maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/x86-64-double-shifts-Oz-Os-...

81 lines
2.9 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-unknown -mcpu=bdver1 | FileCheck %s
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
; clang -Oz -c test1.cpp -emit-llvm -S -o
; Verify that we generate shld insruction when we are optimizing for size,
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; even for X86_64 processors that are known to have poor latency double
Fix typos llvm-svn: 210401
2014-06-08 05:23:09 +08:00
; precision shift instructions.
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
; uint64_t lshift10(uint64_t a, uint64_t b)
; {
; return (a << 10) | (b >> 54);
; }
fix minsize detection: minsize attribute implies optimizing for size llvm-svn: 244463
2015-08-11 01:00:44 +08:00
; Function Attrs: minsize nounwind readnone uwtable
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
define i64 @_Z8lshift10mm(i64 %a, i64 %b) #0 {
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; CHECK-LABEL: _Z8lshift10mm:
; CHECK: # %bb.0: # %entry
; CHECK-NEXT: movq %rdi, %rax
[X86] Handle COPYs of physregs better (regalloc hints) Enable enableMultipleCopyHints() on X86. Original Patch by @jonpa: While enabling the mischeduler for SystemZ, it was discovered that for some reason a test needed one extra seemingly needless COPY (test/CodeGen/SystemZ/call-03.ll). The handling for that is resulted in this patch, which improves the register coalescing by providing not just one copy hint, but a sorted list of copy hints. On SystemZ, this gives ~12500 less register moves on SPEC, as well as marginally less spilling. Instead of improving just the SystemZ backend, the improvement has been implemented in common-code (calculateSpillWeightAndHint(). This gives a lot of test failures, but since this should be a general improvement I hope that the involved targets will help and review the test updates. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38128 llvm-svn: 342578
2018-09-20 02:59:08 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: shldq $10, %rsi, %rax
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: retq
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
entry:
%shl = shl i64 %a, 10
%shr = lshr i64 %b, 54
%or = or i64 %shr, %shl
ret i64 %or
}
fix minsize detection: minsize attribute implies optimizing for size llvm-svn: 244463
2015-08-11 01:00:44 +08:00
attributes #0 = { minsize nounwind readnone uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
; clang -Os -c test2.cpp -emit-llvm -S
; Verify that we generate shld insruction when we are optimizing for size,
; even for X86_64 processors that are known to have poor latency double
Fix typos llvm-svn: 210401
2014-06-08 05:23:09 +08:00
; precision shift instructions.
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
; uint64_t lshift11(uint64_t a, uint64_t b)
; {
; return (a << 11) | (b >> 53);
; }
; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize readnone uwtable
define i64 @_Z8lshift11mm(i64 %a, i64 %b) #1 {
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; CHECK-LABEL: _Z8lshift11mm:
; CHECK: # %bb.0: # %entry
; CHECK-NEXT: movq %rdi, %rax
[X86] Handle COPYs of physregs better (regalloc hints) Enable enableMultipleCopyHints() on X86. Original Patch by @jonpa: While enabling the mischeduler for SystemZ, it was discovered that for some reason a test needed one extra seemingly needless COPY (test/CodeGen/SystemZ/call-03.ll). The handling for that is resulted in this patch, which improves the register coalescing by providing not just one copy hint, but a sorted list of copy hints. On SystemZ, this gives ~12500 less register moves on SPEC, as well as marginally less spilling. Instead of improving just the SystemZ backend, the improvement has been implemented in common-code (calculateSpillWeightAndHint(). This gives a lot of test failures, but since this should be a general improvement I hope that the involved targets will help and review the test updates. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38128 llvm-svn: 342578
2018-09-20 02:59:08 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: shldq $11, %rsi, %rax
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: retq
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
entry:
%shl = shl i64 %a, 11
%shr = lshr i64 %b, 53
%or = or i64 %shr, %shl
ret i64 %or
}
attributes #1 = { nounwind optsize readnone uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
; clang -O2 -c test2.cpp -emit-llvm -S
; Verify that we do not generate shld insruction when we are not optimizing
; for size for X86_64 processors that are known to have poor latency double
Fix typos llvm-svn: 210401
2014-06-08 05:23:09 +08:00
; precision shift instructions.
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
; uint64_t lshift12(uint64_t a, uint64_t b)
; {
; return (a << 12) | (b >> 52);
; }
; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize readnone uwtable
define i64 @_Z8lshift12mm(i64 %a, i64 %b) #2 {
[X86] Regenerate double shift tests llvm-svn: 322444
2018-01-14 00:55:28 +08:00
; CHECK-LABEL: _Z8lshift12mm:
; CHECK: # %bb.0: # %entry
; CHECK-NEXT: shlq $12, %rdi
; CHECK-NEXT: shrq $52, %rsi
; CHECK-NEXT: leaq (%rsi,%rdi), %rax
; CHECK-NEXT: retq
SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction. AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size. It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel. llvm-svn: 195383
2013-11-22 07:21:26 +08:00
entry:
%shl = shl i64 %a, 12
%shr = lshr i64 %b, 52
%or = or i64 %shr, %shl
ret i64 %or
}
attributes #2= { nounwind readnone uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }