// Random ideas for the X86 backend.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+We should add support for the "movbe" instruction, which does a byte-swapping
+copy (3-addr bswap + memory support?) This is available on Atom processors.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-How about intrinsics? An example is:
- *res = _mm_mulhi_epu16(*A, _mm_mul_epu32(*B, *C));
-
-compiles to
- pmuludq (%eax), %xmm0
- movl 8(%esp), %eax
- movdqa (%eax), %xmm1
- pmulhuw %xmm0, %xmm1
-
-The transformation probably requires a X86 specific pass or a DAG combiner
-target specific hook.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
In many cases, LLVM generates code like this:
_test:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Teach the coalescer to coalesce vregs of different register classes. e.g. FR32 /
-FR64 to VR128.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Adding to the list of cmp / test poor codegen issues:
int test(__m128 *A, __m128 *B) {
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Currently we don't have elimination of redundant stack manipulations. Consider
-the code:
-
-int %main() {
-entry:
- call fastcc void %test1( )
- call fastcc void %test2( sbyte* cast (void ()* %test1 to sbyte*) )
- ret int 0
-}
-
-declare fastcc void %test1()
-
-declare fastcc void %test2(sbyte*)
-
-
-This currently compiles to:
-
- subl $16, %esp
- call _test5
- addl $12, %esp
- subl $16, %esp
- movl $_test5, (%esp)
- call _test6
- addl $12, %esp
-
-The add\sub pair is really unneeded here.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Consider the expansion of:
define i32 @test3(i32 %X) {
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Start using the flags more. For example, compile:
+Use the FLAGS values from arithmetic instructions more. For example, compile:
int add_zf(int *x, int y, int a, int b) {
if ((*x += y) == 0)
movl %ecx, %eax
ret
-and:
-
-int add_zf(int *x, int y, int a, int b) {
- if ((*x + y) < 0)
- return a;
- else
- return b;
-}
-
-to:
-
-add_zf:
- addl (%rdi), %esi
- movl %edx, %eax
- cmovns %ecx, %eax
- ret
-
-instead of:
-
-_add_zf:
- addl (%rdi), %esi
- testl %esi, %esi
- cmovs %edx, %ecx
- movl %ecx, %eax
- ret
+As another example, compile function f2 in test/CodeGen/X86/cmp-test.ll
+without a test instruction.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We need to teach the codegen to convert two-address INC instructions to LEA
-when the flags are dead (likewise dec). For example, on X86-64, compile:
-
-int foo(int A, int B) {
- return A+1;
-}
-
-to:
-
-_foo:
- leal 1(%edi), %eax
- ret
-
-instead of:
-
-_foo:
- incl %edi
- movl %edi, %eax
- ret
-
-Another example is:
-
-;; X's live range extends beyond the shift, so the register allocator
-;; cannot coalesce it with Y. Because of this, a copy needs to be
-;; emitted before the shift to save the register value before it is
-;; clobbered. However, this copy is not needed if the register
-;; allocator turns the shift into an LEA. This also occurs for ADD.
-
-; Check that the shift gets turned into an LEA.
-; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -x86-asm-syntax=intel | \
-; RUN: not grep {mov E.X, E.X}
-
-@G = external global i32 ; <i32*> [#uses=3]
-
-define i32 @test1(i32 %X, i32 %Y) {
- %Z = add i32 %X, %Y ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- volatile store i32 %Y, i32* @G
- volatile store i32 %Z, i32* @G
- ret i32 %X
-}
-
-define i32 @test2(i32 %X) {
- %Z = add i32 %X, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- volatile store i32 %Z, i32* @G
- ret i32 %X
-}
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Sometimes it is better to codegen subtractions from a constant (e.g. 7-x) with
a neg instead of a sub instruction. Consider:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Re-materialize MOV32r0 etc. with xor instead of changing them to moves if the
-condition register is dead. xor reg reg is shorter than mov reg, #0.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-We aren't matching RMW instructions aggressively
-enough. Here's a reduced testcase (more in PR1160):
-
-define void @test(i32* %huge_ptr, i32* %target_ptr) {
- %A = load i32* %huge_ptr ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- %B = load i32* %target_ptr ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- %C = or i32 %A, %B ; <i32> [#uses=1]
- store i32 %C, i32* %target_ptr
- ret void
-}
-
-$ llvm-as < t.ll | llc -march=x86-64
-
-_test:
- movl (%rdi), %eax
- orl (%rsi), %eax
- movl %eax, (%rsi)
- ret
-
-That should be something like:
-
-_test:
- movl (%rdi), %eax
- orl %eax, (%rsi)
- ret
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
The following code:
bb114.preheader: ; preds = %cond_next94
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-This testcase misses a read/modify/write opportunity (from PR1425):
-
-void vertical_decompose97iH1(int *b0, int *b1, int *b2, int width){
- int i;
- for(i=0; i<width; i++)
- b1[i] += (1*(b0[i] + b2[i])+0)>>0;
-}
-
-We compile it down to:
-
-LBB1_2: # bb
- movl (%esi,%edi,4), %ebx
- addl (%ecx,%edi,4), %ebx
- addl (%edx,%edi,4), %ebx
- movl %ebx, (%ecx,%edi,4)
- incl %edi
- cmpl %eax, %edi
- jne LBB1_2 # bb
-
-the inner loop should add to the memory location (%ecx,%edi,4), saving
-a mov. Something like:
-
- movl (%esi,%edi,4), %ebx
- addl (%edx,%edi,4), %ebx
- addl %ebx, (%ecx,%edi,4)
-
-Here is another interesting example:
-
-void vertical_compose97iH1(int *b0, int *b1, int *b2, int width){
- int i;
- for(i=0; i<width; i++)
- b1[i] -= (1*(b0[i] + b2[i])+0)>>0;
-}
-
-We miss the r/m/w opportunity here by using 2 subs instead of an add+sub[mem]:
-
-LBB9_2: # bb
- movl (%ecx,%edi,4), %ebx
- subl (%esi,%edi,4), %ebx
- subl (%edx,%edi,4), %ebx
- movl %ebx, (%ecx,%edi,4)
- incl %edi
- cmpl %eax, %edi
- jne LBB9_2 # bb
-
-Additionally, LSR should rewrite the exit condition of these loops to use
-a stride-4 IV, would would allow all the scales in the loop to go away.
-This would result in smaller code and more efficient microops.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
In SSE mode, we turn abs and neg into a load from the constant pool plus a xor
or and instruction, for example:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-handling llvm.memory.barrier on pre SSE2 cpus
-
-should generate:
-lock ; mov %esp, %esp
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
The generated code on x86 for checking for signed overflow on a multiply the
obvious way is much longer than it needs to be.
xorl %eax, %eax
ret
-There are a few possible improvements here:
-1. We should be able to eliminate the dead load into %ecx
-2. We could change the "movl 8(%esp), %eax" into
- "movzwl 10(%esp), %eax"; this lets us change the cmpl
- into a testl, which is shorter, and eliminate the shift.
-
-We could also in theory eliminate the branch by using a conditional
-for the address of the load, but that seems unlikely to be worthwhile
-in general.
+We could change the "movl 8(%esp), %eax" into "movzwl 10(%esp), %eax"; this
+lets us change the cmpl into a testl, which is shorter, and eliminate the shift.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
to:
-_foo:
+foo: # @foo
+# BB#0: # %entry
+ movl 4(%esp), %ecx
cmpb $0, 16(%esp)
- movl 12(%esp), %ecx
+ je .LBB0_2
+# BB#1: # %bb
movl 8(%esp), %eax
- movl 4(%esp), %edx
- je LBB1_2 # bb7
-LBB1_1: # bb
- addl %edx, %eax
+ addl %ecx, %eax
ret
-LBB1_2: # bb7
- movl %edx, %eax
- subl %ecx, %eax
+.LBB0_2: # %bb7
+ movl 12(%esp), %edx
+ movl %ecx, %eax
+ subl %edx, %eax
ret
-The coalescer could coalesce "edx" with "eax" to avoid the movl in LBB1_2
-if it commuted the addl in LBB1_1.
+There's an obviously unnecessary movl in .LBB0_2, and we could eliminate a
+couple more movls by putting 4(%esp) into %eax instead of %ecx.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Legalize loses track of the fact that bools are always zero extended when in
-memory. This causes us to compile abort_gzip (from 164.gzip) from:
+Take the following:
target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:128:128"
target triple = "i386-apple-darwin8"
}
declare void @exit(i32) noreturn nounwind
-into:
-
-_abort_gzip:
+This compiles into:
+_abort_gzip: ## @abort_gzip
+## BB#0: ## %entry
subl $12, %esp
movb _in_exit.4870.b, %al
- notb %al
- testb $1, %al
- jne LBB1_2 ## bb4.i
-LBB1_1: ## bb.i
- ...
+ cmpb $1, %al
+ jne LBB0_2
+
+We somehow miss folding the movb into the cmpb.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
cmpl $150, %edi
jne LBB1_1 ## bb1
+The issue is that we hoist the cast of "scaler" to long long outside of the
+loop, the value comes into the loop as two values, and
+RegsForValue::getCopyFromRegs doesn't know how to put an AssertSext on the
+constructed BUILD_PAIR which represents the cast value.
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Test instructions can be eliminated by using EFLAGS values from arithmetic
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-test/CodeGen/X86/2009-03-07-FPConstSelect.ll compiles to:
-
-_f:
- xorl %eax, %eax
- cmpl $0, 4(%esp)
- movl $4, %ecx
- cmovne %eax, %ecx
- flds LCPI1_0(%ecx)
- ret
-
-we should recognize cmov of 0 and a power of two and compile it into a
-setcc+shift. This would give us something like:
-
-_f:
- xorl %eax,%eax
- cmpl $0, 4(%esp)
- seteq %al
- flds LCPI1_0(%ecx, %eax,4)
- ret
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
memcpy/memmove do not lower to SSE copies when possible. A silly example is:
define <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float> %A) nounwind {
%tmp = alloca <16 x float>, align 16
fall back to lower-granularity chunks.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Implement processor-specific optimizations for parity with GCC on these
+processors. GCC does two optimizations:
+
+1. ix86_pad_returns inserts a noop before ret instructions if immediately
+ preceeded by a conditional branch or is the target of a jump.
+2. ix86_avoid_jump_misspredicts inserts noops in cases where a 16-byte block of
+ code contains more than 3 branches.
+
+The first one is done for all AMDs, Core2, and "Generic"
+The second one is done for: Atom, Pentium Pro, all AMDs, Pentium 4, Nocona,
+ Core 2, and "Generic"
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Testcase:
+int a(int x) { return (x & 127) > 31; }
+
+Current output:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ andl $127, %eax
+ cmpl $31, %eax
+ seta %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+Ideal output:
+ xorl %eax, %eax
+ testl $96, 4(%esp)
+ setne %al
+ ret
+
+This should definitely be done in instcombine, canonicalizing the range
+condition into a != condition. We get this IR:
+
+define i32 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %0 = and i32 %x, 127 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %1 = icmp ugt i32 %0, 31 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %2 = zext i1 %1 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %2
+}
+
+Instcombine prefers to strength reduce relational comparisons to equality
+comparisons when possible, this should be another case of that. This could
+be handled pretty easily in InstCombiner::visitICmpInstWithInstAndIntCst, but it
+looks like InstCombiner::visitICmpInstWithInstAndIntCst should really already
+be redesigned to use ComputeMaskedBits and friends.
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+Testcase:
+int x(int a) { return (a&0xf0)>>4; }
+
+Current output:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ shrl $4, %eax
+ andl $15, %eax
+ ret
+
+Ideal output:
+ movzbl 4(%esp), %eax
+ shrl $4, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Testcase:
+int x(int a) { return (a & 0x80) ? 0x100 : 0; }
+int y(int a) { return (a & 0x80) *2; }
+
+Current:
+ testl $128, 4(%esp)
+ setne %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ shll $8, %eax
+ ret
+
+Better:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ addl %eax, %eax
+ andl $256, %eax
+ ret
+
+This is another general instcombine transformation that is profitable on all
+targets. In LLVM IR, these functions look like this:
+
+define i32 @x(i32 %a) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %0 = and i32 %a, 128
+ %1 = icmp eq i32 %0, 0
+ %iftmp.0.0 = select i1 %1, i32 0, i32 256
+ ret i32 %iftmp.0.0
+}
+
+define i32 @y(i32 %a) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %0 = shl i32 %a, 1
+ %1 = and i32 %0, 256
+ ret i32 %1
+}
+
+Replacing an icmp+select with a shift should always be considered profitable in
+instcombine.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Re-implement atomic builtins __sync_add_and_fetch() and __sync_sub_and_fetch
+properly.
+
+When the return value is not used (i.e. only care about the value in the
+memory), x86 does not have to use add to implement these. Instead, it can use
+add, sub, inc, dec instructions with the "lock" prefix.
+
+This is currently implemented using a bit of instruction selection trick. The
+issue is the target independent pattern produces one output and a chain and we
+want to map it into one that just output a chain. The current trick is to select
+it into a MERGE_VALUES with the first definition being an implicit_def. The
+proper solution is to add new ISD opcodes for the no-output variant. DAG
+combiner can then transform the node before it gets to target node selection.
+
+Problem #2 is we are adding a whole bunch of x86 atomic instructions when in
+fact these instructions are identical to the non-lock versions. We need a way to
+add target specific information to target nodes and have this information
+carried over to machine instructions. Asm printer (or JIT) can use this
+information to add the "lock" prefix.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+_Bool bar(int *x) { return *x & 1; }
+
+define zeroext i1 @bar(i32* nocapture %x) nounwind readonly {
+entry:
+ %tmp1 = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %and = and i32 %tmp1, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tobool = icmp ne i32 %and, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ ret i1 %tobool
+}
+
+bar: # @bar
+# BB#0: # %entry
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movb (%eax), %al
+ andb $1, %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+Missed optimization: should be movl+andl.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Consider the following two functions compiled with clang:
+_Bool foo(int *x) { return !(*x & 4); }
+unsigned bar(int *x) { return !(*x & 4); }
+
+foo:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ testb $4, (%eax)
+ sete %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+bar:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movl (%eax), %eax
+ shrl $2, %eax
+ andl $1, %eax
+ xorl $1, %eax
+ ret
+
+The second function generates more code even though the two functions are
+are functionally identical.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take the following C code:
+int x(int y) { return (y & 63) << 14; }
+
+Code produced by gcc:
+ andl $63, %edi
+ sall $14, %edi
+ movl %edi, %eax
+ ret
+
+Code produced by clang:
+ shll $14, %edi
+ movl %edi, %eax
+ andl $1032192, %eax
+ ret
+
+The code produced by gcc is 3 bytes shorter. This sort of construct often
+shows up with bitfields.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff