There are many tests that specify a target triple/CPU flags but no
DataLayout which can lead to IR being generated that has unusual
behaviour. This commit attempts to use the default DataLayout based
on the relevant flags if there is no explicit override on the command
line or in the IR file.
One thing that is not currently possible to differentiate from a missing
datalayout `target datalayout = ""` in the IR file since the current
APIs don't allow detecting this case. If it is considered useful to
support this case (instead of passing "-data-layout=" on the command
line), I can change IR parsers to track whether they have seen such a
directive and change the callback type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141060
We call tail-call-elim near the beginning of the pipeline,
but that is too early to annotate calls that get added later.
In the motivating case from issue #47852, the missing 'tail'
on memset leads to sub-optimal codegen.
I experimented with removing the early instance of
tail-call-elim instead of just adding another pass, but that
appears to be slightly worse for compile-time:
+0.15% vs. +0.08% time.
"tailcall" shows adding the pass; "tailcall2" shows moving
the pass to later, then adding the original early pass back
(so 1596886802 is functionally equivalent to 180b0439dc ):
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/index.php?config=NewPM-O3&stat=instructions&remote=rotateright
Note that there was an effort to split the tail call functionality
into 2 passes - that could help reduce compile-time if we find
that this change costs more in compile-time than expected based
on the preliminary testing:
D60031
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130374
Right now when we see -O# we add the corresponding 'default<O#>' into
the list of passes to run when translating legacy -pass-name. This has
the side effect of not using the default AA pipeline.
Instead, treat -O# as -passes='default<O#>', but don't allow any other
-passes or -pass-name. I think we can keep `opt -O#` as shorthand for
`opt -passes='default<O#>` but disallow anything more than just -O#.
Tests need to be updated to not use `opt -O# -pass-name`.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112036
Before MASSV only supported P8 and P9 on AIX ans Linux . This patch proposes
MASSV to add support of P7 and P10 only on AIX too.
Differential: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106678
Since P8 is the oldest machine supported by MASSV pass,
_massv place holder is removed and the oldest version of
MASSV functions is assumed. If the P9 vector specific is
detected in the compilation process, the P8 prefix will
be updated to P9.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98064
The vector reduction intrinsics started life as experimental ops, so backend support
was lacking. As part of promoting them to 1st-class intrinsics, however, codegen
support was added/improved:
D58015
D90247
So I think it is safe to now remove this complication from IR.
Note that we still have an IR-level codegen expansion pass for these as discussed
in D95690. Removing that is another step in simplifying the logic. Also note that
x86 was already unconditionally forming reductions in IR, so there should be no
difference for x86.
I spot checked a couple of the tests here by running them through opt+llc and did
not see any asm diffs.
If we do find functional differences for other targets, it should be possible
to (at least temporarily) restore the shuffle IR with the ExpandReductions IR
pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96552
As mentioned in D93793, there are quite a few places where unary `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Mask)` can be used
instead of `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Undef, Mask)`.
Let's update them.
Actually, it would have been more natural if the patches were made in this order:
(1) let them use unary CreateShuffleVector first
(2) update IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector to use poison as a placeholder value (D93793)
The order is swapped, but in terms of correctness it is still fine.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93923
The legacy LoopVectorize has a dependency on InjectTLIMappingsLegacy.
That cannot be expressed in the new PM since they are both normal
passes. Explicitly add -inject-tli-mappings as a pass.
Follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86492.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86561
I added test cases that rely on the availability of the PPC target into
the general directory for the loop vectorizer. This causes failures on
bots that don't build the PPC target. Moving them to the PowerPC directory
to fix this.
