* Implement pre/post increment support. (e.g. PR935)
* Implement smarter constant generation for binops with large immediates.
+A few ARMv6T2 ops should be pattern matched: BFI, SBFX, and UBFX
+
+Interesting optimization for PIC codegen on arm-linux:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Crazy idea: Consider code that uses lots of 8-bit or 16-bit values. By the
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We currently compile abs:
-int foo(int p) { return p < 0 ? -p : p; }
-
-into:
-
-_foo:
- rsb r1, r0, #0
- cmn r0, #1
- movgt r1, r0
- mov r0, r1
- bx lr
-
-This is very, uh, literal. This could be a 3 operation sequence:
- t = (p sra 31);
- res = (p xor t)-t
-
-Which would be better. This occurs in png decode.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
More load / store optimizations:
1) Better representation for block transfer? This is from Olden/power:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-ARM::MOVCCr is commutable (by flipping the condition). But we need to implement
-ARMInstrInfo::commuteInstruction() to support it.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Split out LDR (literal) from normal ARM LDR instruction. Also consider spliting
LDR into imm12 and so_reg forms. This allows us to clean up some code. e.g.
ARMLoadStoreOptimizer does not need to look at LDR (literal) and LDR (so_reg)
Take a look at test/CodeGen/Thumb2/machine-licm.ll. ARM should be taught how
to licm and cse the unnecessary load from cp#1.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The CMN instruction sets the flags like an ADD instruction, while CMP sets
+them like a subtract. Therefore to be able to use CMN for comparisons other
+than the Z bit, we'll need additional logic to reverse the conditionals
+associated with the comparison. Perhaps a pseudo-instruction for the comparison,
+with a post-codegen pass to clean up and handle the condition codes?
+See PR5694 for testcase.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Given the following on armv5:
+int test1(int A, int B) {
+ return (A&-8388481)|(B&8388480);
+}
+
+We currently generate:
+ ldr r2, .LCPI0_0
+ and r0, r0, r2
+ ldr r2, .LCPI0_1
+ and r1, r1, r2
+ orr r0, r1, r0
+ bx lr
+
+We should be able to replace the second ldr+and with a bic (i.e. reuse the
+constant which was already loaded). Not sure what's necessary to do that.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The code generated for bswap on armv4/5 (CPUs without rev) is less than ideal:
+
+int a(int x) { return __builtin_bswap32(x); }
+
+a:
+ mov r1, #255, 24
+ mov r2, #255, 16
+ and r1, r1, r0, lsr #8
+ and r2, r2, r0, lsl #8
+ orr r1, r1, r0, lsr #24
+ orr r0, r2, r0, lsl #24
+ orr r0, r0, r1
+ bx lr
+
+Something like the following would be better (fewer instructions/registers):
+ eor r1, r0, r0, ror #16
+ bic r1, r1, #0xff0000
+ mov r1, r1, lsr #8
+ eor r0, r1, r0, ror #8
+ bx lr
+
+A custom Thumb version would also be a slight improvement over the generic
+version.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Consider the following simple C code:
+
+void foo(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b, int *c) {
+ if ((*a | *b) == 0) *c = 0;
+}
+
+currently llvm-gcc generates something like this (nice branchless code I'd say):
+
+ ldrb r0, [r0]
+ ldrb r1, [r1]
+ orr r0, r1, r0
+ tst r0, #255
+ moveq r0, #0
+ streq r0, [r2]
+ bx lr
+
+Note that both "tst" and "moveq" are redundant.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+When loading immediate constants with movt/movw, if there are multiple
+constants needed with the same low 16 bits, and those values are not live at
+the same time, it would be possible to use a single movw instruction, followed
+by multiple movt instructions to rewrite the high bits to different values.
+For example:
+
+ volatile store i32 -1, i32* inttoptr (i32 1342210076 to i32*), align 4,
+ !tbaa
+!0
+ volatile store i32 -1, i32* inttoptr (i32 1342341148 to i32*), align 4,
+ !tbaa
+!0
+
+is compiled and optimized to:
+
+ movw r0, #32796
+ mov.w r1, #-1
+ movt r0, #20480
+ str r1, [r0]
+ movw r0, #32796 @ <= this MOVW is not needed, value is there already
+ movt r0, #20482
+ str r1, [r0]
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Improve codegen for select's:
+if (x != 0) x = 1
+if (x == 1) x = 1
+
+ARM codegen used to look like this:
+ mov r1, r0
+ cmp r1, #1
+ mov r0, #0
+ moveq r0, #1
+
+The naive lowering select between two different values. It should recognize the
+test is equality test so it's more a conditional move rather than a select:
+ cmp r0, #1
+ movne r0, #0
+
+Currently this is a ARM specific dag combine. We probably should make it into a
+target-neutral one.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Optimize unnecessary checks for zero with __builtin_clz/ctz. Those builtins
+are specified to be undefined at zero, so portable code must check for zero
+and handle it as a special case. That is unnecessary on ARM where those
+operations are implemented in a way that is well-defined for zero. For
+example:
+
+int f(int x) { return x ? __builtin_clz(x) : sizeof(int)*8; }
+
+should just be implemented with a CLZ instruction. Since there are other
+targets, e.g., PPC, that share this behavior, it would be best to implement
+this in a target-independent way: we should probably fold that (when using
+"undefined at zero" semantics) to set the "defined at zero" bit and have
+the code generator expand out the right code.
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Clean up the test/MC/ARM files to have more robust register choices.
+
+R0 should not be used as a register operand in the assembler tests as it's then
+not possible to distinguish between a correct encoding and a missing operand
+encoding, as zero is the default value for the binary encoder.
+e.g.,
+ add r0, r0 // bad
+ add r3, r5 // good
+
+Register operands should be distinct. That is, when the encoding does not
+require two syntactical operands to refer to the same register, two different
+registers should be used in the test so as to catch errors where the
+operands are swapped in the encoding.
+e.g.,
+ subs.w r1, r1, r1 // bad
+ subs.w r1, r2, r3 // good
+
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff