We shouldn't split the store when it is volatile.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
nemanjai wmi jsji hfinkel efriedma spatel dmgreen - Commits
- rZORGa2fd36f557b8: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile We shouldn't split the…
rZORG0d58c2758d13: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile We shouldn't split the…
rGa2fd36f557b8: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile We shouldn't split the…
rG0d58c2758d13: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile We shouldn't split the…
rG0e71a6e755f0: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile We shouldn't split the…
rL360228: [CodeGenPrepare] Don't split the store if it is volatile
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Looks like there is similar code in DAGCombiner that may need a volatile check too, if you search for isMultiStoresCheaperThanBitsMerge.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/splitstore-check-volatile.ll | ||
---|---|---|
3 ↗ | (On Diff #197054) | You could just make this an opt test, running the codegenprepare pass. |
Comment Actions
This LGTM.
Like I said, you may also want to look into doing the same thing for the code in DAGCombiner.