llvm-project/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp

2213 lines
87 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===-- PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp - PPC --pattern matching inst selector --------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This file defines a pattern matching instruction selector for PowerPC,
// converting from a legalized dag to a PPC dag.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "PPC.h"
#include "MCTargetDesc/PPCPredicates.h"
#include "PPCMachineFunctionInfo.h"
#include "PPCTargetMachine.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineInstrBuilder.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAG.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAGISel.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalAlias.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalValue.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalVariable.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.h"
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/ErrorHandling.h"
#include "llvm/Support/MathExtras.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetOptions.h"
using namespace llvm;
#define DEBUG_TYPE "ppc-codegen"
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
// FIXME: Remove this once the bug has been fixed!
cl::opt<bool> ANDIGlueBug("expose-ppc-andi-glue-bug",
cl::desc("expose the ANDI glue bug on PPC"), cl::Hidden);
namespace llvm {
void initializePPCDAGToDAGISelPass(PassRegistry&);
}
namespace {
//===--------------------------------------------------------------------===//
/// PPCDAGToDAGISel - PPC specific code to select PPC machine
/// instructions for SelectionDAG operations.
///
class PPCDAGToDAGISel : public SelectionDAGISel {
const PPCTargetMachine &TM;
const PPCTargetLowering *PPCLowering;
const PPCSubtarget *PPCSubTarget;
unsigned GlobalBaseReg;
public:
2008-07-08 02:00:37 +08:00
explicit PPCDAGToDAGISel(PPCTargetMachine &tm)
: SelectionDAGISel(tm), TM(tm),
PPCLowering(TM.getSubtargetImpl()->getTargetLowering()),
PPCSubTarget(TM.getSubtargetImpl()) {
initializePPCDAGToDAGISelPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
bool runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) override {
// Make sure we re-emit a set of the global base reg if necessary
GlobalBaseReg = 0;
PPCLowering = TM.getSubtargetImpl()->getTargetLowering();
PPCSubTarget = TM.getSubtargetImpl();
SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction(MF);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
if (!PPCSubTarget->isSVR4ABI())
InsertVRSaveCode(MF);
return true;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
void PostprocessISelDAG() override;
/// getI32Imm - Return a target constant with the specified value, of type
/// i32.
inline SDValue getI32Imm(unsigned Imm) {
return CurDAG->getTargetConstant(Imm, MVT::i32);
}
/// getI64Imm - Return a target constant with the specified value, of type
/// i64.
inline SDValue getI64Imm(uint64_t Imm) {
return CurDAG->getTargetConstant(Imm, MVT::i64);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// getSmallIPtrImm - Return a target constant of pointer type.
inline SDValue getSmallIPtrImm(unsigned Imm) {
return CurDAG->getTargetConstant(Imm, PPCLowering->getPointerTy());
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// isRunOfOnes - Returns true iff Val consists of one contiguous run of 1s
/// with any number of 0s on either side. The 1s are allowed to wrap from
/// LSB to MSB, so 0x000FFF0, 0x0000FFFF, and 0xFF0000FF are all runs.
/// 0x0F0F0000 is not, since all 1s are not contiguous.
static bool isRunOfOnes(unsigned Val, unsigned &MB, unsigned &ME);
/// isRotateAndMask - Returns true if Mask and Shift can be folded into a
/// rotate and mask opcode and mask operation.
static bool isRotateAndMask(SDNode *N, unsigned Mask, bool isShiftMask,
unsigned &SH, unsigned &MB, unsigned &ME);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// getGlobalBaseReg - insert code into the entry mbb to materialize the PIC
/// base register. Return the virtual register that holds this value.
SDNode *getGlobalBaseReg();
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Select - Convert the specified operand from a target-independent to a
// target-specific node if it hasn't already been changed.
SDNode *Select(SDNode *N) override;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDNode *SelectBitfieldInsert(SDNode *N);
/// SelectCC - Select a comparison of the specified values with the
/// specified condition code, returning the CR# of the expression.
SDValue SelectCC(SDValue LHS, SDValue RHS, ISD::CondCode CC, SDLoc dl);
/// SelectAddrImm - Returns true if the address N can be represented by
/// a base register plus a signed 16-bit displacement [r+imm].
bool SelectAddrImm(SDValue N, SDValue &Disp,
SDValue &Base) {
return PPCLowering->SelectAddressRegImm(N, Disp, Base, *CurDAG, false);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// SelectAddrImmOffs - Return true if the operand is valid for a preinc
/// immediate field. Note that the operand at this point is already the
/// result of a prior SelectAddressRegImm call.
bool SelectAddrImmOffs(SDValue N, SDValue &Out) const {
if (N.getOpcode() == ISD::TargetConstant ||
N.getOpcode() == ISD::TargetGlobalAddress) {
Out = N;
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// SelectAddrIdx - Given the specified addressed, check to see if it can be
/// represented as an indexed [r+r] operation. Returns false if it can
/// be represented by [r+imm], which are preferred.
bool SelectAddrIdx(SDValue N, SDValue &Base, SDValue &Index) {
return PPCLowering->SelectAddressRegReg(N, Base, Index, *CurDAG);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// SelectAddrIdxOnly - Given the specified addressed, force it to be
/// represented as an indexed [r+r] operation.
bool SelectAddrIdxOnly(SDValue N, SDValue &Base, SDValue &Index) {
return PPCLowering->SelectAddressRegRegOnly(N, Base, Index, *CurDAG);
}
[PowerPC] Use true offset value in "memrix" machine operands This is the second part of the change to always return "true" offset values from getPreIndexedAddressParts, tackling the case of "memrix" type operands. This is about instructions like LD/STD that only have a 14-bit field to encode immediate offsets, which are implicitly extended by two zero bits by the machine, so that in effect we can access 16-bit offsets as long as they are a multiple of 4. The PowerPC back end currently handles such instructions by carrying the 14-bit value (as it will get encoded into the actual machine instructions) in the machine operand fields for such instructions. This means that those values are in fact not the true offset, but rather the offset divided by 4 (and then truncated to an unsigned 14-bit value). Like in the case fixed in r182012, this makes common code operations on such offset values not work as expected. Furthermore, there doesn't really appear to be any strong reason why we should encode machine operands this way. This patch therefore changes the encoding of "memrix" type machine operands to simply contain the "true" offset value as a signed immediate value, while enforcing the rules that it must fit in a 16-bit signed value and must also be a multiple of 4. This change must be made simultaneously in all places that access machine operands of this type. However, just about all those changes make the code simpler; in many cases we can now just share the same code for memri and memrix operands. llvm-svn: 182032
2013-05-17 01:58:02 +08:00
/// SelectAddrImmX4 - Returns true if the address N can be represented by
/// a base register plus a signed 16-bit displacement that is a multiple of 4.
/// Suitable for use by STD and friends.
bool SelectAddrImmX4(SDValue N, SDValue &Disp, SDValue &Base) {
return PPCLowering->SelectAddressRegImm(N, Disp, Base, *CurDAG, true);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Select an address into a single register.
bool SelectAddr(SDValue N, SDValue &Base) {
Base = N;
return true;
}
/// SelectInlineAsmMemoryOperand - Implement addressing mode selection for
/// inline asm expressions. It is always correct to compute the value into
/// a register. The case of adding a (possibly relocatable) constant to a
/// register can be improved, but it is wrong to substitute Reg+Reg for
/// Reg in an asm, because the load or store opcode would have to change.
bool SelectInlineAsmMemoryOperand(const SDValue &Op,
char ConstraintCode,
std::vector<SDValue> &OutOps) override {
OutOps.push_back(Op);
return false;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
void InsertVRSaveCode(MachineFunction &MF);
const char *getPassName() const override {
return "PowerPC DAG->DAG Pattern Instruction Selection";
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
}
// Include the pieces autogenerated from the target description.
#include "PPCGenDAGISel.inc"
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
private:
SDNode *SelectSETCC(SDNode *N);
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
void PeepholePPC64();
void PeepholeCROps();
bool AllUsersSelectZero(SDNode *N);
void SwapAllSelectUsers(SDNode *N);
};
}
/// InsertVRSaveCode - Once the entire function has been instruction selected,
/// all virtual registers are created and all machine instructions are built,
/// check to see if we need to save/restore VRSAVE. If so, do it.
void PPCDAGToDAGISel::InsertVRSaveCode(MachineFunction &Fn) {
// Check to see if this function uses vector registers, which means we have to
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// save and restore the VRSAVE register and update it with the regs we use.
//
// In this case, there will be virtual registers of vector type created
// by the scheduler. Detect them now.
bool HasVectorVReg = false;
for (unsigned i = 0, e = RegInfo->getNumVirtRegs(); i != e; ++i) {
unsigned Reg = TargetRegisterInfo::index2VirtReg(i);
if (RegInfo->getRegClass(Reg) == &PPC::VRRCRegClass) {
HasVectorVReg = true;
break;
}
}
if (!HasVectorVReg) return; // nothing to do.
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// If we have a vector register, we want to emit code into the entry and exit
// blocks to save and restore the VRSAVE register. We do this here (instead
// of marking all vector instructions as clobbering VRSAVE) for two reasons:
//
// 1. This (trivially) reduces the load on the register allocator, by not
// having to represent the live range of the VRSAVE register.
// 2. This (more significantly) allows us to create a temporary virtual
// register to hold the saved VRSAVE value, allowing this temporary to be
// register allocated, instead of forcing it to be spilled to the stack.
// Create two vregs - one to hold the VRSAVE register that is live-in to the
// function and one for the value after having bits or'd into it.
unsigned InVRSAVE = RegInfo->createVirtualRegister(&PPC::GPRCRegClass);
unsigned UpdatedVRSAVE = RegInfo->createVirtualRegister(&PPC::GPRCRegClass);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
const TargetInstrInfo &TII = *TM.getSubtargetImpl()->getInstrInfo();
MachineBasicBlock &EntryBB = *Fn.begin();
DebugLoc dl;
// Emit the following code into the entry block:
// InVRSAVE = MFVRSAVE
// UpdatedVRSAVE = UPDATE_VRSAVE InVRSAVE
// MTVRSAVE UpdatedVRSAVE
MachineBasicBlock::iterator IP = EntryBB.begin(); // Insert Point
BuildMI(EntryBB, IP, dl, TII.get(PPC::MFVRSAVE), InVRSAVE);
BuildMI(EntryBB, IP, dl, TII.get(PPC::UPDATE_VRSAVE),
UpdatedVRSAVE).addReg(InVRSAVE);
BuildMI(EntryBB, IP, dl, TII.get(PPC::MTVRSAVE)).addReg(UpdatedVRSAVE);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Find all return blocks, outputting a restore in each epilog.
for (MachineFunction::iterator BB = Fn.begin(), E = Fn.end(); BB != E; ++BB) {
if (!BB->empty() && BB->back().isReturn()) {
IP = BB->end(); --IP;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Skip over all terminator instructions, which are part of the return
// sequence.
MachineBasicBlock::iterator I2 = IP;
while (I2 != BB->begin() && (--I2)->isTerminator())
IP = I2;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Emit: MTVRSAVE InVRSave
BuildMI(*BB, IP, dl, TII.get(PPC::MTVRSAVE)).addReg(InVRSAVE);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
}
}
}
/// getGlobalBaseReg - Output the instructions required to put the
/// base address to use for accessing globals into a register.
///
SDNode *PPCDAGToDAGISel::getGlobalBaseReg() {
if (!GlobalBaseReg) {
const TargetInstrInfo &TII = *TM.getSubtargetImpl()->getInstrInfo();
// Insert the set of GlobalBaseReg into the first MBB of the function
MachineBasicBlock &FirstMBB = MF->front();
MachineBasicBlock::iterator MBBI = FirstMBB.begin();
DebugLoc dl;
if (PPCLowering->getPointerTy() == MVT::i32) {
if (PPCSubTarget->isTargetELF())
GlobalBaseReg = PPC::R30;
else
GlobalBaseReg =
RegInfo->createVirtualRegister(&PPC::GPRC_NOR0RegClass);
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl, TII.get(PPC::MovePCtoLR));
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl, TII.get(PPC::MFLR), GlobalBaseReg);
if (PPCSubTarget->isTargetELF()) {
unsigned TempReg = RegInfo->createVirtualRegister(&PPC::GPRCRegClass);
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl,
TII.get(PPC::GetGBRO), TempReg).addReg(GlobalBaseReg);
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl,
TII.get(PPC::UpdateGBR)).addReg(GlobalBaseReg).addReg(TempReg);
MF->getInfo<PPCFunctionInfo>()->setUsesPICBase(true);
}
} else {
GlobalBaseReg = RegInfo->createVirtualRegister(&PPC::G8RC_NOX0RegClass);
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl, TII.get(PPC::MovePCtoLR8));
BuildMI(FirstMBB, MBBI, dl, TII.get(PPC::MFLR8), GlobalBaseReg);
}
}
return CurDAG->getRegister(GlobalBaseReg,
PPCLowering->getPointerTy()).getNode();
}
/// isIntS16Immediate - This method tests to see if the node is either a 32-bit
/// or 64-bit immediate, and if the value can be accurately represented as a
/// sign extension from a 16-bit value. If so, this returns true and the
/// immediate.
static bool isIntS16Immediate(SDNode *N, short &Imm) {
if (N->getOpcode() != ISD::Constant)
return false;
Imm = (short)cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32)
return Imm == (int32_t)cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
else
return Imm == (int64_t)cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
}
static bool isIntS16Immediate(SDValue Op, short &Imm) {
return isIntS16Immediate(Op.getNode(), Imm);
}
/// isInt32Immediate - This method tests to see if the node is a 32-bit constant
/// operand. If so Imm will receive the 32-bit value.
static bool isInt32Immediate(SDNode *N, unsigned &Imm) {
if (N->getOpcode() == ISD::Constant && N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32) {
Imm = cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// isInt64Immediate - This method tests to see if the node is a 64-bit constant
/// operand. If so Imm will receive the 64-bit value.
static bool isInt64Immediate(SDNode *N, uint64_t &Imm) {
if (N->getOpcode() == ISD::Constant && N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64) {
Imm = cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
return true;
}
return false;
}
// isInt32Immediate - This method tests to see if a constant operand.
// If so Imm will receive the 32 bit value.
static bool isInt32Immediate(SDValue N, unsigned &Imm) {
return isInt32Immediate(N.getNode(), Imm);
}
// isOpcWithIntImmediate - This method tests to see if the node is a specific
// opcode and that it has a immediate integer right operand.
// If so Imm will receive the 32 bit value.
static bool isOpcWithIntImmediate(SDNode *N, unsigned Opc, unsigned& Imm) {
return N->getOpcode() == Opc
&& isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1).getNode(), Imm);
}
bool PPCDAGToDAGISel::isRunOfOnes(unsigned Val, unsigned &MB, unsigned &ME) {
if (!Val)
return false;
if (isShiftedMask_32(Val)) {
// look for the first non-zero bit
MB = countLeadingZeros(Val);
// look for the first zero bit after the run of ones
ME = countLeadingZeros((Val - 1) ^ Val);
return true;
} else {
Val = ~Val; // invert mask
if (isShiftedMask_32(Val)) {
// effectively look for the first zero bit
ME = countLeadingZeros(Val) - 1;
// effectively look for the first one bit after the run of zeros
MB = countLeadingZeros((Val - 1) ^ Val) + 1;
return true;
}
}
// no run present
return false;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
bool PPCDAGToDAGISel::isRotateAndMask(SDNode *N, unsigned Mask,
bool isShiftMask, unsigned &SH,
unsigned &MB, unsigned &ME) {
// Don't even go down this path for i64, since different logic will be
// necessary for rldicl/rldicr/rldimi.
if (N->getValueType(0) != MVT::i32)
return false;
unsigned Shift = 32;
unsigned Indeterminant = ~0; // bit mask marking indeterminant results
unsigned Opcode = N->getOpcode();
if (N->getNumOperands() != 2 ||
!isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1).getNode(), Shift) || (Shift > 31))
return false;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
if (Opcode == ISD::SHL) {
// apply shift left to mask if it comes first
if (isShiftMask) Mask = Mask << Shift;
// determine which bits are made indeterminant by shift
Indeterminant = ~(0xFFFFFFFFu << Shift);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
} else if (Opcode == ISD::SRL) {
// apply shift right to mask if it comes first
if (isShiftMask) Mask = Mask >> Shift;
// determine which bits are made indeterminant by shift
Indeterminant = ~(0xFFFFFFFFu >> Shift);
// adjust for the left rotate
Shift = 32 - Shift;
} else if (Opcode == ISD::ROTL) {
Indeterminant = 0;
} else {
return false;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// if the mask doesn't intersect any Indeterminant bits
if (Mask && !(Mask & Indeterminant)) {
SH = Shift & 31;
// make sure the mask is still a mask (wrap arounds may not be)
return isRunOfOnes(Mask, MB, ME);
}
return false;
}
/// SelectBitfieldInsert - turn an or of two masked values into
/// the rotate left word immediate then mask insert (rlwimi) instruction.
SDNode *PPCDAGToDAGISel::SelectBitfieldInsert(SDNode *N) {
SDValue Op0 = N->getOperand(0);
SDValue Op1 = N->getOperand(1);
SDLoc dl(N);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
APInt LKZ, LKO, RKZ, RKO;
CurDAG->computeKnownBits(Op0, LKZ, LKO);
CurDAG->computeKnownBits(Op1, RKZ, RKO);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
unsigned TargetMask = LKZ.getZExtValue();
unsigned InsertMask = RKZ.getZExtValue();
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
if ((TargetMask | InsertMask) == 0xFFFFFFFF) {
unsigned Op0Opc = Op0.getOpcode();
unsigned Op1Opc = Op1.getOpcode();
unsigned Value, SH = 0;
TargetMask = ~TargetMask;
InsertMask = ~InsertMask;
// If the LHS has a foldable shift and the RHS does not, then swap it to the
// RHS so that we can fold the shift into the insert.
if (Op0Opc == ISD::AND && Op1Opc == ISD::AND) {
if (Op0.getOperand(0).getOpcode() == ISD::SHL ||
Op0.getOperand(0).getOpcode() == ISD::SRL) {
if (Op1.getOperand(0).getOpcode() != ISD::SHL &&
Op1.getOperand(0).getOpcode() != ISD::SRL) {
std::swap(Op0, Op1);
std::swap(Op0Opc, Op1Opc);
std::swap(TargetMask, InsertMask);
}
}
} else if (Op0Opc == ISD::SHL || Op0Opc == ISD::SRL) {
if (Op1Opc == ISD::AND && Op1.getOperand(0).getOpcode() != ISD::SHL &&
Op1.getOperand(0).getOpcode() != ISD::SRL) {
std::swap(Op0, Op1);
std::swap(Op0Opc, Op1Opc);
std::swap(TargetMask, InsertMask);
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
unsigned MB, ME;
if (isRunOfOnes(InsertMask, MB, ME)) {
SDValue Tmp1, Tmp2;
if ((Op1Opc == ISD::SHL || Op1Opc == ISD::SRL) &&
isInt32Immediate(Op1.getOperand(1), Value)) {
Op1 = Op1.getOperand(0);
SH = (Op1Opc == ISD::SHL) ? Value : 32 - Value;
}
if (Op1Opc == ISD::AND) {
// The AND mask might not be a constant, and we need to make sure that
// if we're going to fold the masking with the insert, all bits not
// know to be zero in the mask are known to be one.
APInt MKZ, MKO;
CurDAG->computeKnownBits(Op1.getOperand(1), MKZ, MKO);
bool CanFoldMask = InsertMask == MKO.getZExtValue();
unsigned SHOpc = Op1.getOperand(0).getOpcode();
if ((SHOpc == ISD::SHL || SHOpc == ISD::SRL) && CanFoldMask &&
isInt32Immediate(Op1.getOperand(0).getOperand(1), Value)) {
// Note that Value must be in range here (less than 32) because
// otherwise there would not be any bits set in InsertMask.
Op1 = Op1.getOperand(0).getOperand(0);
SH = (SHOpc == ISD::SHL) ? Value : 32 - Value;
}
}
SH &= 31;
SDValue Ops[] = { Op0, Op1, getI32Imm(SH), getI32Imm(MB),
getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::RLWIMI, dl, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
}
return nullptr;
}
/// SelectCC - Select a comparison of the specified values with the specified
/// condition code, returning the CR# of the expression.
SDValue PPCDAGToDAGISel::SelectCC(SDValue LHS, SDValue RHS,
ISD::CondCode CC, SDLoc dl) {
// Always select the LHS.
unsigned Opc;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
if (LHS.getValueType() == MVT::i32) {
unsigned Imm;
if (CC == ISD::SETEQ || CC == ISD::SETNE) {
if (isInt32Immediate(RHS, Imm)) {
// SETEQ/SETNE comparison with 16-bit immediate, fold it.
if (isUInt<16>(Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLWI, dl, MVT::i32, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
// If this is a 16-bit signed immediate, fold it.
if (isInt<16>((int)Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPWI, dl, MVT::i32, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// For non-equality comparisons, the default code would materialize the
// constant, then compare against it, like this:
// lis r2, 4660
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// ori r2, r2, 22136
// cmpw cr0, r3, r2
// Since we are just comparing for equality, we can emit this instead:
// xoris r0,r3,0x1234
// cmplwi cr0,r0,0x5678
// beq cr0,L6
SDValue Xor(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::XORIS, dl, MVT::i32, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm >> 16)), 0);
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLWI, dl, MVT::i32, Xor,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
}
Opc = PPC::CMPLW;
} else if (ISD::isUnsignedIntSetCC(CC)) {
if (isInt32Immediate(RHS, Imm) && isUInt<16>(Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLWI, dl, MVT::i32, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
Opc = PPC::CMPLW;
} else {
short SImm;
if (isIntS16Immediate(RHS, SImm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPWI, dl, MVT::i32, LHS,
getI32Imm((int)SImm & 0xFFFF)),
0);
Opc = PPC::CMPW;
}
} else if (LHS.getValueType() == MVT::i64) {
uint64_t Imm;
if (CC == ISD::SETEQ || CC == ISD::SETNE) {
if (isInt64Immediate(RHS.getNode(), Imm)) {
// SETEQ/SETNE comparison with 16-bit immediate, fold it.
if (isUInt<16>(Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLDI, dl, MVT::i64, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
// If this is a 16-bit signed immediate, fold it.
if (isInt<16>(Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPDI, dl, MVT::i64, LHS,
getI32Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// For non-equality comparisons, the default code would materialize the
// constant, then compare against it, like this:
// lis r2, 4660
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// ori r2, r2, 22136
// cmpd cr0, r3, r2
// Since we are just comparing for equality, we can emit this instead:
// xoris r0,r3,0x1234
// cmpldi cr0,r0,0x5678
// beq cr0,L6
if (isUInt<32>(Imm)) {
SDValue Xor(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::XORIS8, dl, MVT::i64, LHS,
getI64Imm(Imm >> 16)), 0);
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLDI, dl, MVT::i64, Xor,
getI64Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
}
}
Opc = PPC::CMPLD;
} else if (ISD::isUnsignedIntSetCC(CC)) {
if (isInt64Immediate(RHS.getNode(), Imm) && isUInt<16>(Imm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPLDI, dl, MVT::i64, LHS,
getI64Imm(Imm & 0xFFFF)), 0);
Opc = PPC::CMPLD;
} else {
short SImm;
if (isIntS16Immediate(RHS, SImm))
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CMPDI, dl, MVT::i64, LHS,
getI64Imm(SImm & 0xFFFF)),
0);
Opc = PPC::CMPD;
}
} else if (LHS.getValueType() == MVT::f32) {
Opc = PPC::FCMPUS;
} else {
assert(LHS.getValueType() == MVT::f64 && "Unknown vt!");
Opc = PPCSubTarget->hasVSX() ? PPC::XSCMPUDP : PPC::FCMPUD;
}
return SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc, dl, MVT::i32, LHS, RHS), 0);
}
static PPC::Predicate getPredicateForSetCC(ISD::CondCode CC) {
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETUEQ:
case ISD::SETONE:
case ISD::SETOLE:
case ISD::SETOGE:
llvm_unreachable("Should be lowered by legalize!");
default: llvm_unreachable("Unknown condition!");
case ISD::SETOEQ:
case ISD::SETEQ: return PPC::PRED_EQ;
case ISD::SETUNE:
case ISD::SETNE: return PPC::PRED_NE;
case ISD::SETOLT:
case ISD::SETLT: return PPC::PRED_LT;
case ISD::SETULE:
case ISD::SETLE: return PPC::PRED_LE;
case ISD::SETOGT:
case ISD::SETGT: return PPC::PRED_GT;
case ISD::SETUGE:
case ISD::SETGE: return PPC::PRED_GE;
case ISD::SETO: return PPC::PRED_NU;
case ISD::SETUO: return PPC::PRED_UN;
// These two are invalid for floating point. Assume we have int.
case ISD::SETULT: return PPC::PRED_LT;
case ISD::SETUGT: return PPC::PRED_GT;
}
}
/// getCRIdxForSetCC - Return the index of the condition register field
/// associated with the SetCC condition, and whether or not the field is
/// treated as inverted. That is, lt = 0; ge = 0 inverted.
static unsigned getCRIdxForSetCC(ISD::CondCode CC, bool &Invert) {
Invert = false;
switch (CC) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Unknown condition!");
case ISD::SETOLT:
case ISD::SETLT: return 0; // Bit #0 = SETOLT
case ISD::SETOGT:
case ISD::SETGT: return 1; // Bit #1 = SETOGT
case ISD::SETOEQ:
case ISD::SETEQ: return 2; // Bit #2 = SETOEQ
case ISD::SETUO: return 3; // Bit #3 = SETUO
case ISD::SETUGE:
case ISD::SETGE: Invert = true; return 0; // !Bit #0 = SETUGE
case ISD::SETULE:
case ISD::SETLE: Invert = true; return 1; // !Bit #1 = SETULE
case ISD::SETUNE:
case ISD::SETNE: Invert = true; return 2; // !Bit #2 = SETUNE
case ISD::SETO: Invert = true; return 3; // !Bit #3 = SETO
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::SETUEQ:
case ISD::SETOGE:
case ISD::SETOLE:
case ISD::SETONE:
llvm_unreachable("Invalid branch code: should be expanded by legalize");
// These are invalid for floating point. Assume integer.
case ISD::SETULT: return 0;
case ISD::SETUGT: return 1;
}
}
// getVCmpInst: return the vector compare instruction for the specified
// vector type and condition code. Since this is for altivec specific code,
// only support the altivec types (v16i8, v8i16, v4i32, and v4f32).
static unsigned int getVCmpInst(MVT VecVT, ISD::CondCode CC,
bool HasVSX, bool &Swap, bool &Negate) {
Swap = false;
Negate = false;
if (VecVT.isFloatingPoint()) {
/* Handle some cases by swapping input operands. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETLE: CC = ISD::SETGE; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETLT: CC = ISD::SETGT; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETOLE: CC = ISD::SETOGE; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETOLT: CC = ISD::SETOGT; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETUGE: CC = ISD::SETULE; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETUGT: CC = ISD::SETULT; Swap = true; break;
default: break;
}
/* Handle some cases by negating the result. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETNE: CC = ISD::SETEQ; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETUNE: CC = ISD::SETOEQ; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETULE: CC = ISD::SETOGT; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETULT: CC = ISD::SETOGE; Negate = true; break;
default: break;
}
/* We have instructions implementing the remaining cases. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETEQ:
case ISD::SETOEQ:
if (VecVT == MVT::v4f32)
return HasVSX ? PPC::XVCMPEQSP : PPC::VCMPEQFP;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v2f64)
return PPC::XVCMPEQDP;
break;
case ISD::SETGT:
case ISD::SETOGT:
if (VecVT == MVT::v4f32)
return HasVSX ? PPC::XVCMPGTSP : PPC::VCMPGTFP;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v2f64)
return PPC::XVCMPGTDP;
break;
case ISD::SETGE:
case ISD::SETOGE:
if (VecVT == MVT::v4f32)
return HasVSX ? PPC::XVCMPGESP : PPC::VCMPGEFP;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v2f64)
return PPC::XVCMPGEDP;
break;
default:
break;
}
llvm_unreachable("Invalid floating-point vector compare condition");
} else {
/* Handle some cases by swapping input operands. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETGE: CC = ISD::SETLE; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETLT: CC = ISD::SETGT; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETUGE: CC = ISD::SETULE; Swap = true; break;
case ISD::SETULT: CC = ISD::SETUGT; Swap = true; break;
default: break;
}
/* Handle some cases by negating the result. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETNE: CC = ISD::SETEQ; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETUNE: CC = ISD::SETUEQ; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETLE: CC = ISD::SETGT; Negate = true; break;
case ISD::SETULE: CC = ISD::SETUGT; Negate = true; break;
default: break;
}
/* We have instructions implementing the remaining cases. */
switch (CC) {
case ISD::SETEQ:
case ISD::SETUEQ:
if (VecVT == MVT::v16i8)
return PPC::VCMPEQUB;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v8i16)
return PPC::VCMPEQUH;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v4i32)
return PPC::VCMPEQUW;
break;
case ISD::SETGT:
if (VecVT == MVT::v16i8)
return PPC::VCMPGTSB;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v8i16)
return PPC::VCMPGTSH;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v4i32)
return PPC::VCMPGTSW;
break;
case ISD::SETUGT:
if (VecVT == MVT::v16i8)
return PPC::VCMPGTUB;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v8i16)
return PPC::VCMPGTUH;
else if (VecVT == MVT::v4i32)
return PPC::VCMPGTUW;
break;
default:
break;
}
llvm_unreachable("Invalid integer vector compare condition");
}
}
SDNode *PPCDAGToDAGISel::SelectSETCC(SDNode *N) {
SDLoc dl(N);
unsigned Imm;
ISD::CondCode CC = cast<CondCodeSDNode>(N->getOperand(2))->get();
EVT PtrVT = CurDAG->getTargetLoweringInfo().getPointerTy();
bool isPPC64 = (PtrVT == MVT::i64);
if (!PPCSubTarget->useCRBits() &&
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm)) {
// We can codegen setcc op, imm very efficiently compared to a brcond.
// Check for those cases here.
// setcc op, 0
if (Imm == 0) {
SDValue Op = N->getOperand(0);
switch (CC) {
default: break;
case ISD::SETEQ: {
Op = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CNTLZW, dl, MVT::i32, Op), 0);
SDValue Ops[] = { Op, getI32Imm(27), getI32Imm(5), getI32Imm(31) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
case ISD::SETNE: {
if (isPPC64) break;
SDValue AD =
SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDIC, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
Op, getI32Imm(~0U)), 0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::SUBFE, MVT::i32, AD, Op,
AD.getValue(1));
}
case ISD::SETLT: {
SDValue Ops[] = { Op, getI32Imm(1), getI32Imm(31), getI32Imm(31) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
case ISD::SETGT: {
SDValue T =
SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::NEG, dl, MVT::i32, Op), 0);
T = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ANDC, dl, MVT::i32, T, Op), 0);
SDValue Ops[] = { T, getI32Imm(1), getI32Imm(31), getI32Imm(31) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
}
} else if (Imm == ~0U) { // setcc op, -1
SDValue Op = N->getOperand(0);
switch (CC) {
default: break;
case ISD::SETEQ:
if (isPPC64) break;
Op = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDIC, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
Op, getI32Imm(1)), 0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::ADDZE, MVT::i32,
SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LI, dl,
MVT::i32,
getI32Imm(0)), 0),
Op.getValue(1));
case ISD::SETNE: {
if (isPPC64) break;
Op = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::NOR, dl, MVT::i32, Op, Op), 0);
SDNode *AD = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDIC, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
Op, getI32Imm(~0U));
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::SUBFE, MVT::i32, SDValue(AD, 0),
Op, SDValue(AD, 1));
}
case ISD::SETLT: {
SDValue AD = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDI, dl, MVT::i32, Op,
getI32Imm(1)), 0);
SDValue AN = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::AND, dl, MVT::i32, AD,
Op), 0);
SDValue Ops[] = { AN, getI32Imm(1), getI32Imm(31), getI32Imm(31) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
case ISD::SETGT: {
SDValue Ops[] = { Op, getI32Imm(1), getI32Imm(31), getI32Imm(31) };
Op = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::RLWINM, dl, MVT::i32, Ops),
0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::XORI, MVT::i32, Op,
getI32Imm(1));
}
}
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDValue LHS = N->getOperand(0);
SDValue RHS = N->getOperand(1);
// Altivec Vector compare instructions do not set any CR register by default and
// vector compare operations return the same type as the operands.
if (LHS.getValueType().isVector()) {
EVT VecVT = LHS.getValueType();
bool Swap, Negate;
unsigned int VCmpInst = getVCmpInst(VecVT.getSimpleVT(), CC,
PPCSubTarget->hasVSX(), Swap, Negate);
if (Swap)
std::swap(LHS, RHS);
if (Negate) {
SDValue VCmp(CurDAG->getMachineNode(VCmpInst, dl, VecVT, LHS, RHS), 0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPCSubTarget->hasVSX() ? PPC::XXLNOR :
PPC::VNOR,
VecVT, VCmp, VCmp);
}
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, VCmpInst, VecVT, LHS, RHS);
}
if (PPCSubTarget->useCRBits())
return nullptr;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
bool Inv;
unsigned Idx = getCRIdxForSetCC(CC, Inv);
SDValue CCReg = SelectCC(LHS, RHS, CC, dl);
SDValue IntCR;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Force the ccreg into CR7.
