Target Independent Opportunities:
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-FreeBench/mason contains code like this:
+We should make the various target's "IMPLICIT_DEF" instructions be a single
+target-independent opcode like TargetInstrInfo::INLINEASM. This would allow
+us to eliminate the TargetInstrDesc::isImplicitDef() method, and would allow
+us to avoid having to define this for every target for every register class.
-static p_type m0u(p_type p) {
- int m[]={0, 8, 1, 2, 16, 5, 13, 7, 14, 9, 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 10, 17, 6};
- p_type pu;
- pu.a = m[p.a];
- pu.b = m[p.b];
- pu.c = m[p.c];
- return pu;
-}
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+With the recent changes to make the implicit def/use set explicit in
+machineinstrs, we should change the target descriptions for 'call' instructions
+so that the .td files don't list all the call-clobbered registers as implicit
+defs. Instead, these should be added by the code generator (e.g. on the dag).
+
+This has a number of uses:
+
+1. PPC32/64 and X86 32/64 can avoid having multiple copies of call instructions
+ for their different impdef sets.
+2. Targets with multiple calling convs (e.g. x86) which have different clobber
+ sets don't need copies of call instructions.
+3. 'Interprocedural register allocation' can be done to reduce the clobber sets
+ of calls.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We currently compile this into a memcpy from a static array into 'm', then
-a bunch of loads from m. It would be better to avoid the memcpy and just do
-loads from the static array.
+Make the PPC branch selector target independant
-===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Get the C front-end to expand hypot(x,y) -> llvm.sqrt(x*x+y*y) when errno and
precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Turn this into a signed shift right in instcombine:
-
-int f(unsigned x) {
- return x >> 31 ? -1 : 0;
-}
-
-http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25600
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg01492.html
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
for (i = ...; ++i) {
return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
}
+Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157.
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-This code:
-int rot(unsigned char b) { int a = ((b>>1) ^ (b<<7)) & 0xff; return a; }
+It would be nice to revert this patch:
+http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
+
+And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
+legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
+stuff too.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
+to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
+specific vector types are target dependent.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should add 'unaligned load/store' nodes, and produce them from code like
+this:
+
+v4sf example(float *P) {
+ return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
+of:
+
+ movl 136(%esp), %eax
+ cmpl $0, %eax
+ je LBB16_2 #cond_next
+LBB16_1: #cond_true
+ incl _foo
+LBB16_2: #cond_next
+
+emit:
+ movl _foo, %eax
+ cmpl $1, %edi
+ sbbl $-1, %eax
+ movl %eax, _foo
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
+
+Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
+ double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
+ float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
+ long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
+
+Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Scalar Repl cannot currently promote this testcase to 'ret long cst':
+
+ %struct.X = type { i32, i32 }
+ %struct.Y = type { %struct.X }
+
+define i64 @bar() {
+ %retval = alloca %struct.Y, align 8
+ %tmp12 = getelementptr %struct.Y* %retval, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0
+ store i32 0, i32* %tmp12
+ %tmp15 = getelementptr %struct.Y* %retval, i32 0, i32 0, i32 1
+ store i32 1, i32* %tmp15
+ %retval.upgrd.1 = bitcast %struct.Y* %retval to i64*
+ %retval.upgrd.2 = load i64* %retval.upgrd.1
+ ret i64 %retval.upgrd.2
+}
+
+it should be extended to do so.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+-scalarrepl should promote this to be a vector scalar.
+
+ %struct..0anon = type { <4 x float> }
+
+define void @test1(<4 x float> %V, float* %P) {
+ %u = alloca %struct..0anon, align 16
+ %tmp = getelementptr %struct..0anon* %u, i32 0, i32 0
+ store <4 x float> %V, <4 x float>* %tmp
+ %tmp1 = bitcast %struct..0anon* %u to [4 x float]*
+ %tmp.upgrd.1 = getelementptr [4 x float]* %tmp1, i32 0, i32 1
+ %tmp.upgrd.2 = load float* %tmp.upgrd.1
+ %tmp3 = mul float %tmp.upgrd.2, 2.000000e+00
+ store float %tmp3, float* %P
+ ret void
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Turn this into a single byte store with no load (the other 3 bytes are
+unmodified):
+
+void %test(uint* %P) {
+ %tmp = load uint* %P
+ %tmp14 = or uint %tmp, 3305111552
+ %tmp15 = and uint %tmp14, 3321888767
+ store uint %tmp15, uint* %P
+ ret void
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+dag/inst combine "clz(x)>>5 -> x==0" for 32-bit x.
