2015-01-31 11:17:59 +00:00
|
|
|
//===-- ARMTargetTransformInfo.cpp - ARM specific TTI ---------------------===//
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
|
|
|
|
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 11:17:59 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "ARMTargetTransformInfo.h"
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Target/CostTable.h"
|
2014-01-07 11:48:04 +00:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h"
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-22 02:41:26 +00:00
|
|
|
#define DEBUG_TYPE "armtti"
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(const APInt &Imm, Type *Ty) {
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned Bits = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
|
|
|
|
if (Bits == 0 || Bits > 32)
|
|
|
|
return 4;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int32_t SImmVal = Imm.getSExtValue();
|
|
|
|
uint32_t ZImmVal = Imm.getZExtValue();
|
|
|
|
if (!ST->isThumb()) {
|
|
|
|
if ((SImmVal >= 0 && SImmVal < 65536) ||
|
|
|
|
(ARM_AM::getSOImmVal(ZImmVal) != -1) ||
|
|
|
|
(ARM_AM::getSOImmVal(~ZImmVal) != -1))
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
return ST->hasV6T2Ops() ? 2 : 3;
|
2014-03-08 15:15:42 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (ST->isThumb2()) {
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
if ((SImmVal >= 0 && SImmVal < 65536) ||
|
|
|
|
(ARM_AM::getT2SOImmVal(ZImmVal) != -1) ||
|
|
|
|
(ARM_AM::getT2SOImmVal(~ZImmVal) != -1))
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
return ST->hasV6T2Ops() ? 2 : 3;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2014-03-08 15:15:42 +00:00
|
|
|
// Thumb1.
|
|
|
|
if (SImmVal >= 0 && SImmVal < 256)
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
if ((~ZImmVal < 256) || ARM_AM::isThumbImmShiftedVal(ZImmVal))
|
|
|
|
return 2;
|
|
|
|
// Load from constantpool.
|
|
|
|
return 3;
|
Switch TargetTransformInfo from an immutable analysis pass that requires
a TargetMachine to construct (and thus isn't always available), to an
analysis group that supports layered implementations much like
AliasAnalysis does. This is a pretty massive change, with a few parts
that I was unable to easily separate (sorry), so I'll walk through it.
The first step of this conversion was to make TargetTransformInfo an
analysis group, and to sink the nonce implementations in
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTranformInfo into
a NoTargetTransformInfo pass. This allows other passes to add a hard
requirement on TTI, and assume they will always get at least on
implementation.
The TargetTransformInfo analysis group leverages the delegation chaining
trick that AliasAnalysis uses, where the base class for the analysis
group delegates to the previous analysis *pass*, allowing all but tho
NoFoo analysis passes to only implement the parts of the interfaces they
support. It also introduces a new trick where each pass in the group
retains a pointer to the top-most pass that has been initialized. This
allows passes to implement one API in terms of another API and benefit
when some other pass above them in the stack has more precise results
for the second API.
The second step of this conversion is to create a pass that implements
the TargetTransformInfo analysis using the target-independent
abstractions in the code generator. This replaces the
ScalarTargetTransformImpl and VectorTargetTransformImpl classes in
lib/Target with a single pass in lib/CodeGen called
BasicTargetTransformInfo. This class actually provides most of the TTI
functionality, basing it upon the TargetLowering abstraction and other
information in the target independent code generator.
The third step of the conversion adds support to all TargetMachines to
register custom analysis passes. This allows building those passes with
access to TargetLowering or other target-specific classes, and it also
allows each target to customize the set of analysis passes desired in
the pass manager. The baseline LLVMTargetMachine implements this
interface to add the BasicTTI pass to the pass manager, and all of the
tools that want to support target-aware TTI passes call this routine on
whatever target machine they end up with to add the appropriate passes.
The fourth step of the conversion created target-specific TTI analysis
passes for the X86 and ARM backends. These passes contain the custom
logic that was previously in their extensions of the
ScalarTargetTransformInfo and VectorTargetTransformInfo interfaces.
