//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+We should recognize idioms for add-with-carry and turn it into the appropriate
+intrinsics. This example:
+
+unsigned add32carry(unsigned sum, unsigned x) {
+ unsigned z = sum + x;
+ if (sum + x < x)
+ z++;
+ return z;
+}
+
+Compiles to: clang t.c -S -o - -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -m64 -mkernel
+
+_add32carry: ## @add32carry
+ addl %esi, %edi
+ cmpl %esi, %edi
+ sbbl %eax, %eax
+ andl $1, %eax
+ addl %edi, %eax
+ ret
+
+with clang, but to:
+
+_add32carry:
+ leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
+ cmpl %esi, %eax
+ adcl $0, %eax
+ ret
+
+with gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
Dead argument elimination should be enhanced to handle cases when an argument is
dead to an externally visible function. Though the argument can't be removed
from the externally visible function, the caller doesn't need to pass it in.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Reassociate should turn: X*X*X*X -> t=(X*X) (t*t) to eliminate a multiply.
+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.
+
+First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
+code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
}
-Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157.
+This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
+is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
+which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
+multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
+
+define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
+ %B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
+ %C = mul i32 %B, %B
+ ret i32 %C
+}
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
+
+extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
+void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
+ b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
+ b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
+ b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
+ b1 = a1 + a0;
+}
+
+This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
+something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This function: (derived from GCC PR19988)
+double foo(double x, double y) {
+ return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x + -0.1234 * y));
+}
+
+compiles to:
+_foo:
+ movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
+ mulsd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm1
+ mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2
+ addsd %xmm0, %xmm1
+ addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
+ movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
+ mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
+ ret
+
+Reassociate should be able to turn it into:
+
+double foo(double x, double y) {
+ return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x - 0.1234 * y));
+}
+
+Which allows the multiply by constant to be CSE'd, producing:
+
+_foo:
+ mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm1
+ movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
+ addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
+ subsd %xmm1, %xmm0
+ mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
+ ret
+
+This doesn't need -ffast-math support at all. This is particularly bad because
+the llvm-gcc frontend is canonicalizing the later into the former, but clang
+doesn't have this problem.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Turn this into a single byte store with no load (the other 3 bytes are
-unmodified):
-
-define void @test(i32* %P) {
- %tmp = load i32* %P
- %tmp14 = or i32 %tmp, 3305111552
- %tmp15 = and i32 %tmp14, 3321888767
- store i32 %tmp15, i32* %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
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-This should be optimized to one 'and' and one 'or', from PR4216:
-
-define i32 @test_bitfield(i32 %bf.prev.low) nounwind ssp {
-entry:
- %bf.prev.lo.cleared10 = or i32 %bf.prev.low, 32962 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- %0 = and i32 %bf.prev.low, -65536 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- %1 = and i32 %bf.prev.lo.cleared10, 40186 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- %2 = or i32 %1, %0 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- ret i32 %2
-}
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
return v ^ (t >> 8);
}
+Neither is this (very standard idiom):
+
+int f(int n)
+{
+ return (((n) << 24) | (((n) & 0xff00) << 8)
+ | (((n) >> 8) & 0xff00) | ((n) >> 24));
+}
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+[LOOP RECOGNITION]
+
These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+[LOOP RECOGNITION]
+
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.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
+
+SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
+opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
+interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
+variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
+apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
+
+..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
+ mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
+ mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
+ mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
+ mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
+ addl $8, %edx #
+ cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
+ jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
+
+It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
+do.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
Consider:
typedef unsigned U32;
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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
true();
}
-I think this basically amounts to a dag combine to simplify comparisons against
-multiply hi's into a comparison against the mullo.
