+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+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.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+It would be good to detect collector/target compatibility instead of silently
+doing the wrong thing.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+It would be really nice to be able to write patterns in .td files for copies,
+which would eliminate a bunch of explicit predicates on them (e.g. no side
+effects). Once this is in place, it would be even better to have tblgen
+synthesize the various copy insertion/inspection methods in TargetInstrInfo.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Stack coloring improvements:
+
+1. Do proper LiveStackAnalysis on all stack objects including those which are
+ not spill slots.
+2. Reorder objects to fill in gaps between objects.
+ e.g. 4, 1, <gap>, 4, 1, 1, 1, <gap>, 4 => 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The scheduler should be able to sort nearby instructions by their address. For
+example, in an expanded memset sequence it's not uncommon to see code like this:
+
+ movl $0, 4(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 8(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 12(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 0(%rdi)
+
+Each of the stores is independent, and the scheduler is currently making an
+arbitrary decision about the order.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Another opportunitiy in this code is that the $0 could be moved to a register:
+
+ movl $0, 4(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 8(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 12(%rdi)
+ movl $0, 0(%rdi)
+
+This would save substantial code size, especially for longer sequences like
+this. It would be easy to have a rule telling isel to avoid matching MOV32mi
+if the immediate has more than some fixed number of uses. It's more involved
+to teach the register allocator how to do late folding to recover from
+excessive register pressure.
+