TODO:
* gpr0 allocation
* implement do-loop -> bdnz transform
+* lmw/stmw pass a la arm load store optimizer for prolog/epilog
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Support 'update' load/store instructions. These are cracked on the G5, but are
still a codesize win.
+With preinc enabled, this:
+
+long *%test4(long *%X, long *%dest) {
+ %Y = getelementptr long* %X, int 4
+ %A = load long* %Y
+ store long %A, long* %dest
+ ret long* %Y
+}
+
+compiles to:
+
+_test4:
+ mr r2, r3
+ lwzu r5, 32(r2)
+ lwz r3, 36(r3)
+ stw r5, 0(r4)
+ stw r3, 4(r4)
+ mr r3, r2
+ blr
+
+with -sched=list-burr, I get:
+
+_test4:
+ lwz r2, 36(r3)
+ lwzu r5, 32(r3)
+ stw r2, 4(r4)
+ stw r5, 0(r4)
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We compile the hottest inner loop of viterbi to:
+
+ li r6, 0
+ b LBB1_84 ;bb432.i
+LBB1_83: ;bb420.i
+ lbzx r8, r5, r7
+ addi r6, r7, 1
+ stbx r8, r4, r7
+LBB1_84: ;bb432.i
+ mr r7, r6
+ cmplwi cr0, r7, 143
+ bne cr0, LBB1_83 ;bb420.i
+
+The CBE manages to produce:
+
+ li r0, 143
+ mtctr r0
+loop:
+ lbzx r2, r2, r11
+ stbx r0, r2, r9
+ addi r2, r2, 1
+ bdz later
+ b loop
+
+This could be much better (bdnz instead of bdz) but it still beats us. If we
+produced this with bdnz, the loop would be a single dispatch group.
+
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Compile:
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-Teach the .td file to pattern match PPC::BR_COND to appropriate bc variant, so
-we don't have to always run the branch selector for small functions.
-
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-
Lump the constant pool for each function into ONE pic object, and reference
pieces of it as offsets from the start. For functions like this (contrived
to have lots of constants obviously):
Note that this (and the static variable version) is discussed here for GCC:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
+Here's another example (the sgn function):
+double testf(double a) {
+ return a == 0.0 ? 0.0 : (a > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0);
+}
+
+it produces a BB like this:
+LBB1_1: ; cond_true
+ lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_0)
+ lfs f0, lo16(LCPI1_0)(r2)
+ lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_1)
+ lis r3, ha16(LCPI1_2)
+ lfs f2, lo16(LCPI1_2)(r3)
+ lfs f3, lo16(LCPI1_1)(r2)
+ fsub f0, f0, f1
+ fsel f1, f0, f2, f3
+ blr
+
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
PIC Code Gen IPO optimization:
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-Compile this:
-
-int %f1(int %a, int %b) {
- %tmp.1 = and int %a, 15 ; <int> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.3 = and int %b, 240 ; <int> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.4 = or int %tmp.3, %tmp.1 ; <int> [#uses=1]
- ret int %tmp.4
-}
-
-without a copy. We make this currently:
-
-_f1:
- rlwinm r2, r4, 0, 24, 27
- rlwimi r2, r3, 0, 28, 31
- or r3, r2, r2
- blr
-
-The two-addr pass or RA needs to learn when it is profitable to commute an
-instruction to avoid a copy AFTER the 2-addr instruction. The 2-addr pass
-currently only commutes to avoid inserting a copy BEFORE the two addr instr.
-
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-
Compile offsets from allocas:
int *%test() {
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-FreeBench/mason has a basic block that looks like this:
-
- %tmp.130 = seteq int %p.0__, 5 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.134 = seteq int %p.1__, 6 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.139 = seteq int %p.2__, 12 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.144 = seteq int %p.3__, 13 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.149 = seteq int %p.4__, 14 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.154 = seteq int %p.5__, 15 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %bothcond = and bool %tmp.134, %tmp.130 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
- %bothcond123 = and bool %bothcond, %tmp.139 ; <bool>
- %bothcond124 = and bool %bothcond123, %tmp.144 ; <bool>
- %bothcond125 = and bool %bothcond124, %tmp.149 ; <bool>
- %bothcond126 = and bool %bothcond125, %tmp.154 ; <bool>
- br bool %bothcond126, label %shortcirc_next.5, label %else.0
-
-This is a particularly important case where handling CRs better will help.
-
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-
Simple IPO for argument passing, change:
void foo(int X, double Y, int Z) -> void foo(int X, int Z, double Y)
same operands (but backwards) exists. In this case, this wouldn't save us
anything though, because the compares still wouldn't be shared.
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-
-The legalizer should lower this:
-
-bool %test(ulong %x) {
- %tmp = setlt ulong %x, 4294967296
- ret bool %tmp
-}
-
-into "if x.high == 0", not:
-
-_test:
- addi r2, r3, -1
- cntlzw r2, r2
- cntlzw r3, r3
- srwi r2, r2, 5
- srwi r4, r3, 5
- li r3, 0
- cmpwi cr0, r2, 0
- bne cr0, LBB1_2 ;
-LBB1_1:
- or r3, r4, r4
-LBB1_2:
- blr
-
-noticed in 2005-05-11-Popcount-ffs-fls.c.
-
-
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
We should custom expand setcc instead of pretending that we have it. That
===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
-%struct.B = type { ubyte, [3 x ubyte] }
+%struct.B = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
-void %foo(%struct.B* %b) {
+define void @bar(%struct.B* %b) {
entry:
- %tmp = cast %struct.B* %b to uint* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
- %tmp = load uint* %tmp ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp3 = cast %struct.B* %b to uint* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
- %tmp4 = load uint* %tmp3 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp8 = cast %struct.B* %b to uint* ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
- %tmp9 = load uint* %tmp8 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp4.mask17 = shl uint %tmp4, ubyte 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp1415 = and uint %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.masked = and uint %tmp, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp11 = or uint %tmp1415, %tmp.masked ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp12 = and uint %tmp9, 2147483647 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- %tmp13 = or uint %tmp12, %tmp11 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
- store uint %tmp13, uint* %tmp8
+ %tmp = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp = load i32* %tmp ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp3 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp4 = load i32* %tmp3 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp8 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
+ %tmp9 = load i32* %tmp8 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp4.mask17 = shl i32 %tmp4, i8 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp1415 = and i32 %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp.masked = and i32 %tmp, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp11 = or i32 %tmp1415, %tmp.masked ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp12 = and i32 %tmp9, 2147483647 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp13 = or i32 %tmp12, %tmp11 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ store i32 %tmp13, i32* %tmp8
ret void
}
or r3,r3,r0
blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Consider a function like this:
+
+float foo(float X) { return X + 1234.4123f; }
+
+The FP constant ends up in the constant pool, so we need to get the LR register.
+ This ends up producing code like this:
+
+_foo:
+.LBB_foo_0: ; entry
+ mflr r11
+*** stw r11, 8(r1)
+ bl "L00000$pb"
+"L00000$pb":
+ mflr r2
+ addis r2, r2, ha16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")
+ lfs f0, lo16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")(r2)
+ fadds f1, f1, f0
+*** lwz r11, 8(r1)
+ mtlr r11
+ blr
+
+This is functional, but there is no reason to spill the LR register all the way
+to the stack (the two marked instrs): spilling it to a GPR is quite enough.
+
+Implementing this will require some codegen improvements. Nate writes:
+
+"So basically what we need to support the "no stack frame save and restore" is a
+generalization of the LR optimization to "callee-save regs".
+
+Currently, we have LR marked as a callee-save reg. The register allocator sees
+that it's callee save, and spills it directly to the stack.
+
+Ideally, something like this would happen:
+
+LR would be in a separate register class from the GPRs. The class of LR would be
+marked "unspillable". When the register allocator came across an unspillable
+reg, it would ask "what is the best class to copy this into that I *can* spill"
+If it gets a class back, which it will in this case (the gprs), it grabs a free
+register of that class. If it is then later necessary to spill that reg, so be
+it.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We compile this:
+int test(_Bool X) {
+ return X ? 524288 : 0;
+}
+
+to:
+_test:
+ cmplwi cr0, r3, 0
+ lis r2, 8
+ li r3, 0
+ beq cr0, LBB1_2 ;entry
+LBB1_1: ;entry
+ mr r3, r2
+LBB1_2: ;entry
+ blr
+
+instead of:
+_test:
+ addic r2,r3,-1
+ subfe r0,r2,r3
+ slwi r3,r0,19
+ blr
+
+This sort of thing occurs a lot due to globalopt.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We currently compile 32-bit bswap:
+
+declare i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
+define i32 @test(i32 %A) {
+ %B = call i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
+ ret i32 %B
+}
+
+to:
+
+_test:
+ rlwinm r2, r3, 24, 16, 23
+ slwi r4, r3, 24
+ rlwimi r2, r3, 8, 24, 31
+ rlwimi r4, r3, 8, 8, 15
+ rlwimi r4, r2, 0, 16, 31
+ mr r3, r4
+ blr
+
+it would be more efficient to produce:
+
+_foo: mr r0,r3
+ rlwinm r3,r3,8,0xffffffff
+ rlwimi r3,r0,24,0,7
+ rlwimi r3,r0,24,16,23
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+test/CodeGen/PowerPC/2007-03-24-cntlzd.ll compiles to:
+
+__ZNK4llvm5APInt17countLeadingZerosEv:
+ ld r2, 0(r3)
+ cntlzd r2, r2
+ or r2, r2, r2 <<-- silly.
+ addi r3, r2, -64
+ blr
+
+The dead or is a 'truncate' from 64- to 32-bits.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We generate horrible ppc code for this:
+
+#define N 2000000
+double a[N],c[N];
+void simpleloop() {
+ int j;
+ for (j=0; j<N; j++)
+ c[j] = a[j];
+}
+
+LBB1_1: ;bb
+ lfdx f0, r3, r4
+ addi r5, r5, 1 ;; Extra IV for the exit value compare.
+ stfdx f0, r2, r4
+ addi r4, r4, 8
+
+ xoris r6, r5, 30 ;; This is due to a large immediate.
+ cmplwi cr0, r6, 33920
+ bne cr0, LBB1_1
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This:
+ #include <algorithm>
+ inline std::pair<unsigned, bool> full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
+ bool no_overflow(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return !full_add(a, b).second; }
+
+Should compile to:
+
+__Z11no_overflowjj:
+ add r4,r3,r4
+ subfc r3,r3,r4
+ li r3,0
+ adde r3,r3,r3
+ blr
+
+(or better) not:
+
+__Z11no_overflowjj:
+ add r2, r4, r3
+ cmplw cr7, r2, r3
+ mfcr r2
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
+ xori r3, r2, 1
+ blr
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We compile some FP comparisons into an mfcr with two rlwinms and an or. For
+example:
+#include <math.h>
+int test(double x, double y) { return islessequal(x, y);}
+int test2(double x, double y) { return islessgreater(x, y);}
+int test3(double x, double y) { return !islessequal(x, y);}
+
+Compiles into (all three are similar, but the bits differ):
+
+_test:
+ fcmpu cr7, f1, f2
+ mfcr r2
+ rlwinm r3, r2, 29, 31, 31
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 31, 31, 31
+ or r3, r2, r3
+ blr
+
+GCC compiles this into:
+
+ _test:
+ fcmpu cr7,f1,f2
+ cror 30,28,30
+ mfcr r3
+ rlwinm r3,r3,31,1
+ blr
+
+which is more efficient and can use mfocr. See PR642 for some more context.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+void foo(float *data, float d) {
+ long i;
+ for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++)
+ data[i] = d;
+}
+void foo2(float *data, float d) {
+ long i;
+ data--;
+ for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++) {
+ data[1] = d;
+ data++;
+ }
+}
+
+These compile to:
+
+_foo:
+ li r2, 0
+LBB1_1: ; bb
+ addi r4, r2, 4
+ stfsx f1, r3, r2
+ cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
+ mr r2, r4
+ bne cr0, LBB1_1 ; bb
+ blr
+_foo2:
+ li r2, 0
+LBB2_1: ; bb
+ addi r4, r2, 4
+ stfsx f1, r3, r2
+ cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
+ mr r2, r4
+ bne cr0, LBB2_1 ; bb
+ blr
+
+The 'mr' could be eliminated to folding the add into the cmp better.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+Codegen for the following (low-probability) case deteriorated considerably
+when the correctness fixes for unordered comparisons went in (PR 642, 58871).
+It should be possible to recover the code quality described in the comments.
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep or | count 3
+; This should produce one 'or' or 'cror' instruction per function.
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep mfcr | count 3
+; PR2964
+
+define i32 @test(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp ole double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp345
+}
+
+define i32 @test2(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp one double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp345
+}
+
+define i32 @test3(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp ugt double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp34 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp34
+}
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | not grep fneg
+
+; This could generate FSEL with appropriate flags (FSEL is not IEEE-safe, and
+; should not be generated except with -enable-finite-only-fp-math or the like).
+; With the correctness fixes for PR642 (58871) LowerSELECT_CC would need to
+; recognize a more elaborate tree than a simple SETxx.
+
+define double @test_FNEG_sel(double %A, double %B, double %C) {
+ %D = sub double -0.000000e+00, %A ; <double> [#uses=1]
+ %Cond = fcmp ugt double %D, -0.000000e+00 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %E = select i1 %Cond, double %B, double %C ; <double> [#uses=1]
+ ret double %E
+}
+
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff