Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
I think that there's a lot to be tested here which isn't covered yet. Maybe it would make sense to split this patch a bit further? E.g. factor out outlining calls into a separate patch?
llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseInstrInfo.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
5823–5840 | This should have a testcase? | |
5977–5980 | I wonder if this check should move to the generic outliner code, since it seems like every target requires it. | |
5995–5997 | There should be a testcase for outlining calls? | |
6116–6122 | There should be a testcase showing the save/restore from SP. | |
llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/machine-outliner-nosave-and-regs.mir | ||
67–83 ↗ | (On Diff #249940) | Does this testcase save + restore LR? It would be good to check for the save + restore (or lack thereof) explicitly instead of just checking for the outlined call. |
Thanks for the review Jessica,
I'll split it into two part and add test cases
llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseInstrInfo.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
5823–5840 | OK | |
5977–5980 | hmm, yes maybe looking at it more closely for ARM it is in fact gnu_mcount_nc and mcount but _mcount is everywhere else and I think it only makes sense if we are in linux context (not needed for bare metal) | |
5995–5997 | ok | |
6116–6122 | It is tested in machine-outliner-nosave-and-regs.mir but maybe needs to put inside a dedicated testcase | |
llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/machine-outliner-nosave-and-regs.mir | ||
67–83 ↗ | (On Diff #249940) | yes it is, but you are right I'll explicitly checked the output |
I've extracted parts which handle calls inside outlined frames (I'll submit that in the next patch) and enhanced the testcases.
llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseInstrInfo.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6106 | In general, calling addLiveIn(LR) on the current block isn't sufficient to update the liveness correctly. If LR is live-in in the current block, it has to be live-out of that block's predecessors, which means it has to be live-in to the current block's predecessors. See D78586. Actually, can the isLiveIn() check fail? if LR isn't live-in, wouldn't we choose MachineOutlinerNoLRSave? Or is it possible to hit some weird case where LR is live, but not explicitly listed in the live-in list? |
llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseInstrInfo.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6106 | Right, when a block ends with a BX_RET for instance, LR is not marked as live-in and if we outline a chunk before LR as to be saved and restored in a register or the stack, I'm pretty sure I had to add LR to the live-in set because the Machine Verifier wasn't happy of this explicit use, but I don't manage to reproduce that behavior... I'll remove the check If that's not needed anymore |
This looks okay to me. Eli, do you have any other comments? For the BX_RET issue, could we work around it by making outlining illegal in its presence?
This should have a testcase?