At one point in time acquire implied mayLoad and mayStore as did release. Thus we needed separate pseudos that also carried that property. This appears to no longer be the case. I believe it was changed in 2012 with a comment saying that atomic memory accesses are marked volatile which preserves the ordering.
So from what I can tell we shouldn't need additional pseudos since they aren't carry any flags that are different from the normal instructions. The only thing I can think of is that we may consider them for load folding candidates in the peephole pass now where we didn't before. If that's important hopefully there's something in the memory operand we can check to prevent the folding without relying on pseudo instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50212
llvm-svn: 338925
We were just completely ignoring the types when determining whether we could
safely emit a libcall as a tail call. This is clearly wrong.
Theoretically, we could dig deeper looking for incidental matches (much like
the generic code in Analysis.cpp does), but it's probably not worth it for the
few libcalls that exist.
llvm-svn: 264084
This patch allows atomic loads and stores of floating point to be specified in the IR and adds an adapter to allow them to be lowered via existing backend support for bitcast-to-equivalent-integer idiom.
Previously, the only way to specify a atomic float operation was to bitcast the pointer to a i32, load the value as an i32, then bitcast to a float. At it's most basic, this patch simply moves this expansion step to the point we start lowering to the backend.
This patch does not add canonicalization rules to convert the bitcast idioms to the appropriate atomic loads. I plan to do that in the future, but for now, let's simply add the support. I'd like to get instruction selection working through at least one backend (x86-64) without the bitcast conversion before canonicalizing into this form.
Similarly, I haven't yet added the target hooks to opt out of the lowering step I added to AtomicExpand. I figured it would more sense to add those once at least one backend (x86) was ready to actually opt out.
As you can see from the included tests, the generated code quality is not great. I plan on submitting some patches to fix this, but help from others along that line would be very welcome. I'm not super familiar with the backend and my ramp up time may be material.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15471
llvm-svn: 255737
Craig Topper