mirror of
https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
synced 2025-02-21 21:29:41 +00:00
This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@203364 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Analysis Opportunities: //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this: {1,+,3,+,2}<loop> Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as (-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n)) In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic, which is very inefficient when expanded into code. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll, ScalarEvolution is forming this expression: ((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))) This could be folded to (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)) //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//