2015-01-31 19:17:59 +08:00
|
|
|
//===-- PPCTargetTransformInfo.cpp - PPC specific TTI ---------------------===//
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
|
|
|
|
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-31 19:17:59 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "PPCTargetTransformInfo.h"
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h"
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/CodeGen/BasicTTIImpl.h"
|
2017-11-17 09:07:10 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/CodeGen/CostTable.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/CodeGen/TargetLowering.h"
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
|
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-22 10:41:26 +08:00
|
|
|
#define DEBUG_TYPE "ppctti"
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> DisablePPCConstHoist("disable-ppc-constant-hoisting",
|
|
|
|
cl::desc("disable constant hoisting on PPC"), cl::init(false), cl::Hidden);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-22 02:28:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// This is currently only used for the data prefetch pass which is only enabled
|
|
|
|
// for BG/Q by default.
|
|
|
|
static cl::opt<unsigned>
|
|
|
|
CacheLineSize("ppc-loop-prefetch-cache-line", cl::Hidden, cl::init(64),
|
|
|
|
cl::desc("The loop prefetch cache line size"));
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-31 00:17:22 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool>
|
|
|
|
EnablePPCColdCC("ppc-enable-coldcc", cl::Hidden, cl::init(false),
|
|
|
|
cl::desc("Enable using coldcc calling conv for cold "
|
|
|
|
"internal functions"));
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// PPC cost model.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
TargetTransformInfo::PopcntSupportKind
|
|
|
|
PPCTTIImpl::getPopcntSupport(unsigned TyWidth) {
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(isPowerOf2_32(TyWidth) && "Ty width must be power of 2");
|
2016-03-29 09:36:01 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ST->hasPOPCNTD() != PPCSubtarget::POPCNTD_Unavailable && TyWidth <= 64)
|
|
|
|
return ST->hasPOPCNTD() == PPCSubtarget::POPCNTD_Slow ?
|
|
|
|
TTI::PSK_SlowHardware : TTI::PSK_FastHardware;
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::PSK_Software;
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(const APInt &Imm, Type *Ty) {
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
|
|
|
|
if (BitSize == 0)
|
|
|
|
return ~0U;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Imm == 0)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64) {
|
|
|
|
if (isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Basic;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (isInt<32>(Imm.getSExtValue())) {
|
|
|
|
// A constant that can be materialized using lis.
|
|
|
|
if ((Imm.getZExtValue() & 0xFFFF) == 0)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Basic;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return 2 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return 4 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Intrinsic::ID IID, unsigned Idx, const APInt &Imm,
|
|
|
|
Type *Ty) {
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(IID, Idx, Imm, Ty);
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
|
|
|
|
if (BitSize == 0)
|
|
|
|
return ~0U;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (IID) {
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::sadd_with_overflow:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::uadd_with_overflow:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::ssub_with_overflow:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::usub_with_overflow:
|
|
|
|
if ((Idx == 1) && Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
break;
|
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support""
This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along
with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs.
These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many
(but not all) systems.
Original commit message:
This commit does two things:
1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call
lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some
common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them).
2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is
very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences
(different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted
from the AArch64 test cases.
One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so
you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted
in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address
(assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield
higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence
and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it).
StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support
is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment!
llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_stackmap:
|
|
|
|
if ((Idx < 2) || (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<64>(Imm.getSExtValue())))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support""
This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along
with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs.
These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many
(but not all) systems.
Original commit message:
This commit does two things:
1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call
lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some
common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them).
2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is
very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences
(different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted
from the AArch64 test cases.
One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so
you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted
in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address
(assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield
higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence
and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it).
StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support
is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment!
llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_void:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_i64:
|
|
|
|
if ((Idx < 4) || (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<64>(Imm.getSExtValue())))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support""
This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along
with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs.
These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many
(but not all) systems.
Original commit message:
This commit does two things:
1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call
lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some
common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them).
2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is
very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences
(different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted
from the AArch64 test cases.
One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so
you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted
in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address
(assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield
higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence
and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it).
StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support
is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment!
llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
|
|
|
break;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(unsigned Opcode, unsigned Idx, const APInt &Imm,
|
|
|
|
Type *Ty) {
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(Opcode, Idx, Imm, Ty);
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
|
|
|
|
if (BitSize == 0)
|
|
|
|
return ~0U;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned ImmIdx = ~0U;
|
|
|
|
bool ShiftedFree = false, RunFree = false, UnsignedFree = false,
|
|
|
|
ZeroFree = false;
|
|
|
|
switch (Opcode) {
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
|
|
|
|
// Always hoist the base address of a GetElementPtr. This prevents the
|
|
|
|
// creation of new constants for every base constant that gets constant
|
|
|
|
// folded with the offset.
|
|
|
|
if (Idx == 0)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return 2 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
|
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Instruction::And:
|
|
|
|
RunFree = true; // (for the rotate-and-mask instructions)
|
2016-08-17 13:10:15 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Instruction::Add:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Or:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Xor:
|
|
|
|
ShiftedFree = true;
|
2016-08-17 13:10:15 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Instruction::Sub:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Mul:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Shl:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::LShr:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::AShr:
|
|
|
|
ImmIdx = 1;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::ICmp:
|
|
|
|
UnsignedFree = true;
|
|
|
|
ImmIdx = 1;
|
2016-08-17 13:10:15 +08:00
|
|
|
// Zero comparisons can use record-form instructions.
|
|
|
|
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
case Instruction::Select:
|
|
|
|
ZeroFree = true;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::PHI:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Call:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Ret:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Load:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Store:
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ZeroFree && Imm == 0)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Idx == ImmIdx && Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64) {
|
|
|
|
if (isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (RunFree) {
|
|
|
|
if (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 32 &&
|
|
|
|
(isShiftedMask_32(Imm.getZExtValue()) ||
|
|
|
|
isShiftedMask_32(~Imm.getZExtValue())))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ST->isPPC64() &&
|
|
|
|
(isShiftedMask_64(Imm.getZExtValue()) ||
|
|
|
|
isShiftedMask_64(~Imm.getZExtValue())))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (UnsignedFree && isUInt<16>(Imm.getZExtValue()))
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ShiftedFree && (Imm.getZExtValue() & 0xFFFF) == 0)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return TTI::TCC_Free;
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
|
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-20 02:16:31 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getUserCost(const User *U,
|
|
|
|
ArrayRef<const Value *> Operands) {
|
|
|
|
if (U->getType()->isVectorTy()) {
|
|
|
|
// Instructions that need to be split should cost more.
|
|
|
|
std::pair<int, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(DL, U->getType());
|
|
|
|
return LT.first * BaseT::getUserCost(U, Operands);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return BaseT::getUserCost(U, Operands);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[LoopUnroll] Pass SCEV to getUnrollingPreferences hook. NFCI.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Subscribers: jholewinski, arsenm, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, nhaehnle, javed.absar, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34531
llvm-svn: 306554
2017-06-28 23:53:17 +08:00
|
|
|
void PPCTTIImpl::getUnrollingPreferences(Loop *L, ScalarEvolution &SE,
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
TTI::UnrollingPreferences &UP) {
|
2015-02-01 22:22:17 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ST->getDarwinDirective() == PPC::DIR_A2) {
|
2013-09-12 05:20:40 +08:00
|
|
|
// The A2 is in-order with a deep pipeline, and concatenation unrolling
|
|
|
|
// helps expose latency-hiding opportunities to the instruction scheduler.
|
|
|
|
UP.Partial = UP.Runtime = true;
|
2015-05-22 04:30:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We unroll a lot on the A2 (hundreds of instructions), and the benefits
|
|
|
|
// often outweigh the cost of a division to compute the trip count.
|
|
|
|
UP.AllowExpensiveTripCount = true;
|
2013-09-12 05:20:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2015-01-09 23:51:16 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[LoopUnroll] Pass SCEV to getUnrollingPreferences hook. NFCI.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Subscribers: jholewinski, arsenm, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, nhaehnle, javed.absar, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34531
llvm-svn: 306554
2017-06-28 23:53:17 +08:00
|
|
|
BaseT::getUnrollingPreferences(L, SE, UP);
|
2013-09-12 05:20:40 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-31 00:17:22 +08:00
|
|
|
// This function returns true to allow using coldcc calling convention.
|
|
|
|
// Returning true results in coldcc being used for functions which are cold at
|
|
|
|
// all call sites when the callers of the functions are not calling any other
|
|
|
|
// non coldcc functions.
|
|
|
|
bool PPCTTIImpl::useColdCCForColdCall(Function &F) {
|
|
|
|
return EnablePPCColdCC;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-07 07:12:04 +08:00
|
|
|
bool PPCTTIImpl::enableAggressiveInterleaving(bool LoopHasReductions) {
|
2015-09-04 07:23:00 +08:00
|
|
|
// On the A2, always unroll aggressively. For QPX unaligned loads, we depend
|
|
|
|
// on combining the loads generated for consecutive accesses, and failure to
|
|
|
|
// do so is particularly expensive. This makes it much more likely (compared
|
|
|
|
// to only using concatenation unrolling).
|
|
|
|
if (ST->getDarwinDirective() == PPC::DIR_A2)
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-07 07:12:04 +08:00
|
|
|
return LoopHasReductions;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-30 22:19:33 +08:00
|
|
|
const PPCTTIImpl::TTI::MemCmpExpansionOptions *
|
|
|
|
PPCTTIImpl::enableMemCmpExpansion(bool IsZeroCmp) const {
|
|
|
|
static const auto Options = []() {
|
|
|
|
TTI::MemCmpExpansionOptions Options;
|
|
|
|
Options.LoadSizes.push_back(8);
|
|
|
|
Options.LoadSizes.push_back(4);
|
|
|
|
Options.LoadSizes.push_back(2);
|
|
|
|
Options.LoadSizes.push_back(1);
|
|
|
|
return Options;
|
|
|
|
}();
|
|
|
|
return &Options;
|
2017-06-01 01:12:38 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-04 08:10:41 +08:00
|
|
|
bool PPCTTIImpl::enableInterleavedAccessVectorization() {
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getNumberOfRegisters(bool Vector) {
|
[PowerPC] Add support for the QPX vector instruction set
This adds support for the QPX vector instruction set, which is used by the
enhanced A2 cores on the IBM BG/Q supercomputers. QPX vectors are 256 bytes
wide, holding 4 double-precision floating-point values. Boolean values, modeled
here as <4 x i1> are actually also represented as floating-point values
(essentially { -1, 1 } for { false, true }). QPX shares many features with
Altivec and VSX, but is distinct from both of them. One major difference is
that, instead of adding completely-separate vector registers, QPX vector
registers are extensions of the scalar floating-point registers (lane 0 is the
corresponding scalar floating-point value). The operations supported on QPX
vectors mirrors that supported on the scalar floating-point values (with some
additional ones for permutations and logical/comparison operations).
I've been maintaining this support out-of-tree, as part of the bgclang project,
for several years. This is not the entire bgclang patch set, but is most of the
subset that can be cleanly integrated into LLVM proper at this time. Adding
this to the LLVM backend is part of my efforts to rebase bgclang to the current
LLVM trunk, but is independently useful (especially for codes that use LLVM as
a JIT in library form).
The assembler/disassembler test coverage is complete. The CodeGen test coverage
is not, but I've included some tests, and more will be added as follow-up work.
llvm-svn: 230413
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
|
|
|
if (Vector && !ST->hasAltivec() && !ST->hasQPX())
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set
VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances
floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds
<2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure.
The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there
are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the
existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap
with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion
and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to
the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care
of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about
unnecessary copies below).
Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting
anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler
are fully implemented and tested. However:
- CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray
MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi
MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign
MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4
SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4
- The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more
than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the
stack that shouldn't be.
- A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to
be fixed.
- Many more regression tests are needed.
Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some
students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes
sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the
regular code-review procedures.
llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
|
|
|
return ST->hasVSX() ? 64 : 32;
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Const correctness for TTI::getRegisterBitWidth
Summary: The method TargetTransformInfo::getRegisterBitWidth() is declared const, but the type erasing implementation classes (TargetTransformInfo::Concept & TargetTransformInfo::Model) that were introduced by Chandler in https://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 do not have the method declared const. This is an NFC to tidy up the const consistency between TTI and its implementation.
Reviewers: chandlerc, rnk, reames
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: reames, jfb, arsenm, dschuff, nemanjai, nhaehnle, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33903
llvm-svn: 305189
2017-06-12 22:22:21 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getRegisterBitWidth(bool Vector) const {
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
if (Vector) {
|
[PowerPC] Add support for the QPX vector instruction set
This adds support for the QPX vector instruction set, which is used by the
enhanced A2 cores on the IBM BG/Q supercomputers. QPX vectors are 256 bytes
wide, holding 4 double-precision floating-point values. Boolean values, modeled
here as <4 x i1> are actually also represented as floating-point values
(essentially { -1, 1 } for { false, true }). QPX shares many features with
Altivec and VSX, but is distinct from both of them. One major difference is
that, instead of adding completely-separate vector registers, QPX vector
registers are extensions of the scalar floating-point registers (lane 0 is the
corresponding scalar floating-point value). The operations supported on QPX
vectors mirrors that supported on the scalar floating-point values (with some
additional ones for permutations and logical/comparison operations).
I've been maintaining this support out-of-tree, as part of the bgclang project,
for several years. This is not the entire bgclang patch set, but is most of the
subset that can be cleanly integrated into LLVM proper at this time. Adding
this to the LLVM backend is part of my efforts to rebase bgclang to the current
LLVM trunk, but is independently useful (especially for codes that use LLVM as
a JIT in library form).
The assembler/disassembler test coverage is complete. The CodeGen test coverage
is not, but I've included some tests, and more will be added as follow-up work.
llvm-svn: 230413
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ST->hasQPX()) return 256;
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ST->hasAltivec()) return 128;
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ST->isPPC64())
|
|
|
|
return 64;
|
|
|
|
return 32;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-22 02:28:36 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getCacheLineSize() {
|
2017-06-01 02:20:17 +08:00
|
|
|
// Check first if the user specified a custom line size.
|
|
|
|
if (CacheLineSize.getNumOccurrences() > 0)
|
|
|
|
return CacheLineSize;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// On P7, P8 or P9 we have a cache line size of 128.
|
|
|
|
unsigned Directive = ST->getDarwinDirective();
|
|
|
|
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR7 || Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR8 ||
|
|
|
|
Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR9)
|
|
|
|
return 128;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// On other processors return a default of 64 bytes.
|
|
|
|
return 64;
|
2016-01-22 02:28:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-30 07:45:56 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getPrefetchDistance() {
|
|
|
|
// This seems like a reasonable default for the BG/Q (this pass is enabled, by
|
|
|
|
// default, only on the BG/Q).
|
|
|
|
return 300;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-01-28 06:21:25 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-07 01:12:25 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getMaxInterleaveFactor(unsigned VF) {
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned Directive = ST->getDarwinDirective();
|
|
|
|
// The 440 has no SIMD support, but floating-point instructions
|
|
|
|
// have a 5-cycle latency, so unroll by 5x for latency hiding.
|
|
|
|
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_440)
|
|
|
|
return 5;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The A2 has no SIMD support, but floating-point instructions
|
|
|
|
// have a 6-cycle latency, so unroll by 6x for latency hiding.
|
|
|
|
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_A2)
|
|
|
|
return 6;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// FIXME: For lack of any better information, do no harm...
