assume that if they don't intend to write to a global variable, that they
would mark it as constant. However, there are people that don't understand
that the compiler can do nice things for them if they give it the information
it needs.
This pass looks for blatently obvious globals that are only ever read from.
Though it uses a trivially simple "alias analysis" of sorts, it is still able
to do amazing things to important benchmarks. 253.perlbmk, for example,
contains several ***GIANT*** function pointer tables that are not marked
constant and should be. Marking them constant allows the optimizer to turn
a whole bunch of indirect calls into direct calls. Note that only a link-time
optimizer can do this transformation, but perlbmk does have several strings
and other minor globals that can be marked constant by this pass when run
from GCCAS.
176.gcc has a ton of strings and large tables that are marked constant, both
at compile time (38 of them) and at link time (48 more). Other benchmarks
give similar results, though it seems like big ones have disproportionally
more than small ones.
This pass is extremely quick and does good things. I'm going to enable it
in gccas & gccld. Not bad for 50 SLOC.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11836 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
scaled indexes. This allows us to compile GEP's like this:
int* %test([10 x { int, { int } }]* %X, int %Idx) {
%Idx = cast int %Idx to long
%X = getelementptr [10 x { int, { int } }]* %X, long 0, long %Idx, ubyte 1, ubyte 0
ret int* %X
}
Into a single address computation:
test:
mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
lea %EAX, DWORD PTR [%EAX + 8*%ECX + 4]
ret
Before it generated:
test:
mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
shl %ECX, 3
add %EAX, %ECX
lea %EAX, DWORD PTR [%EAX + 4]
ret
This is useful for things like int/float/double arrays, as the indexing can be folded into
the loads&stores, reducing register pressure and decreasing the pressure on the decode unit.
With these changes, I expect our performance on 256.bzip2 and gzip to improve a lot. On
bzip2 for example, we go from this:
10665 asm-printer - Number of machine instrs printed
40 ra-local - Number of loads/stores folded into instructions
1708 ra-local - Number of loads added
1532 ra-local - Number of stores added
1354 twoaddressinstruction - Number of instructions added
1354 twoaddressinstruction - Number of two-address instructions
2794 x86-peephole - Number of peephole optimization performed
to this:
9873 asm-printer - Number of machine instrs printed
41 ra-local - Number of loads/stores folded into instructions
1710 ra-local - Number of loads added
1521 ra-local - Number of stores added
789 twoaddressinstruction - Number of instructions added
789 twoaddressinstruction - Number of two-address instructions
2142 x86-peephole - Number of peephole optimization performed
... and these types of instructions are often in tight loops.
Linear scan is also helped, but not as much. It goes from:
8787 asm-printer - Number of machine instrs printed
2389 liveintervals - Number of identity moves eliminated after coalescing
2288 liveintervals - Number of interval joins performed
3522 liveintervals - Number of intervals after coalescing
5810 liveintervals - Number of original intervals
700 spiller - Number of loads added
487 spiller - Number of stores added
303 spiller - Number of register spills
1354 twoaddressinstruction - Number of instructions added
1354 twoaddressinstruction - Number of two-address instructions
363 x86-peephole - Number of peephole optimization performed
to:
7982 asm-printer - Number of machine instrs printed
1759 liveintervals - Number of identity moves eliminated after coalescing
1658 liveintervals - Number of interval joins performed
3282 liveintervals - Number of intervals after coalescing
4940 liveintervals - Number of original intervals
635 spiller - Number of loads added
452 spiller - Number of stores added
288 spiller - Number of register spills
789 twoaddressinstruction - Number of instructions added
789 twoaddressinstruction - Number of two-address instructions
258 x86-peephole - Number of peephole optimization performed
Though I'm not complaining about the drop in the number of intervals. :)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11820 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to do analysis.
*** FOLD getelementptr instructions into loads and stores when possible,
making use of some of the crazy X86 addressing modes.
For example, the following C++ program fragment:
struct complex {
double re, im;
complex(double r, double i) : re(r), im(i) {}
};
inline complex operator+(const complex& a, const complex& b) {
return complex(a.re+b.re, a.im+b.im);
}
complex addone(const complex& arg) {
return arg + complex(1,0);
}
Used to be compiled to:
_Z6addoneRK7complex:
mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
*** mov %EDX, %ECX
fld QWORD PTR [%EDX]
fld1
faddp %ST(1)
*** add %ECX, 8
fld QWORD PTR [%ECX]
fldz
faddp %ST(1)
*** mov %ECX, %EAX
fxch %ST(1)
fstp QWORD PTR [%ECX]
*** add %EAX, 8
fstp QWORD PTR [%EAX]
ret
Now it is compiled to:
_Z6addoneRK7complex:
mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
fld QWORD PTR [%ECX]
fld1
faddp %ST(1)
fld QWORD PTR [%ECX + 8]
fldz
faddp %ST(1)
fxch %ST(1)
fstp QWORD PTR [%EAX]
fstp QWORD PTR [%EAX + 8]
ret
Other programs should see similar improvements, across the board. Note that
in addition to reducing instruction count, this also reduces register pressure
a lot, always a good thing on X86. :)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11819 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
into a single LEA instruction. This should improve the code generated for
things like X->A.B.C[12].D.
The bigger benefit is still coming though. Note that this uses an LEA instruction
instead of an add, giving the register allocator more freedom. We should probably
never generate ADDri32's.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11817 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
so that we always get the inline function instead. Remember, kids, like it says
in the GCC manual, "An Inline Function is As Fast As a Macro."
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11815 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Also fix problem where we didn't check to see if a node pointer was null.
Though fclose(null) doesn't make a lot of sense, 300.twolf does it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11810 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
longer was getting this #include, it always fell back on the less precise
floating point initializer values, causing some testsuite failures.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11803 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
allocator.
The implementation is completely rewritten and now employs several
optimizations not exercised before. For example for 164.gzip we have
997 loads and 699 stores vs the 1221 loads and 880 stores we have
before.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11798 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This case occurs many times in various benchmarks, especially when combined
with the previous patch. This allows it to get stuff like:
if (X == 4 || X == 3)
if (X == 5 || X == 8)
and
switch (X) {
case 4: case 5: case 6:
if (X == 4 || X == 5)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@11797 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
