This change includes the most basic possible GCStrategy for a GC which is using the statepoint lowering code. At the moment, this GCStrategy doesn't really do much - aside from actually generate correct stackmaps that is - but I went ahead and added a few extra correctness checks as proof of concept. It's mostly here to provide documentation on how to do one, and to provide a point for various optimization legality hooks I'd like to add going forward. (For context, see the TODOs in InstCombine around gc.relocate.)
Most of the validation logic added here as proof of concept will soon move in to the Verifier. That move is dependent on http://reviews.llvm.org/D6811
There was discussion in the review thread about addrspace(1) being reserved for something. I'm going to follow up on a seperate llvmdev thread. If needed, I'll update all the code at once.
Note that I am deliberately not making a GCStrategy required to use gc.statepoints with this change. I want to give folks out of tree - including myself - a chance to migrate. In a week or two, I'll make having a GCStrategy be required for gc.statepoints. To this end, I added the gc tag to one of the test cases but not others.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6808
llvm-svn: 225365
This is the third patch in a small series. It contains the CodeGen support for lowering the gc.statepoint intrinsic sequences (223078) to the STATEPOINT pseudo machine instruction (223085). The change also includes the set of helper routines and classes for working with gc.statepoints, gc.relocates, and gc.results since the lowering code uses them.
With this change, gc.statepoints should be functionally complete. The documentation will follow in the fourth change, and there will likely be some cleanup changes, but interested parties can start experimenting now.
I'm not particularly happy with the amount of code or complexity involved with the lowering step, but at least it's fairly well isolated. The statepoint lowering code is split into it's own files and anyone not working on the statepoint support itself should be able to ignore it.
During the lowering process, we currently spill aggressively to stack. This is not entirely ideal (and we have plans to do better), but it's functional, relatively straight forward, and matches closely the implementations of the patchpoint intrinsics. Most of the complexity comes from trying to keep relocated copies of values in the same stack slots across statepoints. Doing so avoids the insertion of pointless load and store instructions to reshuffle the stack. The current implementation isn't as effective as I'd like, but it is functional and 'good enough' for many common use cases.
In the long term, I'd like to figure out how to integrate the statepoint lowering with the register allocator. In principal, we shouldn't need to eagerly spill at all. The register allocator should do any spilling required and the statepoint should simply record that fact. Depending on how challenging that turns out to be, we may invest in a smarter global stack slot assignment mechanism as a stop gap measure.
Reviewed by: atrick, ributzka
llvm-svn: 223137
