code in preparation for code generation. The main thing it does
is handle the case when eh.exception calls (and, in a future
patch, eh.selector calls) are far away from landing pads. Right
now in practice you only find eh.exception calls close to landing
pads: either in a landing pad (the common case) or in a landing
pad successor, due to loop passes shifting them about. However
future exception handling improvements will result in calls far
from landing pads:
(1) Inlining of rewinds. Consider the following case:
In function @f:
...
invoke @g to label %normal unwind label %unwinds
...
unwinds:
%ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception()
...
In function @g:
...
invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %handler
...
handler:
%ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception()
... perform cleanups ...
"rethrow exception"
Now inline @g into @f. Currently this is turned into:
In function @f:
...
invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %handler
...
handler:
%ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception()
... perform cleanups ...
invoke "rethrow exception" to label %normal unwind label %unwinds
unwinds:
%ex = call i8* @llvm.eh.exception()
...
However we would like to simplify invoke of "rethrow exception" into
a branch to the %unwinds label. Then %unwinds is no longer a landing
pad, and the eh.exception call there is then far away from any landing
pads.
(2) Using the unwind instruction for cleanups.
It would be nice to have codegen handle the following case:
invoke @something to label %continue unwind label %run_cleanups
...
handler:
... perform cleanups ...
unwind
This requires turning "unwind" into a library call, which
necessarily takes a pointer to the exception as an argument
(this patch also does this unwind lowering). But that means
you are using eh.exception again far from a landing pad.
(3) Bugpoint simplifications. When bugpoint is simplifying
exception handling code it often generates eh.exception calls
far from a landing pad, which then causes codegen to assert.
Bugpoint then latches on to this assertion and loses sight
of the original problem.
Note that it is currently rare for this pass to actually do
anything. And in fact it normally shouldn't do anything at
all given the code coming out of llvm-gcc! But it does fire
a few times in the testsuite. As far as I can see this is
almost always due to the LoopStrengthReduce codegen pass
introducing pointless loop preheader blocks which are landing
pads and only contain a branch to another block. This other
block contains an eh.exception call. So probably by tweaking
LoopStrengthReduce a bit this can be avoided.
llvm-svn: 72276
The following is checked:
* Operand counts: All explicit operands must be present.
* Register classes: All physical and virtual register operands must be
compatible with the register class required by the instruction descriptor.
* Register live intervals: Registers must be defined only once, and must be
defined before use.
The machine code verifier is enabled with the command-line option
'-verify-machineinstrs', or by defining the environment variable
LLVM_VERIFY_MACHINEINSTRS to the name of a file that will receive all the
verifier errors.
llvm-svn: 71918
is currently off by default, and can be enabled with
-disable-post-RA-scheduler=false.
This doesn't have a significant impact on most code yet because it doesn't
yet do anything to address anti-dependencies and it doesn't attempt to
disambiguate memory references. Also, several popular targets
don't have pipeline descriptions yet.
The majority of the changes here are splitting the SelectionDAG-specific
code out of ScheduleDAG, so that ScheduleDAG can be moved to
libLLVMCodeGen.a. The interface between ScheduleDAG-using code and
the rest of the scheduling code is somewhat rough and will evolve.
llvm-svn: 59676
Douglas Gregor