Regression from 2f497ec3; we should not try to generate ldrexd on
targets that don't have it.
Also, while I'm here, fix shouldExpandAtomicStoreInIR, for consistency.
That doesn't really have any practical effect, though. On Thumb targets
where we need to use __sync_* libcalls, there is no libcall for stores,
so SelectionDAG calls __sync_lock_test_and_set_8 anyway.
Without this patch, clang would generate calls to __sync_* routines on
targets where it does not make sense; we can't assume the routines exist
on unknown targets. Linux has special implementations of the routines
that work on old ARM targets; other targets have no such routines. In
general, atomics operations which aren't natively supported should go
through libatomic (__atomic_*) APIs, which can support arbitrary atomics
through locks.
ARM targets older than v6, where this patch makes a difference, are rare
in practice, but not completely extinct. See, for example, discussion on
D116088.
This also affects Cortex-M0, but I don't think __sync_* routines
actually exist in any Cortex-M0 libraries. So in practice this just
leads to a slightly different linker error for those cases, I think.
Mechanically, this patch does the following:
- Ensures we run atomic expansion unconditionally; it never makes sense to
completely skip it.
- Fixes getMaxAtomicSizeInBitsSupported() so it returns an appropriate
number on all ARM subtargets.
- Fixes shouldExpandAtomicRMWInIR() and shouldExpandAtomicCmpXchgInIR() to
correctly handle subtargets that don't have atomic instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120026
Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
Summary:
This patch was originally in D5304 (I could not find a way to reopen that revision).
It was accepted, commited and broke the build bots because the overloading of
the constructor of ArrayRef for braced initializer lists is not supported by all
toolchains. I then reverted it, and propose this fixed version that uses a plain
C array instead in makeDMB (that array is then converted implicitly to an
ArrayRef, but that is not behind an ifdef). Could someone confirm me whether
initialization lists for plain C arrays are supported by every toolchain used
to build llvm ? Otherwise I can just initialize the array in the old way:
args[0] = ...; .. ; args[5] = ...;
Below is the description of the original patch:
```
I had only tested this code for ARMv7 and ARMv8. This patch adds several
fallback paths if the processor does not support dmb ish:
- dmb sy if a cortex-M with support for dmb
- mcr p15, #0, r0, c7, c10, #5 for ARMv6 (special instruction equivalent to a DMB)
These fallback paths were chosen based on the code for fence seq_cst.
Thanks to luqmana for having noticed this bug.
```
Test Plan: Added more cases to atomic-load-store.ll + make check-all
Reviewers: jfb, t.p.northover, luqmana
Subscribers: llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5386
llvm-svn: 218066
It is breaking the build on the buildbots but works fine on my machine, I revert
while trying to understand what happens (it appears to depend on the compiler used
to build, I probably used a C++11 feature that is not perfectly supported by some
of the buildbots).
This reverts commit feb3176c4d006f99af8b40373abd56215a90e7cc.
llvm-svn: 217973
Summary:
I had only tested this code for ARMv7 and ARMv8. This patch adds several
fallback paths if the processor does not support dmb ish:
- dmb sy if a cortex-M with support for dmb
- mcr p15, #0, r0, c7, c10, #5 for ARMv6 (special instruction equivalent to a DMB)
These fallback paths were chosen based on the code for fence seq_cst.
Thanks to luqmana for having noticed this bug.
Test Plan: Added more cases to atomic-load-store.ll + make check-all
Reviewers: jfb, t.p.northover, luqmana
Subscribers: aemerson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5304
llvm-svn: 217965
Unordered is strictly weaker than monotonic, so if the latter doesn't have any
barriers then the former certainly shouldn't.
rdar://problem/16548260
llvm-svn: 209901
Swift cores implement store barriers that are stronger than the ARM
specification but weaker than general barriers. They are, in fact, just about
enough to provide the ordering needed for atomic operations with release
semantics.
This patch makes use of that quirk.
llvm-svn: 185527
Turns out I'd misread the architecture reference manual and thought
that was a load/store-store barrier, when it's not.
Thanks for pointing it out Eli!
llvm-svn: 185356
I believe the full "dmb ish" barrier is not required to guarantee release
semantics for atomic operations. The weaker "dmb ishst" prevents previous
operations being reordered with a store executed afterwards, which is enough.
A key point to note (fortunately already correct) is that this barrier alone is
*insufficient* for sequential consistency, no matter how liberally placed.
llvm-svn: 185339
should expand ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP nodes the same way that it does for ATOMIC_SWAP.
Since ATOMIC_LOADs on some targets (e.g. older ARM variants) get legalized to
ATOMIC_CMP_SWAPs, the missing case had been causing i64 atomic loads to crash
during isel.
<rdar://problem/14074644>
llvm-svn: 185186
(The fix for the related failures on x86 is going to be nastier because we actually need Acquire memoperands attached to the atomic load instrs, etc.)
llvm-svn: 139221
I don't really like the patterns, but I'm having trouble coming up with a
better way to handle them.
I plan on making other targets use the same legalization
ARM-without-memory-barriers is using... it's not especially efficient, but
if anyone cares, it's not that hard to fix for a given target if there's
some better lowering.
llvm-svn: 138621