I separated them into their own file, as now all of the interface bits
are private and they just expose a function to create the pass itself.
Then I extended these target machines to set up a custom set of analysis
passes, first adding BasicTTI as a fallback, and then adding their
customized TTI implementations.
The fourth step required logic that was shared between the target
independent layer and the specific targets to move to a different
interface, as they no longer derive from each other. As a consequence,
a helper functions were added to TargetLowering representing the common
logic needed both in the target implementation and the codegen
implementation of the TTI pass. While technically this is the only
change that could have been committed separately, it would have been
a nightmare to extract.
The final step of the conversion was just to delete all the old
boilerplate. This got rid of the ScalarTargetTransformInfo and
VectorTargetTransformInfo classes, all of the support in all of the
targets for producing instances of them, and all of the support in the
tools for manually constructing a pass based around them.
Now that TTI is a relatively normal analysis group, two things become
straightforward. First, we can sink it into lib/Analysis which is a more
natural layer for it to live. Second, clients of this interface can
depend on it *always* being available which will simplify their code and
behavior. These (and other) simplifications will follow in subsequent
commits, this one is clearly big enough.
Finally, I'm very aware that much of the comments and documentation
needs to be updated. As soon as I had this working, and plausibly well
commented, I wanted to get it committed and in front of the build bots.
I'll be doing a few passes over documentation later if it sticks.
Commits to update DragonEgg and Clang will be made presently.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@171681 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-01-07 01:37:14 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getCastInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Dst, Type *Src) {
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
int ISD = TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode);
|
|
|
|
assert(ISD && "Invalid opcode");
|
|
|
|
|
2013-03-15 15:10:47 +00:00
|
|
|
// Single to/from double precision conversions.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const CostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType> NEONFltDblTbl[] = {
|
2013-03-15 15:10:47 +00:00
|
|
|
// Vector fptrunc/fpext conversions.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_ROUND, MVT::v2f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_EXTEND, MVT::v2f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_EXTEND, MVT::v4f32, 4 }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Src->isVectorTy() && ST->hasNEON() && (ISD == ISD::FP_ROUND ||
|
|
|
|
ISD == ISD::FP_EXTEND)) {
|
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Src);
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = CostTableLookup(NEONFltDblTbl, ISD, LT.second);
|
2013-03-15 15:10:47 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return LT.first * NEONFltDblTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
EVT SrcTy = TLI->getValueType(Src);
|
|
|
|
EVT DstTy = TLI->getValueType(Dst);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!SrcTy.isSimple() || !DstTy.isSimple())
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getCastInstrCost(Opcode, Dst, Src);
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Some arithmetic, load and store operations have specific instructions
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
// to cast up/down their types automatically at no extra cost.
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Get these tables to know at least what the related operations are.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const TypeConversionCostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType>
|
|
|
|
NEONVectorConversionTbl[] = {
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v4i32, MVT::v4i16, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v4i32, MVT::v4i16, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v2i64, MVT::v2i32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v2i64, MVT::v2i32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::v4i32, MVT::v4i64, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::v4i16, MVT::v4i32, 1 },
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-03-19 08:15:38 +00:00
|
|
|
// The number of vmovl instructions for the extension.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v4i64, MVT::v4i16, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v4i64, MVT::v4i16, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v8i32, MVT::v8i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v8i32, MVT::v8i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v8i64, MVT::v8i8, 7 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v8i64, MVT::v8i8, 7 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v8i64, MVT::v8i16, 6 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v8i64, MVT::v8i16, 6 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::v16i32, MVT::v16i8, 6 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, MVT::v16i32, MVT::v16i8, 6 },
|
|
|
|
|
Legalize vector truncates by parts rather than just splitting.
Rather than just splitting the input type and hoping for the best, apply
a bit more cleverness. Just splitting the types until the source is
legal often leads to an illegal result time, which is then widened and a
scalarization step is introduced which leads to truly horrible code
generation. With the loop vectorizer, these sorts of operations are much
more common, and so it's worth extra effort to do them well.
