//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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 should recognized various "overflow detection" idioms and translate them into
llvm.uadd.with.overflow and similar intrinsics. Here is a multiply idiom:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
+For vector types, DataLayout.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.
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++)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-LSR should know what GPR types a target has from TargetData. 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 near identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM:
-
-LBB1_2:
- ldr r3, LCPI1_0
- ldr r3, [r3]
- strh r2, [r3]
- ldr r3, LCPI1_1
- ldr r3, [r3]
- strh r1, [r3]
- add r1, r1, #4
- add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1]
- sub r0, r0, #1 <- [0,-,1]
- cmp r0, #0
- bne LBB1_2
-
-LSR should reuse the "+" IV for the exit test.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
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".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+int g(int x) { return (x - 10) < 0; }
+Should combine to "x <= 9" (the sub has nsw). Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int g(int x) { return (x + 10) < 0; }
+Should combine to "x < -10" (the add has nsw). Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+int f(int i, int j) { return i < j + 1; }
+int g(int i, int j) { return j > i - 1; }
+Should combine to "i <= j" (the add/sub has nsw). Currently not
+optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned f(unsigned x) { return ((x & 7) + 1) & 15; }
+The & 15 part should be optimized away, it doesn't change the result. Currently
+not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
%tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+simplifylibcalls should turn these snprintf idioms into memcpy (GCC PR47917)
+
+char buf1[6], buf2[6], buf3[4], buf4[4];
+int i;
+
+int foo (void) {
+ int ret = snprintf (buf1, sizeof buf1, "abcde");
+ ret += snprintf (buf2, sizeof buf2, "abcdef") * 16;
+ ret += snprintf (buf3, sizeof buf3, "%s", i++ < 6 ? "abc" : "def") * 256;
+ ret += snprintf (buf4, sizeof buf4, "%s", i++ > 10 ? "abcde" : "defgh")*4096;
+ return ret;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
"gas" uses this idiom:
else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string))
..
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-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