//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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)
does not put the tables in-line in the text. This is more like the llvm
default jump table implementation. This might be useful sometime. Several
revisions of patches are on the mailing list, beginning at:
-http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/022763.html
+http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2009-June/022763.html
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
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.
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Given the following on ARMv7:
-int test1(int A, int B) {
- return (A&-8388481)|(B&8388480);
-}
-
-We currently generate:
- bfc r0, #7, #16
- movw r2, #:lower16:8388480
- movt r2, #:upper16:8388480
- and r1, r1, r2
- orr r0, r1, r0
- bx lr
-
-The following is much shorter:
- lsr r1, r1, #7
- bfi r0, r1, #7, #16
- bx lr
-
-
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
The code generated for bswap on armv4/5 (CPUs without rev) is less than ideal:
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