|
|
|
|
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_E500mc || Directive == PPC::DIR_E5500)
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-13 06:57:58 +08:00
|
|
|
// For P7 and P8, floating-point instructions have a 6-cycle latency and
|
|
|
|
// there are two execution units, so unroll by 12x for latency hiding.
|
2016-05-10 02:54:58 +08:00
|
|
|
// FIXME: the same for P9 as previous gen until POWER9 scheduling is ready
|
|
|
|
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR7 || Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR8 ||
|
|
|
|
Directive == PPC::DIR_PWR9)
|
2015-02-13 06:57:58 +08:00
|
|
|
return 12;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
// For most things, modern systems have two execution units (and
|
|
|
|
// out-of-order execution).
|
|
|
|
return 2;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getArithmeticInstrCost(
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned Opcode, Type *Ty, TTI::OperandValueKind Op1Info,
|
|
|
|
TTI::OperandValueKind Op2Info, TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd1PropInfo,
|
[X86] updating TTI costs for arithmetic instructions on X86\SLM arch.
updated instructions:
pmulld, pmullw, pmulhw, mulsd, mulps, mulpd, divss, divps, divsd, divpd, addpd and subpd.
special optimization case which replaces pmulld with pmullw\pmulhw\pshuf seq.
In case if the real operands bitwidth <= 16.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28104
llvm-svn: 291657
2017-01-11 16:23:37 +08:00
|
|
|
TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd2PropInfo, ArrayRef<const Value *> Args) {
|
2013-01-26 07:17:21 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode) && "Invalid opcode");
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Fallback to the default implementation.
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getArithmeticInstrCost(Opcode, Ty, Op1Info, Op2Info,
|
|
|
|
Opd1PropInfo, Opd2PropInfo);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getShuffleCost(TTI::ShuffleKind Kind, Type *Tp, int Index,
|
|
|
|
Type *SubTp) {
|
2015-09-04 08:10:41 +08:00
|
|
|
// Legalize the type.
|
|
|
|
std::pair<int, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(DL, Tp);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// PPC, for both Altivec/VSX and QPX, support cheap arbitrary permutations
|
|
|
|
// (at least in the sense that there need only be one non-loop-invariant
|
|
|
|
// instruction). We need one such shuffle instruction for each actual
|
|
|
|
// register (this is not true for arbitrary shuffles, but is true for the
|
|
|
|
// structured types of shuffles covered by TTI::ShuffleKind).
|
|
|
|
return LT.first;
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 19:49:08 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getCastInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Dst, Type *Src,
|
|
|
|
const Instruction *I) {
|
2013-01-26 07:17:21 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode) && "Invalid opcode");
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getCastInstrCost(Opcode, Dst, Src);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 19:49:08 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *ValTy, Type *CondTy,
|
|
|
|
const Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
return BaseT::getCmpSelInstrCost(Opcode, ValTy, CondTy, I);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getVectorInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Val, unsigned Index) {
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(Val->isVectorTy() && "This must be a vector type");
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
|
|
|
int ISD = TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode);
|
|
|
|
assert(ISD && "Invalid opcode");
|
|
|
|
|
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set
VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances
floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds
<2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure.
The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there
are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the
existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap
with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion
and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to
the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care
of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about
unnecessary copies below).
Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting
anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler
are fully implemented and tested. However:
- CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray
MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi
MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign
MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4
SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4
- The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more
than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the
stack that shouldn't be.
- A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to
be fixed.
- Many more regression tests are needed.
Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some
students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes
sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the
regular code-review procedures.
llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ST->hasVSX() && Val->getScalarType()->isDoubleTy()) {
|
|
|
|
// Double-precision scalars are already located in index #0.
|
|
|
|
if (Index == 0)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
[PowerPC] Add support for the QPX vector instruction set
This adds support for the QPX vector instruction set, which is used by the
enhanced A2 cores on the IBM BG/Q supercomputers. QPX vectors are 256 bytes
wide, holding 4 double-precision floating-point values. Boolean values, modeled
here as <4 x i1> are actually also represented as floating-point values
(essentially { -1, 1 } for { false, true }). QPX shares many features with
Altivec and VSX, but is distinct from both of them. One major difference is
that, instead of adding completely-separate vector registers, QPX vector
registers are extensions of the scalar floating-point registers (lane 0 is the
corresponding scalar floating-point value). The operations supported on QPX
vectors mirrors that supported on the scalar floating-point values (with some
additional ones for permutations and logical/comparison operations).
I've been maintaining this support out-of-tree, as part of the bgclang project,
for several years. This is not the entire bgclang patch set, but is most of the
subset that can be cleanly integrated into LLVM proper at this time. Adding
this to the LLVM backend is part of my efforts to rebase bgclang to the current
LLVM trunk, but is independently useful (especially for codes that use LLVM as
a JIT in library form).
The assembler/disassembler test coverage is complete. The CodeGen test coverage
is not, but I've included some tests, and more will be added as follow-up work.
llvm-svn: 230413
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
|
|
|
|
} else if (ST->hasQPX() && Val->getScalarType()->isFloatingPointTy()) {
|
|
|
|
// Floating point scalars are already located in index #0.
|
|
|
|
if (Index == 0)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
|
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set
VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances
floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds
<2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure.
The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there
are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the
existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap
with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion
and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to
the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care
of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about
unnecessary copies below).
Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting
anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler
are fully implemented and tested. However:
- CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray
MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi
MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign
MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4
SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4
- The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more
than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the
stack that shouldn't be.
- A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to
be fixed.
- Many more regression tests are needed.
Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some
students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes
sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the
regular code-review procedures.
llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
|
|
|
// Estimated cost of a load-hit-store delay. This was obtained
|
|
|
|
// experimentally as a minimum needed to prevent unprofitable
|
|
|
|
// vectorization for the paq8p benchmark. It may need to be
|
|
|
|
// raised further if other unprofitable cases remain.
|
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned LHSPenalty = 2;
|
|
|
|
if (ISD == ISD::INSERT_VECTOR_ELT)
|
|
|
|
LHSPenalty += 7;
|
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Vector element insert/extract with Altivec is very expensive,
|
|
|
|
// because they require store and reload with the attendant
|
|
|
|
// processor stall for load-hit-store. Until VSX is available,
|
|
|
|
// these need to be estimated as very costly.
|
|
|
|
if (ISD == ISD::EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT ||
|
|
|
|
ISD == ISD::INSERT_VECTOR_ELT)
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return LHSPenalty + BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
|
2013-02-08 04:33:57 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
|
|
|
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getMemoryOpCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Src, unsigned Alignment,
|
2017-04-12 19:49:08 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned AddressSpace, const Instruction *I) {
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
// Legalize the type.
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
std::pair<int, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(DL, Src);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
assert((Opcode == Instruction::Load || Opcode == Instruction::Store) &&
|
|
|
|
"Invalid Opcode");
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-06 02:08:10 +08:00
|
|
|
int Cost = BaseT::getMemoryOpCost(Opcode, Src, Alignment, AddressSpace);
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-09-03 05:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
bool IsAltivecType = ST->hasAltivec() &&
|
|
|
|
(LT.second == MVT::v16i8 || LT.second == MVT::v8i16 ||
|
|
|
|
LT.second == MVT::v4i32 || LT.second == MVT::v4f32);
|
|
|
|
bool IsVSXType = ST->hasVSX() &&
|
|
|
|
(LT.second == MVT::v2f64 || LT.second == MVT::v2i64);
|
|
|
|
bool IsQPXType = ST->hasQPX() &&
|
|
|
|
(LT.second == MVT::v4f64 || LT.second == MVT::v4f32);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-03 08:41:43 +08:00
|
|
|
// VSX has 32b/64b load instructions. Legalization can handle loading of
|
|
|
|
// 32b/64b to VSR correctly and cheaply. But BaseT::getMemoryOpCost and
|
|
|
|
// PPCTargetLowering can't compute the cost appropriately. So here we
|
|
|
|
// explicitly check this case.
|
|
|
|
unsigned MemBytes = Src->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
|
|
|
|
if (Opcode == Instruction::Load && ST->hasVSX() && IsAltivecType &&
|
|
|
|
(MemBytes == 64 || (ST->hasP8Vector() && MemBytes == 32)))
|
|
|
|
return 1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Aligned loads and stores are easy.
|
|
|
|
unsigned SrcBytes = LT.second.getStoreSize();
|
|
|
|
if (!SrcBytes || !Alignment || Alignment >= SrcBytes)
|
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-04 05:23:18 +08:00
|
|
|
// If we can use the permutation-based load sequence, then this is also
|
|
|
|
// relatively cheap (not counting loop-invariant instructions): one load plus
|
|
|
|
// one permute (the last load in a series has extra cost, but we're
|
2016-03-29 06:39:35 +08:00
|
|
|
// neglecting that here). Note that on the P7, we could do unaligned loads
|
2015-09-04 05:23:18 +08:00
|
|
|
// for Altivec types using the VSX instructions, but that's more expensive
|
|
|
|
// than using the permutation-based load sequence. On the P8, that's no
|
|
|
|
// longer true.
|
|
|
|
if (Opcode == Instruction::Load &&
|
|
|
|
((!ST->hasP8Vector() && IsAltivecType) || IsQPXType) &&
|
|
|
|
Alignment >= LT.second.getScalarType().getStoreSize())
|
|
|
|
return Cost + LT.first; // Add the cost of the permutations.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-03 05:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
// For VSX, we can do unaligned loads and stores on Altivec/VSX types. On the
|
|
|
|
// P7, unaligned vector loads are more expensive than the permutation-based
|
|
|
|
// load sequence, so that might be used instead, but regardless, the net cost
|
|
|
|
// is about the same (not counting loop-invariant instructions).
|
|
|
|
if (IsVSXType || (ST->hasVSX() && IsAltivecType))
|
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-18 06:29:39 +08:00
|
|
|
// Newer PPC supports unaligned memory access.
|
|
|
|
if (TLI->allowsMisalignedMemoryAccesses(LT.second, 0))
|
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
// PPC in general does not support unaligned loads and stores. They'll need
|
|
|
|
// to be decomposed based on the alignment factor.
|
2015-09-03 05:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Add the cost of each scalar load or store.
|
|
|
|
Cost += LT.first*(SrcBytes/Alignment-1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// For a vector type, there is also scalarization overhead (only for
|
|
|
|
// stores, loads are expanded using the vector-load + permutation sequence,
|
|
|
|
// which is much less expensive).
|
|
|
|
if (Src->isVectorTy() && Opcode == Instruction::Store)
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0, e = Src->getVectorNumElements(); i < e; ++i)
|
|
|
|
Cost += getVectorInstrCost(Instruction::ExtractElement, Src, i);
|
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-04 08:10:41 +08:00
|
|
|
int PPCTTIImpl::getInterleavedMemoryOpCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *VecTy,
|
|
|
|
unsigned Factor,
|
|
|
|
ArrayRef<unsigned> Indices,
|
|
|
|
unsigned Alignment,
|
|
|
|
unsigned AddressSpace) {
|
|
|
|
assert(isa<VectorType>(VecTy) &&
|
|
|
|
"Expect a vector type for interleaved memory op");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Legalize the type.
|
|
|
|
std::pair<int, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(DL, VecTy);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Firstly, the cost of load/store operation.
|
|
|
|
int Cost = getMemoryOpCost(Opcode, VecTy, Alignment, AddressSpace);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// PPC, for both Altivec/VSX and QPX, support cheap arbitrary permutations
|
|
|
|
// (at least in the sense that there need only be one non-loop-invariant
|
|
|
|
// instruction). For each result vector, we need one shuffle per incoming
|
|
|
|
// vector (except that the first shuffle can take two incoming vectors
|
|
|
|
// because it does not need to take itself).
|
|
|
|
Cost += Factor*(LT.first-1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return Cost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|