Add a legalization hook for the operands of a TRUNCATE node, which will
be encountered after the result type has been legalized, but if the
operand type is still illegal. If simple splitting of both types
ends up with the result type of each half still being legal, just
do that (v16i16 -> v16i8 on ARM, for example). If, however, that would
result in an illegal result type (v8i32 -> v8i8 on ARM, for example),
we can get more clever with power-two vectors. Specifically,
split the input type, but also widen the result element size, then
concatenate the halves and truncate again. For example on ARM,
To perform a "%res = v8i8 trunc v8i32 %in" we transform to:
%inlo = v4i32 extract_subvector %in, 0
%inhi = v4i32 extract_subvector %in, 4
%lo16 = v4i16 trunc v4i32 %inlo
%hi16 = v4i16 trunc v4i32 %inhi
%in16 = v8i16 concat_vectors v4i16 %lo16, v4i16 %hi16
%res = v8i8 trunc v8i16 %in16
This allows instruction selection to generate three VMOVN instructions
instead of a sequences of moves, stores and loads.
Update the ARMTargetTransformInfo to take this improved legalization
into account.
Consider the simplified IR:
define <16 x i8> @test1(<16 x i32>* %ap) {
%a = load <16 x i32>* %ap
%tmp = trunc <16 x i32> %a to <16 x i8>
ret <16 x i8> %tmp
}
define <8 x i8> @test2(<8 x i32>* %ap) {
%a = load <8 x i32>* %ap
%tmp = trunc <8 x i32> %a to <8 x i8>
ret <8 x i8> %tmp
}
Previously, we would generate the truly hideous:
.syntax unified
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.globl _test1
.align 2
_test1: @ @test1
@ BB#0:
push {r7}
mov r7, sp
sub sp, sp, #20
bic sp, sp, #7
add r1, r0, #48
add r2, r0, #32
vld1.64 {d24, d25}, [r0:128]
vld1.64 {d16, d17}, [r1:128]
vld1.64 {d18, d19}, [r2:128]
add r1, r0, #16
vmovn.i32 d22, q8
vld1.64 {d16, d17}, [r1:128]
vmovn.i32 d20, q9
vmovn.i32 d18, q12
vmov.u16 r0, d22[3]
strb r0, [sp, #15]
vmov.u16 r0, d22[2]
strb r0, [sp, #14]
vmov.u16 r0, d22[1]
strb r0, [sp, #13]
vmov.u16 r0, d22[0]
vmovn.i32 d16, q8
strb r0, [sp, #12]
vmov.u16 r0, d20[3]
strb r0, [sp, #11]
vmov.u16 r0, d20[2]
strb r0, [sp, #10]
vmov.u16 r0, d20[1]
strb r0, [sp, #9]
vmov.u16 r0, d20[0]
strb r0, [sp, #8]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[3]
strb r0, [sp, #3]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[2]
strb r0, [sp, #2]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[1]
strb r0, [sp, #1]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[0]
strb r0, [sp]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[3]
strb r0, [sp, #7]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[2]
strb r0, [sp, #6]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[1]
strb r0, [sp, #5]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[0]
strb r0, [sp, #4]
vldmia sp, {d16, d17}
vmov r0, r1, d16
vmov r2, r3, d17
mov sp, r7
pop {r7}
bx lr
.globl _test2
.align 2
_test2: @ @test2
@ BB#0:
push {r7}
mov r7, sp
sub sp, sp, #12
bic sp, sp, #7
vld1.64 {d16, d17}, [r0:128]
add r0, r0, #16
vld1.64 {d20, d21}, [r0:128]
vmovn.i32 d18, q8
vmov.u16 r0, d18[3]
vmovn.i32 d16, q10
strb r0, [sp, #3]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[2]
strb r0, [sp, #2]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[1]
strb r0, [sp, #1]
vmov.u16 r0, d18[0]
strb r0, [sp]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[3]
strb r0, [sp, #7]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[2]
strb r0, [sp, #6]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[1]
strb r0, [sp, #5]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[0]
strb r0, [sp, #4]
ldm sp, {r0, r1}
mov sp, r7
pop {r7}
bx lr
Now, however, we generate the much more straightforward:
.syntax unified
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.globl _test1
.align 2
_test1: @ @test1
@ BB#0:
add r1, r0, #48
add r2, r0, #32
vld1.64 {d20, d21}, [r0:128]
vld1.64 {d16, d17}, [r1:128]
add r1, r0, #16
vld1.64 {d18, d19}, [r2:128]
vld1.64 {d22, d23}, [r1:128]
vmovn.i32 d17, q8
vmovn.i32 d16, q9
vmovn.i32 d18, q10
vmovn.i32 d19, q11
vmovn.i16 d17, q8
vmovn.i16 d16, q9
vmov r0, r1, d16
vmov r2, r3, d17
bx lr
.globl _test2
.align 2
_test2: @ @test2
@ BB#0:
vld1.64 {d16, d17}, [r0:128]
add r0, r0, #16
vld1.64 {d18, d19}, [r0:128]
vmovn.i32 d16, q8
vmovn.i32 d17, q9
vmovn.i16 d16, q8
vmov r0, r1, d16
bx lr
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@179989 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-04-21 23:47:41 +00:00
|
|
|
// Operations that we legalize using splitting.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::v16i8, MVT::v16i32, 6 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::v8i8, MVT::v8i32, 3 },
|
2013-03-12 21:19:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
// Vector float <-> i32 conversions.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i32, 1 },
|
2013-03-18 22:47:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f32, MVT::v2i32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i1, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i1, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i8, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v4f32, MVT::v4i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v8f32, MVT::v8i16, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v8f32, MVT::v8i16, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v8f32, MVT::v8i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v8f32, MVT::v8i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v16f32, MVT::v16i16, 8 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v16f32, MVT::v16i16, 8 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v16f32, MVT::v16i32, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v16f32, MVT::v16i32, 4 },
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v4i32, MVT::v4f32, 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v4i32, MVT::v4f32, 1 },
|
2013-03-18 22:47:06 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v4i8, MVT::v4f32, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v4i8, MVT::v4f32, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v4i16, MVT::v4f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v4i16, MVT::v4f32, 2 },
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Vector double <-> i32 conversions.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i32, 2 },
|
2013-03-18 22:47:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i8, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i8, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i16, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i16, 3 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::v2f64, MVT::v2i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v2i32, MVT::v2f64, 2 },
|
2013-03-18 22:47:06 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v2i32, MVT::v2f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v8i16, MVT::v8f32, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v8i16, MVT::v8f32, 4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::v16i16, MVT::v16f32, 8 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::v16i16, MVT::v16f32, 8 }
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
if (SrcTy.isVector() && ST->hasNEON()) {
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = ConvertCostTableLookup(NEONVectorConversionTbl, ISD,
|
|
|
|
DstTy.getSimpleVT(), SrcTy.getSimpleVT());
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
return NEONVectorConversionTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Scalar float to integer conversions.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const TypeConversionCostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType>
|
|
|
|
NEONFloatConversionTbl[] = {
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i1, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i1, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i1, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i1, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i8, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i8, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i8, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i8, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i16, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i16, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i16, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i16, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i32, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i32, MVT::f32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i32, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i32, MVT::f64, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i64, MVT::f32, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i64, MVT::f32, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_SINT, MVT::i64, MVT::f64, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::FP_TO_UINT, MVT::i64, MVT::f64, 10 }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
if (SrcTy.isFloatingPoint() && ST->hasNEON()) {
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = ConvertCostTableLookup(NEONFloatConversionTbl, ISD,
|
|
|
|
DstTy.getSimpleVT(), SrcTy.getSimpleVT());
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return NEONFloatConversionTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Scalar integer to float conversions.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const TypeConversionCostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType>
|
|
|
|
NEONIntegerConversionTbl[] = {
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i1, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i1, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i1, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i1, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i8, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i8, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i8, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i8, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i32, 2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i64, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f32, MVT::i64, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i64, 10 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UINT_TO_FP, MVT::f64, MVT::i64, 10 }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (SrcTy.isInteger() && ST->hasNEON()) {
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = ConvertCostTableLookup(NEONIntegerConversionTbl, ISD,
|
|
|
|
DstTy.getSimpleVT(), SrcTy.getSimpleVT());
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return NEONIntegerConversionTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
// Scalar integer conversion costs.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const TypeConversionCostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType>
|
|
|
|
ARMIntegerConversionTbl[] = {
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
// i16 -> i64 requires two dependent operations.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, MVT::i64, MVT::i16, 2 },
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Truncates on i64 are assumed to be free.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::i32, MVT::i64, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::i16, MVT::i64, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::i8, MVT::i64, 0 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::TRUNCATE, MVT::i1, MVT::i64, 0 }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (SrcTy.isInteger()) {
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = ConvertCostTableLookup(ARMIntegerConversionTbl, ISD,
|
|
|
|
DstTy.getSimpleVT(), SrcTy.getSimpleVT());
|
2013-02-05 14:05:55 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return ARMIntegerConversionTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getCastInstrCost(Opcode, Dst, Src);
|
2013-01-29 23:31:38 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-02-04 02:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getVectorInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *ValTy,
|
|
|
|
unsigned Index) {
|
2013-02-08 14:50:48 +00:00
|
|
|
// Penalize inserting into an D-subregister. We end up with a three times
|
|
|
|
// lower estimated throughput on swift.
|
2013-02-04 02:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if (ST->isSwift() &&
|
|
|
|
Opcode == Instruction::InsertElement &&
|
|
|
|
ValTy->isVectorTy() &&
|
|
|
|
ValTy->getScalarSizeInBits() <= 32)
|
2013-02-08 14:50:48 +00:00
|
|
|
return 3;
|
2013-02-04 02:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-12 13:29:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// Cross-class copies are expensive on many microarchitectures,
|
|
|
|
// so assume they are expensive by default.
|
|
|
|
if ((Opcode == Instruction::InsertElement ||
|
|
|
|
Opcode == Instruction::ExtractElement) &&
|
|
|
|
ValTy->getVectorElementType()->isIntegerTy())
|
|
|
|
return 3;
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, ValTy, Index);
|
2013-02-04 02:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-02-07 16:10:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *ValTy,
|
|
|
|
Type *CondTy) {
|
2013-02-07 16:10:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int ISD = TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode);
|
|
|
|
// On NEON a a vector select gets lowered to vbsl.
|
|
|
|
if (ST->hasNEON() && ValTy->isVectorTy() && ISD == ISD::SELECT) {
|
2013-03-14 19:17:02 +00:00
|
|
|
// Lowering of some vector selects is currently far from perfect.
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const TypeConversionCostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType>
|
|
|
|
NEONVectorSelectTbl[] = {
|
2013-03-14 19:17:02 +00:00
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v16i1, MVT::v16i16, 2*16 + 1 + 3*1 + 4*1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v8i1, MVT::v8i32, 4*8 + 1*3 + 1*4 + 1*2 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v16i1, MVT::v16i32, 4*16 + 1*6 + 1*8 + 1*4 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v4i1, MVT::v4i64, 4*4 + 1*2 + 1 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v8i1, MVT::v8i64, 50 },
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SELECT, MVT::v16i1, MVT::v16i64, 100 }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVT SelCondTy = TLI->getValueType(CondTy);
|
|
|
|
EVT SelValTy = TLI->getValueType(ValTy);
|
2013-08-02 17:10:04 +00:00
|
|
|
if (SelCondTy.isSimple() && SelValTy.isSimple()) {
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
int Idx = ConvertCostTableLookup(NEONVectorSelectTbl, ISD,
|
|
|
|
SelCondTy.getSimpleVT(),
|
|
|
|
SelValTy.getSimpleVT());
|
2013-08-02 17:10:04 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return NEONVectorSelectTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2013-03-14 19:17:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-07 16:10:15 +00:00
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(ValTy);
|
|
|
|
return LT.first;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getCmpSelInstrCost(Opcode, ValTy, CondTy);
|
2013-02-07 16:10:15 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-02-08 14:50:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getAddressComputationCost(Type *Ty, bool IsComplex) {
|
2013-07-12 19:16:04 +00:00
|
|
|
// Address computations in vectorized code with non-consecutive addresses will
|
|
|
|
// likely result in more instructions compared to scalar code where the
|
|
|
|
// computation can more often be merged into the index mode. The resulting
|
|
|
|
// extra micro-ops can significantly decrease throughput.
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumVectorInstToHideOverhead = 10;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Ty->isVectorTy() && IsComplex)
|
|
|
|
return NumVectorInstToHideOverhead;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-08 14:50:48 +00:00
|
|
|
// In many cases the address computation is not merged into the instruction
|
|
|
|
// addressing mode.
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-02-05 02:09:33 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getFPOpCost(Type *Ty) {
|
|
|
|
// Use similar logic that's in ARMISelLowering:
|
|
|
|
// Any ARM CPU with VFP2 has floating point, but Thumb1 didn't have access
|
|
|
|
// to VFP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ST->hasVFP2() && !ST->isThumb1Only()) {
|
|
|
|
if (Ty->isFloatTy()) {
|
|
|
|
return TargetTransformInfo::TCC_Basic;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Ty->isDoubleTy()) {
|
|
|
|
return ST->isFPOnlySP() ? TargetTransformInfo::TCC_Expensive :
|
|
|
|
TargetTransformInfo::TCC_Basic;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return TargetTransformInfo::TCC_Expensive;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getShuffleCost(TTI::ShuffleKind Kind, Type *Tp, int Index,
|
|
|
|
Type *SubTp) {
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
// We only handle costs of reverse and alternate shuffles for now.
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Kind != TTI::SK_Reverse && Kind != TTI::SK_Alternate)
|
|
|
|
return BaseT::getShuffleCost(Kind, Tp, Index, SubTp);
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Kind == TTI::SK_Reverse) {
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
static const CostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType> NEONShuffleTbl[] = {
|
|
|
|
// Reverse shuffle cost one instruction if we are shuffling within a
|
|
|
|
// double word (vrev) or two if we shuffle a quad word (vrev, vext).
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2i32, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2f32, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2i64, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2f64, 1},
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v4i32, 2},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v4f32, 2},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v8i16, 2},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v16i8, 2}};
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Tp);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int Idx = CostTableLookup(NEONShuffleTbl, ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, LT.second);
|
|
|
|
if (Idx == -1)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getShuffleCost(Kind, Tp, Index, SubTp);
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
return LT.first * NEONShuffleTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
if (Kind == TTI::SK_Alternate) {
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
static const CostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType> NEONAltShuffleTbl[] = {
|
|
|
|
// Alt shuffle cost table for ARM. Cost is the number of instructions
|
|
|
|
// required to create the shuffled vector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2f32, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2i64, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2f64, 1},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v2i32, 1},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v4i32, 2},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v4f32, 2},
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v4i16, 2},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v8i16, 16},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, MVT::v16i8, 32}};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Tp);
|
|
|
|
int Idx =
|
|
|
|
CostTableLookup(NEONAltShuffleTbl, ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE, LT.second);
|
|
|
|
if (Idx == -1)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getShuffleCost(Kind, Tp, Index, SubTp);
|
2014-06-20 04:32:48 +00:00
|
|
|
return LT.first * NEONAltShuffleTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getShuffleCost(Kind, Tp, Index, SubTp);
|
2013-02-12 02:40:39 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-04-25 21:16:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getArithmeticInstrCost(
|
|
|
|
unsigned Opcode, Type *Ty, TTI::OperandValueKind Op1Info,
|
|
|
|
TTI::OperandValueKind Op2Info, TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd1PropInfo,
|
|
|
|
TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd2PropInfo) {
|
2013-04-25 21:16:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int ISDOpcode = TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode);
|
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Ty);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const unsigned FunctionCallDivCost = 20;
|
|
|
|
const unsigned ReciprocalDivCost = 10;
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
static const CostTblEntry<MVT::SimpleValueType> CostTbl[] = {
|
2013-04-25 21:16:18 +00:00
|
|
|
// Division.
|
|
|
|
// These costs are somewhat random. Choose a cost of 20 to indicate that
|
|
|
|
// vectorizing devision (added function call) is going to be very expensive.
|
|
|
|
// Double registers types.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v1i64, 1 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v1i64, 1 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v1i64, 1 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v1i64, 1 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v2i32, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v2i32, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v2i32, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v2i32, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v4i16, ReciprocalDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v4i16, ReciprocalDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v4i16, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v4i16, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v8i8, ReciprocalDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v8i8, ReciprocalDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v8i8, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v8i8, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
// Quad register types.
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v2i64, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v2i64, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v2i64, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v2i64, 2 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v4i32, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v4i32, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v4i32, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v4i32, 4 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v8i16, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v8i16, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v8i16, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v8i16, 8 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SDIV, MVT::v16i8, 16 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UDIV, MVT::v16i8, 16 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::SREM, MVT::v16i8, 16 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
{ ISD::UREM, MVT::v16i8, 16 * FunctionCallDivCost},
|
|
|
|
// Multiplication.
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int Idx = -1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ST->hasNEON())
|
2013-08-09 19:33:32 +00:00
|
|
|
Idx = CostTableLookup(CostTbl, ISDOpcode, LT.second);
|
2013-04-25 21:16:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Idx != -1)
|
|
|
|
return LT.first * CostTbl[Idx].Cost;
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned Cost = BaseT::getArithmeticInstrCost(Opcode, Ty, Op1Info, Op2Info,
|
|
|
|
Opd1PropInfo, Opd2PropInfo);
|
2013-10-29 01:33:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This is somewhat of a hack. The problem that we are facing is that SROA
|
|
|
|
// creates a sequence of shift, and, or instructions to construct values.
|
|
|
|
// These sequences are recognized by the ISel and have zero-cost. Not so for
|
|
|
|
// the vectorized code. Because we have support for v2i64 but not i64 those
|
2014-01-24 17:20:08 +00:00
|
|
|
// sequences look particularly beneficial to vectorize.
|
2013-10-29 01:33:53 +00:00
|
|
|
// To work around this we increase the cost of v2i64 operations to make them
|
|
|
|
// seem less beneficial.
|
|
|
|
if (LT.second == MVT::v2i64 &&
|
|
|
|
Op2Info == TargetTransformInfo::OK_UniformConstantValue)
|
|
|
|
Cost += 4;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
2013-04-25 21:16:18 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@227669 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2015-01-31 03:43:40 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned ARMTTIImpl::getMemoryOpCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Src,
|
|
|
|
unsigned Alignment,
|
|
|
|
unsigned AddressSpace) {
|
2013-10-29 01:33:57 +00:00
|
|
|
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Src);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Src->isVectorTy() && Alignment != 16 &&
|
|
|
|
Src->getVectorElementType()->isDoubleTy()) {
|
|
|
|
// Unaligned loads/stores are extremely inefficient.
|
|
|
|
// We need 4 uops for vst.1/vld.1 vs 1uop for vldr/vstr.
|
|
|
|
return LT.first * 4;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return LT.first;
|
|
|
|
}
|