if the `xor`'s are actually `not`'s.
In vector case, this breaks `andnpd` / `vandnps` patterns.
That being said, we may want to re-visit this `not` handling, maybe in D46073.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, javed.absar
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46492
llvm-svn: 331595
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37104 | PR37104 ]].
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]] will introduce an IR canonicalization that is likely bad for the end assembly.
Previously, `andl`+`andn`/`andps`+`andnps` / `bic`/`bsl` would be generated. (see `@out`)
Now, they would no longer be generated (see `@in`).
So we need to make sure that they are still generated.
If the mask is constant, we do nothing. InstCombine should have unfolded it.
Else, i use `hasAndNot()` TLI hook.
For now, only handle scalars.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bO6
----
I *really* don't like the code i wrote in `DAGCombiner::unfoldMaskedMerge()`.
It is super fragile. Is there something like IR Pattern Matchers for this?
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, javed.absar
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: andreadb, courbet, kristof.beyls, javed.absar, rengolin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45733
llvm-svn: 330646
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37104 | PR37104 ]].
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]] will introduce an IR canonicalization that is likely bad for the end assembly.
Previously, `andl`+`andn`/`andps`+`andnps` / `bic`/`bsl` would be generated. (see `@out`)
Now, they would no longer be generated (see `@in`).
I'm guessing `llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp` should be able to unfold this.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, javed.absar
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nemanjai, rengolin, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45563
llvm-svn: 330645
Sander de Smalen