+This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
+inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
+void bar(unsigned n) {
+ if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
+ true();
+}
+
+The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
+rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
+which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
+by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
+transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
+
+The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
+comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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 {
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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 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".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+[ALIAS ANALYSIS]
+
Type based alias analysis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14705
+We should do better analysis of posix_memalign. At the least it should
+no-capture its pointer argument, at best, we should know that the out-value
+result doesn't point to anything (like malloc). One example of this is in
+SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
A/B get pinned to the stack because we turn an if/then into a select instead
simplifylibcalls should do several optimizations for strspn/strcspn:
-strcspn(x, "") -> strlen(x)
-strcspn("", x) -> 0
-strspn("", x) -> 0
-strspn(x, "") -> strlen(x)
-strspn(x, "a") -> strchr(x, 'a')-x
-
strcspn(x, "a") -> inlined loop for up to 3 letters (similarly for strspn):
size_t __strcspn_c3 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2,
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-186.crafty contains this interesting pattern:
-
-%77 = call i8* @strstr(i8* getelementptr ([6 x i8]* @"\01LC5", i32 0, i32 0),
- i8* %30)
-%phitmp648 = icmp eq i8* %77, getelementptr ([6 x i8]* @"\01LC5", i32 0, i32 0)
-br i1 %phitmp648, label %bb70, label %bb76
-
-bb70: ; preds = %OptionMatch.exit91, %bb69
- %78 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %30) nounwind readonly align 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
-
-This is basically:
- cststr = "abcdef";
- if (strstr(cststr, P) == cststr) {
- x = strlen(P);
- ...
-
-The strstr call would be significantly cheaper written as:
-
-cststr = "abcdef";
-if (memcmp(P, str, strlen(P)))
- x = strlen(P);
-
-This is memcmp+strlen instead of strstr. This also makes the strlen fully
-redundant.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
186.crafty also contains this code:
%1906 = call i32 @strlen(i8* getelementptr ([32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0,i32 0))
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-FunctionAttrs is not marking this function as readnone (just readonly):
-$ clang t.c -emit-llvm -S -o - -O0 | opt -mem2reg -S -functionattrs
+functionattrs doesn't know much about memcpy/memset. This function should be
+marked readnone rather than readonly, since it only twiddles local memory, but
+functionattrs doesn't handle memset/memcpy/memmove aggressively:
-int t(int a, int b, int c) {
- int *p;
- if (a)
- p = &a;
- else
- p = &c;
- return *p;
+struct X { int *p; int *q; };
+int foo() {
+ int i = 0, j = 1;
+ struct X x, y;
+ int **p;
+ y.p = &i;
+ x.q = &j;
+ p = __builtin_memcpy (&x, &y, sizeof (int *));
+ return **p;
}
-This is because we codegen this to:
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-define i32 @t(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c) nounwind readonly ssp {
+Missed instcombine transformation:
+define i1 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
entry:
- %a.addr = alloca i32 ; <i32*> [#uses=3]
- %c.addr = alloca i32 ; <i32*> [#uses=2]
-...
+ %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 30
+ %sub = add i32 %x, -30
+ %cmp2 = icmp ugt i32 %sub, 9
+ %or = or i1 %cmp, %cmp2
+ ret i1 %or
+}
+This should be optimized to a single compare. Testcase derived from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Missed instcombine transformation:
+void b();
+void a(int x) { if (((1<<x)&8)==0) b(); }
+
+The shift should be optimized out. Testcase derived from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Missed instcombine or reassociate transformation:
+int a(int a, int b) { return (a==12)&(b>47)&(b<58); }
+
+The sgt and slt should be combined into a single comparison. Testcase derived
+from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Missed instcombine transformation:
+define i32 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %rem = srem i32 %x, 32
+ %shl = shl i32 1, %rem
+ ret i32 %shl
+}
+
+The srem can be transformed to an and because if x is negative, the shift is
+undefined. Testcase derived from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
+define i32 @a(i32 %x, i32 %y) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %mul = mul i32 %y, -8
+ %sub = sub i32 %x, %mul
+ ret i32 %sub
+}
+
+Should compile to something like x+y*8, but currently compiles to an
+inefficient result. Testcase derived from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
+define void @lshift_lt(i8 zeroext %a) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %conv = zext i8 %a to i32
+ %shl = shl i32 %conv, 3
+ %cmp = icmp ult i32 %shl, 33
+ br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end
+
+if.then:
+ tail call void @bar() nounwind
+ ret void
if.end:
- %p.0 = phi i32* [ %a.addr, %if.then ], [ %c.addr, %if.else ]
- %tmp2 = load i32* %p.0 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- ret i32 %tmp2
+ ret void
+}
+declare void @bar() nounwind
+
+The shift should be eliminated. Testcase derived from gcc.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These compile into different code, one gets recognized as a switch and the
+other doesn't due to phase ordering issues (PR6212):
+
+int test1(int mainType, int subType) {
+ if (mainType == 7)
+ subType = 4;
+ else if (mainType == 9)
+ subType = 6;
+ else if (mainType == 11)
+ subType = 9;
+ return subType;
+}
+
+int test2(int mainType, int subType) {
+ if (mainType == 7)
+ subType = 4;
+ if (mainType == 9)
+ subType = 6;
+ if (mainType == 11)
+ subType = 9;
+ return subType;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The following test case (from PR6576):
+
+define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %cond1 = icmp eq i32 %b, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %cond1, label %exit, label %bb.nph
+bb.nph: ; preds = %entry
+ %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp
+exit: ; preds = %entry
+ ret i32 0
}
-And functionattrs doesn't realize that the p.0 load points to function local
-memory.
+could be reduced to:
+
+define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a
+ ret i32 %tmp
+}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+We should use DSE + llvm.lifetime.end to delete dead vtable pointer updates.
+See GCC PR34949
+
+Another interesting case is that something related could be used for variables
+that go const after their ctor has finished. In these cases, globalopt (which
+can statically run the constructor) could mark the global const (so it gets put
+in the readonly section). A testcase would be:
+
+#include <complex>
+using namespace std;
+const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
+complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
+complex<char> should_be_in_bss;
+
+Where we currently evaluate the ctors but the globals don't become const because
+the optimizer doesn't know they "become const" after the ctor is done. See
+GCC PR4131 for more examples.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+In this code:
+
+long foo(long x) {
+ return x > 1 ? x : 1;
+}
+
+LLVM emits a comparison with 1 instead of 0. 0 would be equivalent
+and cheaper on most targets.
+
+LLVM prefers comparisons with zero over non-zero in general, but in this
+case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take the following testcase on x86-64 (similar testcases exist for all targets
+with addc/adde):
+
+define void @a(i64* nocapture %s, i64* nocapture %t, i64 %a, i64 %b,
+i64 %c) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %0 = zext i64 %a to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %1 = zext i64 %b to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %2 = add i128 %1, %0 ; <i128> [#uses=2]
+ %3 = zext i64 %c to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %4 = shl i128 %3, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %5 = add i128 %4, %2 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %6 = lshr i128 %5, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
+ %7 = trunc i128 %6 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
+ store i64 %7, i64* %s, align 8
+ %8 = trunc i128 %2 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
+ store i64 %8, i64* %t, align 8
+ ret void
+}
+
+Generated code:
+ addq %rcx, %rdx
+ movl $0, %eax
+ adcq $0, %rax
+ addq %r8, %rax
+ movq %rax, (%rdi)
+ movq %rdx, (%rsi)
+ ret
+
+Expected code:
+ addq %rcx, %rdx
+ adcq $0, %r8
+ movq %r8, (%rdi)
+ movq %rdx, (%rsi)
+ ret
+
+The generated SelectionDAG has an ADD of an ADDE, where both operands of the
+ADDE are zero. Replacing one of the operands of the ADDE with the other operand
+of the ADD, and replacing the ADD with the ADDE, should give the desired result.
+
+(That said, we are doing a lot better than gcc on this testcase. :) )
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch:
+define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind {
+entry:
+ switch i32 %x, label %if.end [
+ i32 0, label %if.then
+ i32 1, label %if.then
+ i32 2, label %if.then
+ i32 3, label %if.then
+ i32 5, label %if.then
+ ]
+if.then:
+ tail call void @foo() nounwind
+ ret void
+if.end:
+ ret void
+}
+declare void @foo()
+
+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
+.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
+something like the following, which eliminates a branch:
+ xorl $1, %edi
+ cmpl $4, %edi
+ ja .LBB0_2
+ ret
+.LBB0_2:
+ jmp foo # TAILCALL
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+Given a branch where the two target blocks are identical ("ret i32 %b" in
+both), simplifycfg will simplify them away. But not so for a switch statement:
+
+define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ switch i32 %a, label %bb3 [
+ i32 4, label %bb
+ i32 6, label %bb
+ ]
+
+bb: ; preds = %entry, %entry
+ ret i32 %b
+
+bb3: ; preds = %entry
+ ret i32 %b
+}
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+clang -O3 fails to devirtualize this virtual inheritance case: (GCC PR45875)
+
+struct c1 {};
+struct c10 : c1{
+ virtual void foo ();
+};
+struct c11 : c10, c1{
+ virtual void f6 ();
+};
+struct c28 : virtual c11{
+ void f6 ();
+};
+void check_c28 () {
+ c28 obj;
+ c11 *ptr = &obj;
+ ptr->f6 ();
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff