mirror of
https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
synced 2024-10-30 00:31:25 +00:00
514ab348fd
The meaning of getTypeSize was not clear - clarifying it is important now that we have x86 long double and arbitrary precision integers. The issue with long double is that it requires 80 bits, and this is not a multiple of its alignment. This gives a primitive type for which getTypeSize differed from getABITypeSize. For arbitrary precision integers it is even worse: there is the minimum number of bits needed to hold the type (eg: 36 for an i36), the maximum number of bits that will be overwriten when storing the type (40 bits for i36) and the ABI size (i.e. the storage size rounded up to a multiple of the alignment; 64 bits for i36). This patch removes getTypeSize (not really - it is still there but deprecated to allow for a gradual transition). Instead there is: (1) getTypeSizeInBits - a number of bits that suffices to hold all values of the type. For a primitive type, this is the minimum number of bits. For an i36 this is 36 bits. For x86 long double it is 80. This corresponds to gcc's TYPE_PRECISION. (2) getTypeStoreSizeInBits - the maximum number of bits that is written when storing the type (or read when reading it). For an i36 this is 40 bits, for an x86 long double it is 80 bits. This is the size alias analysis is interested in (getTypeStoreSize returns the number of bytes). There doesn't seem to be anything corresponding to this in gcc. (3) getABITypeSizeInBits - this is getTypeStoreSizeInBits rounded up to a multiple of the alignment. For an i36 this is 64, for an x86 long double this is 96 or 128 depending on the OS. This is the spacing between consecutive elements when you form an array out of this type (getABITypeSize returns the number of bytes). This is TYPE_SIZE in gcc. Since successive elements in a SequentialType (arrays, pointers and vectors) need to be aligned, the spacing between them will be given by getABITypeSize. This means that the size of an array is the length times the getABITypeSize. It also means that GEP computations need to use getABITypeSize when computing offsets. Furthermore, if an alloca allocates several elements at once then these too need to be aligned, so the size of the alloca has to be the number of elements multiplied by getABITypeSize. Logically speaking this doesn't have to be the case when allocating just one element, but it is simpler to also use getABITypeSize in this case. So alloca's and mallocs should use getABITypeSize. Finally, since gcc's only notion of size is that given by getABITypeSize, if you want to output assembler etc the same as gcc then getABITypeSize is the size you want. Since a store will overwrite no more than getTypeStoreSize bytes, and a read will read no more than that many bytes, this is the notion of size appropriate for alias analysis calculations. In this patch I have corrected all type size uses except some of those in ScalarReplAggregates, lib/Codegen, lib/Target (the hard cases). I will get around to auditing these too at some point, but I could do with some help. Finally, I made one change which I think wise but others might consider pointless and suboptimal: in an unpacked struct the amount of space allocated for a field is now given by the ABI size rather than getTypeStoreSize. I did this because every other place that reserves memory for a type (eg: alloca) now uses getABITypeSize, and I didn't want to make an exception for unpacked structs, i.e. I did it to make things more uniform. This only effects structs containing long doubles and arbitrary precision integers. If someone wants to pack these types more tightly they can always use a packed struct. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@43620 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
SelectionDAG | ||
AsmPrinter.cpp | ||
BranchFolding.cpp | ||
Collector.cpp | ||
CollectorMetadata.cpp | ||
Collectors.cpp | ||
DwarfWriter.cpp | ||
ELFWriter.cpp | ||
ELFWriter.h | ||
IfConversion.cpp | ||
IntrinsicLowering.cpp | ||
LiveInterval.cpp | ||
LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp | ||
LiveVariables.cpp | ||
LLVMTargetMachine.cpp | ||
LowerSubregs.cpp | ||
MachineBasicBlock.cpp | ||
MachineDominators.cpp | ||
MachineFunction.cpp | ||
MachineInstr.cpp | ||
MachineModuleInfo.cpp | ||
MachinePassRegistry.cpp | ||
MachOWriter.cpp | ||
MachOWriter.h | ||
Makefile | ||
Passes.cpp | ||
PHIElimination.cpp | ||
PhysRegTracker.h | ||
PostRASchedulerList.cpp | ||
PrologEpilogInserter.cpp | ||
README.txt | ||
RegAllocBigBlock.cpp | ||
RegAllocLinearScan.cpp | ||
RegAllocLocal.cpp | ||
RegAllocSimple.cpp | ||
RegisterCoalescer.cpp | ||
RegisterScavenging.cpp | ||
SimpleRegisterCoalescing.cpp | ||
StrongPHIElimination.cpp | ||
TwoAddressInstructionPass.cpp | ||
UnreachableBlockElim.cpp | ||
VirtRegMap.cpp | ||
VirtRegMap.h |
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// Common register allocation / spilling problem: mul lr, r4, lr str lr, [sp, #+52] ldr lr, [r1, #+32] sxth r3, r3 ldr r4, [sp, #+52] mla r4, r3, lr, r4 can be: mul lr, r4, lr mov r4, lr str lr, [sp, #+52] ldr lr, [r1, #+32] sxth r3, r3 mla r4, r3, lr, r4 and then "merge" mul and mov: mul r4, r4, lr str lr, [sp, #+52] ldr lr, [r1, #+32] sxth r3, r3 mla r4, r3, lr, r4 It also increase the likelyhood the store may become dead. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// I think we should have a "hasSideEffects" flag (which is automatically set for stuff that "isLoad" "isCall" etc), and the remat pass should eventually be able to remat any instruction that has no side effects, if it can handle it and if profitable. For now, I'd suggest having the remat stuff work like this: 1. I need to spill/reload this thing. 2. Check to see if it has side effects. 3. Check to see if it is simple enough: e.g. it only has one register destination and no register input. 4. If so, clone the instruction, do the xform, etc. Advantages of this are: 1. the .td file describes the behavior of the instructions, not the way the algorithm should work. 2. as remat gets smarter in the future, we shouldn't have to be changing the .td files. 3. it is easier to explain what the flag means in the .td file, because you don't have to pull in the explanation of how the current remat algo works. Some potential added complexities: 1. Some instructions have to be glued to it's predecessor or successor. All of the PC relative instructions and condition code setting instruction. We could mark them as hasSideEffects, but that's not quite right. PC relative loads from constantpools can be remat'ed, for example. But it requires more than just cloning the instruction. Some instructions can be remat'ed but it expands to more than one instruction. But allocator will have to make a decision. 4. As stated in 3, not as simple as cloning in some cases. The target will have to decide how to remat it. For example, an ARM 2-piece constant generation instruction is remat'ed as a load from constantpool. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// bb27 ... ... %reg1037 = ADDri %reg1039, 1 %reg1038 = ADDrs %reg1032, %reg1039, %NOREG, 10 Successors according to CFG: 0x8b03bf0 (#5) bb76 (0x8b03bf0, LLVM BB @0x8b032d0, ID#5): Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8b0c5f0 (#3) 0x8b0a7c0 (#4) %reg1039 = PHI %reg1070, mbb<bb76.outer,0x8b0c5f0>, %reg1037, mbb<bb27,0x8b0a7c0> Note ADDri is not a two-address instruction. However, its result %reg1037 is an operand of the PHI node in bb76 and its operand %reg1039 is the result of the PHI node. We should treat it as a two-address code and make sure the ADDri is scheduled after any node that reads %reg1039. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// Use local info (i.e. register scavenger) to assign it a free register to allow reuse: ldr r3, [sp, #+4] add r3, r3, #3 ldr r2, [sp, #+8] add r2, r2, #2 ldr r1, [sp, #+4] <== add r1, r1, #1 ldr r0, [sp, #+4] add r0, r0, #2 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// LLVM aggressively lift CSE out of loop. Sometimes this can be negative side- effects: R1 = X + 4 R2 = X + 7 R3 = X + 15 loop: load [i + R1] ... load [i + R2] ... load [i + R3] Suppose there is high register pressure, R1, R2, R3, can be spilled. We need to implement proper re-materialization to handle this: R1 = X + 4 R2 = X + 7 R3 = X + 15 loop: R1 = X + 4 @ re-materialized load [i + R1] ... R2 = X + 7 @ re-materialized load [i + R2] ... R3 = X + 15 @ re-materialized load [i + R3] Furthermore, with re-association, we can enable sharing: R1 = X + 4 R2 = X + 7 R3 = X + 15 loop: T = i + X load [T + 4] ... load [T + 7] ... load [T + 15] //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// It's not always a good idea to choose rematerialization over spilling. If all the load / store instructions would be folded then spilling is cheaper because it won't require new live intervals / registers. See 2003-05-31-LongShifts for an example. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// With a copying garbage collector, derived pointers must not be retained across collector safe points; the collector could move the objects and invalidate the derived pointer. This is bad enough in the first place, but safe points can crop up unpredictably. Consider: %array = load { i32, [0 x %obj] }** %array_addr %nth_el = getelementptr { i32, [0 x %obj] }* %array, i32 0, i32 %n %old = load %obj** %nth_el %z = div i64 %x, %y store %obj* %new, %obj** %nth_el If the i64 division is lowered to a libcall, then a safe point will (must) appear for the call site. If a collection occurs, %array and %nth_el no longer point into the correct object. The fix for this is to copy address calculations so that dependent pointers are never live across safe point boundaries. But the loads cannot be copied like this if there was an intervening store, so may be hard to get right. Only a concurrent mutator can trigger a collection at the libcall safe point. So single-threaded programs do not have this requirement, even with a copying collector. Still, LLVM optimizations would probably undo a front-end's careful work. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// The ocaml frametable structure supports liveness information. It would be good to support it. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// The FIXME in ComputeCommonTailLength in BranchFolding.cpp needs to be revisited. The check is there to work around a misuse of directives in inline assembly. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//