On x86: (shl V, 1) -> add V,V
Hardware support for vector-shift is sparse and in many cases we scalarize the
result. Additionally, on sandybridge padd is faster than shl.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143311 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
If all of the inputs are zero/any_extended, create a new simple BV
which can be further optimized by other BV optimizations.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143297 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
fixes: Use a separate register, instead of SP, as the
calling-convention resource, to avoid spurious conflicts with
actual uses of SP. Also, fix unscheduling of calling sequences,
which can be triggered by pseudo-two-address dependencies.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143206 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Don't assume APInt::getRawData() would hold target-aware endianness nor host-compliant endianness. rawdata[0] holds most lower i64, even on big endian host.
FIXME: Add a testcase for big endian target.
FIXME: Ditto on CompileUnit::addConstantFPValue() ?
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143194 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
it fixes the dragonegg self-host (it looks like gcc is miscompiled).
Original commit messages:
Eliminate LegalizeOps' LegalizedNodes map and have it just call RAUW
on every node as it legalizes them. This makes it easier to use
hasOneUse() heuristics, since unneeded nodes can be removed from the
DAG earlier.
Make LegalizeOps visit the DAG in an operands-last order. It previously
used operands-first, because LegalizeTypes has to go operands-first, and
LegalizeTypes used to be part of LegalizeOps, but they're now split.
The operands-last order is more natural for several legalization tasks.
For example, it allows lowering code for nodes with floating-point or
vector constants to see those constants directly instead of seeing the
lowered form (often constant-pool loads). This makes some things
somewhat more complicated today, though it ought to allow things to be
simpler in the future. It also fixes some bugs exposed by Legalizing
using RAUW aggressively.
Remove the part of LegalizeOps that attempted to patch up invalid chain
operands on libcalls generated by LegalizeTypes, since it doesn't work
with the new LegalizeOps traversal order. Instead, define what
LegalizeTypes is doing to be correct, and transfer the responsibility
of keeping calls from having overlapping calling sequences into the
scheduler.
Teach the scheduler to model callseq_begin/end pairs as having a
physical register definition/use to prevent calls from having
overlapping calling sequences. This is also somewhat complicated, though
there are ways it might be simplified in the future.
This addresses rdar://9816668, rdar://10043614, rdar://8434668, and others.
Please direct high-level questions about this patch to management.
Delete #if 0 code accidentally left in.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143188 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
on every node as it legalizes them. This makes it easier to use
hasOneUse() heuristics, since unneeded nodes can be removed from the
DAG earlier.
Make LegalizeOps visit the DAG in an operands-last order. It previously
used operands-first, because LegalizeTypes has to go operands-first, and
LegalizeTypes used to be part of LegalizeOps, but they're now split.
The operands-last order is more natural for several legalization tasks.
For example, it allows lowering code for nodes with floating-point or
vector constants to see those constants directly instead of seeing the
lowered form (often constant-pool loads). This makes some things
somewhat more complicated today, though it ought to allow things to be
simpler in the future. It also fixes some bugs exposed by Legalizing
using RAUW aggressively.
Remove the part of LegalizeOps that attempted to patch up invalid chain
operands on libcalls generated by LegalizeTypes, since it doesn't work
with the new LegalizeOps traversal order. Instead, define what
LegalizeTypes is doing to be correct, and transfer the responsibility
of keeping calls from having overlapping calling sequences into the
scheduler.
Teach the scheduler to model callseq_begin/end pairs as having a
physical register definition/use to prevent calls from having
overlapping calling sequences. This is also somewhat complicated, though
there are ways it might be simplified in the future.
This addresses rdar://9816668, rdar://10043614, rdar://8434668, and others.
Please direct high-level questions about this patch to management.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143177 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
MORESTACK_RET_RESTORE_R10; which are lowered to a RET and a RET
followed by a MOV respectively. Having a fake instruction prevents
the verifier from seeing a MachineBasicBlock end with a
non-terminator (MOV). It also prevents the rather eccentric case of a
MachineBasicBlock ending with RET but having successors nevertheless.
Patch by Sanjoy Das.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143062 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
discussions with Andy. Fundamentally, the previous algorithm is both
counter productive on several fronts and prioritizing things which
aren't necessarily the most important: static branch prediction.
The new algorithm uses the existing loop CFG structure information to
walk through the CFG itself to layout blocks. It coalesces adjacent
blocks within the loop where the CFG allows based on the most likely
path taken. Finally, it topologically orders the block chains that have
been formed. This allows it to choose a (mostly) topologically valid
ordering which still priorizes fallthrough within the structural
constraints.
As a final twist in the algorithm, it does violate the CFG when it
discovers a "hot" edge, that is an edge that is more than 4x hotter than
the competing edges in the CFG. These are forcibly merged into
a fallthrough chain.
Future transformations that need te be added are rotation of loop exit
conditions to be fallthrough, and better isolation of cold block chains.
I'm also planning on adding statistics to model how well the algorithm
does at laying out blocks based on the probabilities it receives.
The old tests mostly still pass, and I have some new tests to add, but
the nested loops are still behaving very strangely. This almost seems
like working-as-intended as it rotated the exit branch to be
fallthrough, but I'm not convinced this is actually the best layout. It
is well supported by the probabilities for loops we currently get, but
those are pretty broken for nested loops, so this may change later.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142743 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
SHL inserts zeros from the right, thus even when the original
sign_extend_inreg value was of 1-bit, we need to sra.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142724 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
ZExtPromotedInteger and SExtPromotedInteger based on the operation we legalize.
SetCC return type needs to be legalized via PromoteTargetBoolean.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142660 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
it's a bit more plausible to use this instead of CodePlacementOpt. The
code for this was shamelessly stolen from CodePlacementOpt, and then
trimmed down a bit. There doesn't seem to be much utility in returning
true/false from this pass as we may or may not have rewritten all of the
blocks. Also, the statistic of counting how many loops were aligned
doesn't seem terribly important so I removed it. If folks would like it
to be included, I'm happy to add it back.
This was probably the most egregious of the missing features, and now
I'm going to start gathering some performance numbers and looking at
specific loop structures that have different layout between the two.
Test is updated to include both basic loop alignment and nested loop
alignment.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142645 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
canonical example I used when developing it, and is one of the primary
motivating real-world use cases for __builtin_expect (when burried under
a macro).
I'm working on more test cases here, but I'm trying to make sure both
that the pass is doing the right thing with the test cases and that they
aren't too brittle to changes elsewhere in the code generation pipeline.
Feedback and/or suggestions on how to test this are very welcome.
Especially feedback on whether testing the block comments is a good
strategy; I couldn't find any good examples to steal from but all the
other ideas I had were a lot uglier or more fragile.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@142644 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
