This is a follow on to D58632, with the same logic. Given a memory operation which needs ordering, but doesn't need to modify any particular address, prefer to use a locked stack op over an mfence.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
jfb craig.topper - Commits
- rZORG0e6e9fcb1f05: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
rZORGd9555062eba1: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
rG0e6e9fcb1f05: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
rGd9555062eba1: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
rG3098e44daa76: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
rL360649: [X86] Prefer locked stack op over mfence for seq_cst 64-bit stores on 32-bit…
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
LGTM to me with one minor
lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
26427 ↗ | (On Diff #199291) | Add a period to the end of this comment. |