bar ();
}
-void neg_eq_cst(unsigned int a) {
-if (-a == 123)
-bar();
-}
-
All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
-std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch:
define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind {
entry:
switch i32 %x, label %if.end [
Generated code on x86-64 (other platforms give similar results):
a:
cmpl $5, %edi
- ja .LBB0_2
- movl %edi, %eax
- movl $47, %ecx
- btq %rax, %rcx
- jb .LBB0_3
+ ja LBB2_2
+ cmpl $4, %edi
+ jne LBB2_3
.LBB0_2:
ret
.LBB0_3:
jmp foo # TAILCALL
-The movl+movl+btq+jb could be simplified to a cmpl+jne.
-
-Or, if we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to
+If we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to
something like the following, which eliminates a branch:
xorl $1, %edi
cmpl $4, %edi
}
This shouldn't need the ((zext (%n - 1)) + 1) game, and it should ideally fold
-the two memset's together. The issue with %n seems to stem from poor handling
-of the original loop.
+the two memset's together.
-To simplify this, we need SCEV to know that "n != 0" because of the dominating
-conditional. That would turn the second memset into a simple memset of 'n'.
+The issue with the addition only occurs in 64-bit mode, and appears to be at
+least partially caused by Scalar Evolution not keeping its cache updated: it
+returns the "wrong" result immediately after indvars runs, but figures out the
+expected result if it is run from scratch on IR resulting from running indvars.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+define i1 @test1(i32 %x) nounwind {
+ %and = and i32 %x, 3
+ %cmp = icmp ult i32 %and, 2
+ ret i1 %cmp
+}
+Can be folded to (x & 2) == 0.
+
+define i1 @test2(i32 %x) nounwind {
+ %and = and i32 %x, 3
+ %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %and, 1
+ ret i1 %cmp
+}
+
+Can be folded to (x & 2) != 0.
+
+SimplifyDemandedBits shrinks the "and" constant to 2 but instcombine misses the
+icmp transform.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+typedef struct {
+int f1:1;
+int f2:1;
+int f3:1;
+int f4:29;
+} t1;
+
+typedef struct {
+int f1:1;
+int f2:1;
+int f3:30;
+} t2;
+
+t1 s1;
+t2 s2;
+
+void func1(void)
+{
+s1.f1 = s2.f1;
+s1.f2 = s2.f2;
+}
+
+Compiles into this IR (on x86-64 at least):
+
+%struct.t1 = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
+@s2 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4
+@s1 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4
+define void @func1() nounwind ssp noredzone {
+entry:
+ %0 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s2 to i32*), align 4
+ %bf.val.sext5 = and i32 %0, 1
+ %1 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4
+ %2 = and i32 %1, -4
+ %3 = or i32 %2, %bf.val.sext5
+ %bf.val.sext26 = and i32 %0, 2
+ %4 = or i32 %3, %bf.val.sext26
+ store i32 %4, i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4
+ ret void
+}
+
+The two or/and's should be merged into one each.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Machine level code hoisting can be useful in some cases. For example, PR9408
+is about:
+
+typedef union {
+ void (*f1)(int);
+ void (*f2)(long);
+} funcs;
+
+void foo(funcs f, int which) {
+ int a = 5;
+ if (which) {
+ f.f1(a);
+ } else {
+ f.f2(a);
+ }
+}
+
+which we compile to:
+
+foo: # @foo
+# BB#0: # %entry
+ pushq %rbp
+ movq %rsp, %rbp
+ testl %esi, %esi
+ movq %rdi, %rax
+ je .LBB0_2
+# BB#1: # %if.then
+ movl $5, %edi
+ callq *%rax
+ popq %rbp
+ ret
+.LBB0_2: # %if.else
+ movl $5, %edi
+ callq *%rax
+ popq %rbp
+ ret
+
+Note that bb1 and bb2 are the same. This doesn't happen at the IR level
+because one call is passing an i32 and the other is passing an i64.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+I see this sort of pattern in 176.gcc in a few places (e.g. the start of
+store_bit_field). The rem should be replaced with a multiply and subtract:
+
+ %3 = sdiv i32 %A, %B
+ %4 = srem i32 %A, %B
+
+Similarly for udiv/urem. Note that this shouldn't be done on X86 or ARM,
+which can do this in a single operation (instruction or libcall). It is
+probably best to do this in the code generator.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return (x & y) == 0 || x == 0; }
+should fold to (x & y) == 0.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
+should fold to x > y.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff