use the zero-undefined variants of CTTZ and CTLZ. These are just simple
patterns for now, there is more to be done to make real world code using
these constructs be optimized and codegen'ed properly on X86.
The existing tests are spiffed up to check that we no longer generate
unnecessary cmov instructions, and that we generate the very important
'xor' to transform bsr which counts the index of the most significant
one bit to the number of leading (most significant) zero bits. Also they
now check that when the variant with defined zero result is used, the
cmov is still produced.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146974 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
I followed three heuristics for deciding whether to set 'true' or
'false':
- Everything target independent got 'true' as that is the expected
common output of the GCC builtins.
- If the target arch only has one way of implementing this operation,
set the flag in the way that exercises the most of codegen. For most
architectures this is also the likely path from a GCC builtin, with
'true' being set. It will (eventually) require lowering away that
difference, and then lowering to the architecture's operation.
- Otherwise, set the flag differently dependending on which target
operation should be tested.
Let me know if anyone has any issue with this pattern or would like
specific tests of another form. This should allow the x86 codegen to
just iteratively improve as I teach the backend how to differentiate
between the two forms, and everything else should remain exactly the
same.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146370 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
We must not issue a bitcast operation for integer-promotion of vector types, because the
location of the values in the vector may be different.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@146150 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
libgcc sets the stack limit field in TCB to 256 bytes above the actual
allocated stack limit. This means if the function's stack frame needs
less than 256 bytes, we can just compare the stack pointer with the
stack limit. This should result in lesser calls to __morestack.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145766 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Currently LLVM pads the call to __morestack with a add and sub of 8
bytes to esp. This isn't correct since __morestack expects the call
to be followed directly by a ret.
This commit also adjusts the relevant test-case.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145765 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Like V_SET0, these instructions are expanded by ExpandPostRA to xorps /
vxorps so they can participate in execution domain swizzling.
This also makes the AVX variants redundant.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145440 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Conservatively returns zero when the GV does not specify an alignment nor is it
initialized. Previously it returns ABI alignment for type of the GV. However, if
the type is a "packed" type, then the under-specified alignments is attached to
the load / store instructions. In that case, the alignment of the type cannot be
trusted.
rdar://10464621
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145300 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
than ABI alignment. These are loads / stores from / to "packed" data structures.
Their alignments are intentionally under-specified.
rdar://10301431
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
was centered around the premise of laying out a loop in a chain, and
then rotating that chain. This is good for preserving contiguous layout,
but bad for actually making sane rotations. In order to keep it safe,
I had to essentially make it impossible to rotate deeply nested loops.
The information needed to correctly reason about a deeply nested loop is
actually available -- *before* we layout the loop. We know the inner
loops are already fused into chains, etc. We lose information the moment
we actually lay out the loop.
The solution was the other alternative for this algorithm I discussed
with Benjamin and some others: rather than rotating the loop
after-the-fact, try to pick a profitable starting block for the loop's
layout, and then use our existing layout logic. I was worried about the
complexity of this "pick" step, but it turns out such complexity is
needed to handle all the important cases I keep teasing out of benchmarks.
This is, I'm afraid, a bit of a work-in-progress. It is still
misbehaving on some likely important cases I'm investigating in Olden.
It also isn't really tested. I'm going to try to craft some interesting
nested-loop test cases, but it's likely to be extremely time consuming
and I don't want to go there until I'm sure I'm testing the correct
behavior. Sadly I can't come up with a way of getting simple, fine
grained test cases for this logic. We need complex loop structures to
even trigger much of it.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
heavily on AnalyzeBranch. That routine doesn't behave as we want given
that rotation occurs mid-way through re-ordering the function. Instead
merely check that there are not unanalyzable branching constructs
present, and then reason about the CFG via successor lists. This
actually simplifies my mental model for all of this as well.
The concrete result is that we now will rotate more loop chains. I've
added a test case from Olden highlighting the effect. There is still
a bit more to do here though in order to regain all of the performance
in Olden.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145179 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
trampoline forms. Both of these were correct in LLVM 3.0, and we don't
need to support LLVM 2.9 and earlier in mainline.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145174 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
pass. This is designed to achieve one of the important optimizations
that the old code placement pass did, but more simply.
This is a somewhat rough and *very* conservative version of the
transform. We could get a lot fancier here if there are profitable cases
to do so. In particular, this only looks for a single pattern, it
insists that the loop backedge being rotated away is the last backedge
in the chain, and it doesn't provide any means of doing better in-loop
placement due to the rotation. However, it appears that it will handle
the important loops I am finding in the LLVM test suite.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145158 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