+
+Compile:
+
+int bar(int x)
+{
+ int t = __builtin_clz(x);
+ return -(t>>5);
+}
+
+to:
+
+_bar: addic r3,r3,-1
+ subfe r3,r3,r3
+ blr
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Legalize should lower ctlz like this:
+ ctlz(x) = popcnt((x-1) & ~x)
+
+on targets that have popcnt but not ctlz. itanium, what else?
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
+
+ for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
+ {
+ /* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
+ reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
+ }
+
+Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
+so cool to turn it into something like:
+
+ long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
+ if (target < 32) {
+ for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
+ reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
+ } else {
+ for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
+ reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
+ }
+
+... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
+
+It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
+alas...
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
+
+unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
+ unsigned t;
+ t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
+ t &= ~0xff0000;
+ v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
+ return v ^ (t >> 8);
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
+
+unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
+ unsigned c;
+ for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
+ c += v & 1;
+ return c;
+}
+unsigned countbits_fast(unsigned v){
+ unsigned c;
+ for (c = 0; v; c++)
+ v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set
+ return c;
+}
+
+BITBOARD = unsigned long long
+int PopCnt(register BITBOARD a) {
+ register int c=0;
+ while(a) {
+ c++;
+ a &= a - 1;
+ }
+ return c;
+}
+unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
+ unsigned int count = 0;
+ for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
+ count += (input >> i) & i;
+ return count;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
+processors.
+
+unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
+ return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
+}
+unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
+ return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+-instcombine should handle this transform:
+ icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
+when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
+
+Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
+the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
+InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
+for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
+
+The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
+this construct.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+viterbi speeds up *significantly* if the various "history" related copy loops
+are turned into memcpy calls at the source level. We need a "loops to memcpy"
+pass.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Consider:
+
+typedef unsigned U32;
+typedef unsigned long long U64;
+int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
+ U64 effective_addr2;
+ U32 temp = *inst;
+ int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
+ int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
+ effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
+ if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
+ b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
+ if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
+ effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
+ if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
+ return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
+we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
+we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
+extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
+when it is declared U32.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Promote for i32 bswap can use i64 bswap + shr. Useful on targets with 64-bit
+regs and bswap, like itanium.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+LSR should know what GPR types a target has. This code:
+
+volatile short X, Y; // globals
+
+void foo(int N) {
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { X = i; Y = i*4; }
+}
+
+produces two identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM:
+
+LBB1_1: @bb.preheader
+ mov r3, #0
+ mov r2, r3
+ mov r1, r3
+LBB1_2: @bb
+ ldr r12, LCPI1_0
+ ldr r12, [r12]
+ strh r2, [r12]
+ ldr r12, LCPI1_1
+ ldr r12, [r12]
+ strh r3, [r12]
+ add r1, r1, #1 <- [0,+,1]
+ add r3, r3, #4
+ add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1]
+ cmp r1, r0
+ bne LBB1_2 @bb
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
+followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
+
+; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
+; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
+; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
+
+define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
+entry:
+ %tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
+
+then.0: ; preds = %entry
+ %tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ br label %return
+
+else.0: ; preds = %entry
+ %tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
+
+then.1: ; preds = %else.0
+ %tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ br label %return
+
+return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
+ %result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
+ [ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
+ ret i32 %result.0
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Tail recursion elimination is not transforming this function, because it is
+returning n, which fails the isDynamicConstant check in the accumulator
+recursion checks.
+
+long long fib(const long long n) {
+ switch(n) {
+ case 0:
+ case 1:
+ return n;
+ default:
+ return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);
+ }
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Tail recursion elimination should handle:
+
+int pow2m1(int n) {
+ if (n == 0)
+ return 0;
+ return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
+}
+
+Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
+they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
+this:
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
+
+define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
+entry:
+ %tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
+ %tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp.foo
+}
+
+define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp3
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+"basicaa" should know how to look through "or" instructions that act like add
+instructions. For example in this code, the x*4+1 is turned into x*4 | 1, and
+basicaa can't analyze the array subscript, leading to duplicated loads in the
+generated code:
+
+void test(int X, int Y, int a[]) {
+int i;
+ for (i=2; i<1000; i+=4) {
+ a[i+0] = a[i-1+0]*a[i-2+0];
+ a[i+1] = a[i-1+1]*a[i-2+1];
+ a[i+2] = a[i-1+2]*a[i-2+2];
+ a[i+3] = a[i-1+3]*a[i-2+3];
+ }
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
+example in pic mode:
+
+#include <assert.h>
+void foo(int x) {
+ assert(x);
+ //...
+}
+
+we compile this to:
+_foo:
+ subl $28, %esp
+ call "L1$pb"
+"L1$pb":
+ popl %eax
+ cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
+ je LBB1_2 # cond_true
+LBB1_1: # return
+ # ...
+ addl $28, %esp
+ ret
+LBB1_2: # cond_true
+...
+
+The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
+code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
+better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
+assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
+code with early outs.
+
+Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
+entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
+function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
+
+In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
+http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
+corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
+
+double a[256];
+void foo() {
+ int i, b;
+ for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
+ for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
+ a[i] = -a[i];
+}
+
+is twice as slow as this loop:
+
+long long a[256];
+void foo() {
+ int i, b;
+ for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
+ for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
+ a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
+}
+
+and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
+big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
+instructions.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
+profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
+
+struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
+extern THotKey m_HotKey;
+THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
+
+into (-O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
+
+__Z9GetHotKeyv:
+ pushl %esi
+ movl 8(%esp), %eax
+ movb _m_HotKey+3, %cl
+ movb _m_HotKey+4, %dl
+ movb _m_HotKey+2, %ch
+ movw _m_HotKey, %si
+ movw %si, (%eax)
+ movb %ch, 2(%eax)
+ movb %cl, 3(%eax)
+ movb %dl, 4(%eax)
+ popl %esi
+ ret $4
+
+GCC produces:
+
+__Z9GetHotKeyv:
+ movl _m_HotKey, %edx
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movl %edx, (%eax)
+ movzwl _m_HotKey+4, %edx
+ movw %dx, 4(%eax)
+ ret $4
+
+The LLVM IR contains the needed alignment info, so we should be able to
+merge the loads and stores into 4-byte loads:
+
+ %struct.THotKey = type { i16, i8, i8, i8 }
+define void @_Z9GetHotKeyv(%struct.THotKey* sret %agg.result) nounwind {
+...
+ %tmp2 = load i16* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 0), align 8
+ %tmp5 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 1), align 2
+ %tmp8 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 2), align 1
+ %tmp11 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 3), align 2
+
+Alternatively, we should use a small amount of base-offset alias analysis
+to make it so the scheduler doesn't need to hold all the loads in regs at
+once.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should extend parameter attributes to capture more information about
+pointer parameters for alias analysis. Some ideas:
+
+1. Add a "nocapture" attribute, which indicates that the callee does not store
+ the address of the parameter into a global or any other memory location
+ visible to the callee. This can be used to make basicaa and other analyses
+ more powerful. It is true for things like memcpy, strcat, and many other
+ things, including structs passed by value, most C++ references, etc.
+2. Generalize readonly to be set on parameters. This is important mod/ref
+ info for the function, which is important for basicaa and others. It can
+ also be used by the inliner to avoid inserting a memcpy for byval
+ arguments when the function is inlined.
+
+These functions can be inferred by various analysis passes such as the
+globalsmodrefaa pass. Note that getting #2 right is actually really tricky.
+Consider this code:
+
+struct S; S G;
+void caller(S byvalarg) { G.field = 1; ... }
+void callee() { caller(G); }
+
+The fact that the caller does not modify byval arg is not enough, we need
+to know that it doesn't modify G either. This is very tricky.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
+implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This GCC bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34043
+contains a testcase that compiles down to:
+
+ %struct.XMM128 = type { <4 x float> }
+..
+ %src = alloca %struct.XMM128
+..
+ %tmp6263 = bitcast %struct.XMM128* %src to <2 x i64>*
+ %tmp65 = getelementptr %struct.XMM128* %src, i32 0, i32 0
+ store <2 x i64> %tmp5899, <2 x i64>* %tmp6263, align 16
+ %tmp66 = load <4 x float>* %tmp65, align 16
+ %tmp71 = add <4 x float> %tmp66, %tmp66
+
+If the mid-level optimizer turned the bitcast of pointer + store of tmp5899
+into a bitcast of the vector value and a store to the pointer, then the
+store->load could be easily removed.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Consider:
+
+int test() {
+ long long input[8] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
+ foo(input);
+}
+
+We currently compile this into a memcpy from a global array since the
+initializer is fairly large and not memset'able. This is good, but the memcpy
+gets lowered to load/stores in the code generator. This is also ok, except
+that the codegen lowering for memcpy doesn't handle the case when the source
+is a constant global. This gives us atrocious code like this:
+
+ call "L1$pb"
+"L1$pb":
+ popl %eax
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+32(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 40(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+20(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 28(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+36(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 44(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+44(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 52(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+40(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 48(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+12(%eax), %ecx
+ movl %ecx, 20(%esp)
+ movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+4(%eax), %ecx
+...
+
+instead of:
+ movl $1, 16(%esp)
+ movl $0, 20(%esp)
+ movl $1, 24(%esp)
+ movl $0, 28(%esp)
+ movl $1, 32(%esp)
+ movl $0, 36(%esp)
+ ...
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+http://llvm.org/PR717:
+
+The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
+produces "ret int 0":
+
+int f() {
+ int x = 4;
+ int y;
+ if (x == 3) y = 0;
+ return y;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
+when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
+of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
+
+#include <stdio.h>
+int main() {
+ int nRet = 17;
+ int nLoop;
+ for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
+ if ( nLoop & 1 )
+ nRet += 2;
+ else
+ nRet -= 1;
+ }
+ return nRet;
+}
+
+Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
+reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
+exit value computation.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
+etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
+matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
+enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
+
+unsigned long long f(unsigned long long x, int y) {
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
+}
+unsigned f2(unsigned x, int y){
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
+}
+unsigned long long f3(unsigned long long x){
+ int y = 9;
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
+}
+unsigned f4(unsigned x){
+ int y = 10;
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
+}
+unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
+ return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
+}
+unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
+ switch(z) {
+ case 1:
+ return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
+ case 2:
+ return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
+ case 3:
+ return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
+ case 4:
+ return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
+ default:
+ return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
+ }
+}
+
+On X86-64, we only handle f2/f3/f4 right. On x86-32, a few of these
+generate truly horrible code, instead of using shld and friends. On
+ARM, we end up with calls to L___lshrdi3/L___ashldi3 in f, which is
+badness. PPC64 misses f, f5 and f6. CellSPU aborts in isel.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
+standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
+example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
+be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should be able to evaluate this loop:
+
+int test(int x_offs) {
+ while (x_offs > 4)
+ x_offs -= 4;
+ return x_offs;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Reassociate should turn things like:
+
+int factorial(int X) {
+ return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
+}
+
+into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
+multiplication trees.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We generate a horrible libcall for llvm.powi. For example, we compile:
+
+#include <cmath>
+double f(double a) { return std::pow(a, 4); }
+
+into:
+
+__Z1fd:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ movsd 16(%esp), %xmm0
+ movsd %xmm0, (%esp)
+ movl $4, 8(%esp)
+ call L___powidf2$stub
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+
+GCC produces:
+
+__Z1fd:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ movsd 16(%esp), %xmm0
+ mulsd %xmm0, %xmm0
+ mulsd %xmm0, %xmm0
+ movsd %xmm0, (%esp)
+ fldl (%esp)
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
+
+Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
+slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
+
+$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
+$ time ./a.out fast
+1.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
+
+$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
+$ time ./a.out fast
+0.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
+
+It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
+codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We miss some instcombines for stuff like this:
+void bar (void);
+void foo (unsigned int a) {
+ /* This one is equivalent to a >= (3 << 2). */
+ if ((a >> 2) >= 3)
+ bar ();
+}
+
+A few other related ones are in GCC PR14753.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
+being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
+
+void bar(unsigned n) {
+ if (n % 3 == 0)
+ true();
+}
+
+I think this basically amounts to a dag combine to simplify comparisons against
+multiply hi's into a comparison against the mullo.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+SROA is not promoting the union on the stack in this example, we should end
+up with no allocas.
+
+union vec2d {
+ double e[2];
+ double v __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
+};
+typedef union vec2d vec2d;
+
+static vec2d a={{1,2}}, b={{3,4}};
+
+vec2d foo () {
+ return (vec2d){ .v = a.v + b.v * (vec2d){{5,5}}.v };
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This C++ file:
+void g(); struct A { int n; int m; A& operator++(void) { ++n; if (n == m) g();
+return *this; } A() : n(0), m(0) { } friend bool operator!=(A const& a1,
+A const& a2) { return a1.n != a2.n; } }; void testfunction(A& iter) { A const
+end; while (iter != end) ++iter; }
+
+Compiles down to:
+
+bb: ; preds = %bb3.backedge, %bb.nph
+ %.rle = phi i32 [ %1, %bb.nph ], [ %7, %bb3.backedge ] ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %4 = add i32 %.rle, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=2]
+ store i32 %4, i32* %0, align 4
+ %5 = load i32* %3, align 4 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %6 = icmp eq i32 %4, %5 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %6, label %bb1, label %bb3.backedge
+
+bb1: ; preds = %bb
+ tail call void @_Z1gv()
+ br label %bb3.backedge
+
+bb3.backedge: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
+ %7 = load i32* %0, align 4 ; <i32> [#uses=2]
+
+
+The %7 load is partially redundant with the store of %4 to %0, GVN's PRE
+should remove it, but it doesn't apply to memory objects.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
+bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
+
+#include <cstdio>
+struct test {
+ int val;
+ virtual ~test() {}
+};
+
+int main() {
+ test t;
+ std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
+ std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Instcombine will merge comparisons like (x >= 10) && (x < 20) by producing (x -
+10) u< 10, but only when the comparisons have matching sign.
+
+This could be converted with a similiar technique. (PR1941)
+
+define i1 @test(i8 %x) {
+ %A = icmp uge i8 %x, 5
+ %B = icmp slt i8 %x, 20
+ %C = and i1 %A, %B
+ ret i1 %C
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
+
+define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
+ %A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
+ %B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
+ ret i8 %B
+}
+
+define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
+ %A = zext i8 %x to i9
+ %B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
+ %C = lshr i9 %B, 8
+ %D = trunc i9 %C to i8
+ ret i8 %D
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From gcc bug 24696:
+int
+f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
+{
+ return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
+}
+int
+f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
+{
+ return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
+}
+Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
+"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 20192:
+#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
+void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+{
+ if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
+ f();
+}
+The expression should optimize to something like
+"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 15241:
+unsigned int
+foo (unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
+{
+ if (a <= 7 && b <= 7)
+ baz ();
+}
+Should combine to "(a|b) <= 7". Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 3756:
+int
+pn (int n)
+{
+ return (n >= 0 ? 1 : -1);
+}
+Should combine to (n >> 31) | 1. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 28685:
+int test(int a, int b)
+{
+ int lt = a < b;
+ int eq = a == b;
+
+ return (lt || eq);
+}
+Should combine to "a <= b". Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+void a(int variable)
+{
+ if (variable == 4 || variable == 6)
+ bar();
+}
+This should optimize to "if ((variable | 2) == 6)". Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
+i;}
+unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
+These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
+produces better code on X86.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 15784:
+#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
+int f(int x, int y)
+{
+ return (abs(x)) >= 0;
+}
+This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 14753:
+void
+rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
+{
+ a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
+ if (a == 123)
+ bar ();
+}
+void
+minus_cst (unsigned int a)
+{
+ unsigned int tem;
+
+ tem = 20 - a;
+ if (tem == 5)
+ bar ();
+}
+void
+mask_gt (unsigned int a)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
+ if ((a & ~7) > 8)
+ bar ();
+}
+void
+rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
+ if ((a >> 2) > 5)
+ bar ();
+}
+All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
+currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
+-std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+From GCC Bug 32605:
+int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
+Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it).
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(unsigned char* b) {return *b > 99;}
+There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
+Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
+with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
+Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned a(unsigned a) {return ((a | 1) & 3) | (a & -4);}
+Should combine to "a | 1". Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
+Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
+"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
+Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
+Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
+| opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
+Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
+Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
+Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
+Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -1 : -9;}
+Should combine to (x | -9) ^ 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -9 : -1;}
+Should combine to x | -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
+Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
+Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
+with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
+There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
+-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
+Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We would like to do the following transform in the instcombiner:
+
+ -X/C -> X/-C
+
+However, this isn't valid if (-X) overflows. We can implement this when we
+have the concept of a "C signed subtraction" operator that which is undefined
+on overflow.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
+
+ %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
+ %decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
+ %tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
+ %decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
+
+tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
+ (!tmp || decl_context == 1)
+
+This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
+the function, e.g. by:
+
+ %tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
-Can be improved in two ways:
+later.
-1. The instcombiner should eliminate the type conversions.
-2. The X86 backend should turn this into a rotate by one bit.
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff