Daniel Bertalan 93a8225da1 [CodeGen] Use ABI alignment for C++ new expressions
In case of placement new, if we do not know the alignment of the
operand, we can't assume it has the preferred alignment. It might be
e.g. a pointer to a struct member which follows ABI alignment rules.

This makes UBSAN no longer report "constructor call on misaligned
address" when constructing a double into a struct field of type double
on i686. The psABI specifies an alignment of 4 bytes, but the preferred
alignment used by Clang is 8 bytes.

We now use ABI alignment for allocating new as well, as the preferred
alignment should be used for over-aligning e.g. local variables, which
isn't relevant for ABI code dealing with operator new. AFAICT there
wouldn't be problems either way though.

Fixes #54845.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124736
2022-05-10 16:02:23 +01:00
..
2021-12-06 12:52:01 -05:00
2021-03-01 16:31:40 -05:00
2020-12-23 13:04:37 -06:00

IRgen optimization opportunities.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

The common pattern of
--
short x; // or char, etc
(x == 10)
--
generates an zext/sext of x which can easily be avoided.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

Bitfields accesses can be shifted to simplify masking and sign
extension. For example, if the bitfield width is 8 and it is
appropriately aligned then is is a lot shorter to just load the char
directly.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

It may be worth avoiding creation of alloca's for formal arguments
for the common situation where the argument is never written to or has
its address taken. The idea would be to begin generating code by using
the argument directly and if its address is taken or it is stored to
then generate the alloca and patch up the existing code.

In theory, the same optimization could be a win for block local
variables as long as the declaration dominates all statements in the
block.

NOTE: The main case we care about this for is for -O0 -g compile time
performance, and in that scenario we will need to emit the alloca
anyway currently to emit proper debug info. So this is blocked by
being able to emit debug information which refers to an LLVM
temporary, not an alloca.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

We should try and avoid generating basic blocks which only contain
jumps. At -O0, this penalizes us all the way from IRgen (malloc &
instruction overhead), all the way down through code generation and
assembly time.

On 176.gcc:expr.ll, it looks like over 12% of basic blocks are just
direct branches!

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//