SDValue CR7Reg = CurDAG->getRegister(PPC::CR7, MVT::i32);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDValue InFlag(nullptr, 0); // Null incoming flag value.
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
CCReg = CurDAG->getCopyToReg(CurDAG->getEntryNode(), dl, CR7Reg, CCReg,
InFlag).getValue(1);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
IntCR = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::MFOCRF, dl, MVT::i32, CR7Reg,
CCReg), 0);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDValue Ops[] = { IntCR, getI32Imm((32-(3-Idx)) & 31),
getI32Imm(31), getI32Imm(31) };
if (!Inv)
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
// Get the specified bit.
SDValue Tmp =
SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::RLWINM, dl, MVT::i32, Ops), 0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::XORI, MVT::i32, Tmp, getI32Imm(1));
}
// Select - Convert the specified operand from a target-independent to a
// target-specific node if it hasn't already been changed.
SDNode *PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N) {
SDLoc dl(N);
if (N->isMachineOpcode()) {
N->setNodeId(-1);
return nullptr; // Already selected.
}
// In case any misguided DAG-level optimizations form an ADD with a
// TargetConstant operand, crash here instead of miscompiling (by selecting
// an r+r add instead of some kind of r+i add).
if (N->getOpcode() == ISD::ADD &&
N->getOperand(1).getOpcode() == ISD::TargetConstant)
llvm_unreachable("Invalid ADD with TargetConstant operand");
switch (N->getOpcode()) {
default: break;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::Constant: {
if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64) {
// Get 64 bit value.
int64_t Imm = cast<ConstantSDNode>(N)->getZExtValue();
// Assume no remaining bits.
unsigned Remainder = 0;
// Assume no shift required.
unsigned Shift = 0;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// If it can't be represented as a 32 bit value.
if (!isInt<32>(Imm)) {
Shift = countTrailingZeros<uint64_t>(Imm);
int64_t ImmSh = static_cast<uint64_t>(Imm) >> Shift;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// If the shifted value fits 32 bits.
if (isInt<32>(ImmSh)) {
// Go with the shifted value.
Imm = ImmSh;
} else {
// Still stuck with a 64 bit value.
Remainder = Imm;
Shift = 32;
Imm >>= 32;
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Intermediate operand.
SDNode *Result;
// Handle first 32 bits.
unsigned Lo = Imm & 0xFFFF;
unsigned Hi = (Imm >> 16) & 0xFFFF;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Simple value.
if (isInt<16>(Imm)) {
// Just the Lo bits.
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LI8, dl, MVT::i64, getI32Imm(Lo));
} else if (Lo) {
// Handle the Hi bits.
unsigned OpC = Hi ? PPC::LIS8 : PPC::LI8;
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(OpC, dl, MVT::i64, getI32Imm(Hi));
// And Lo bits.
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ORI8, dl, MVT::i64,
SDValue(Result, 0), getI32Imm(Lo));
} else {
// Just the Hi bits.
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LIS8, dl, MVT::i64, getI32Imm(Hi));
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// If no shift, we're done.
if (!Shift) return Result;
// Shift for next step if the upper 32-bits were not zero.
if (Imm) {
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::RLDICR, dl, MVT::i64,
SDValue(Result, 0),
getI32Imm(Shift),
getI32Imm(63 - Shift));
}
// Add in the last bits as required.
if ((Hi = (Remainder >> 16) & 0xFFFF)) {
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ORIS8, dl, MVT::i64,
SDValue(Result, 0), getI32Imm(Hi));
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
}
if ((Lo = Remainder & 0xFFFF)) {
Result = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ORI8, dl, MVT::i64,
SDValue(Result, 0), getI32Imm(Lo));
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return Result;
}
break;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
case ISD::SETCC: {
SDNode *SN = SelectSETCC(N);
if (SN)
return SN;
break;
}
case PPCISD::GlobalBaseReg:
return getGlobalBaseReg();
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::FrameIndex: {
int FI = cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(N)->getIndex();
SDValue TFI = CurDAG->getTargetFrameIndex(FI, N->getValueType(0));
unsigned Opc = N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32 ? PPC::ADDI : PPC::ADDI8;
if (N->hasOneUse())
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, Opc, N->getValueType(0), TFI,
getSmallIPtrImm(0));
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc, dl, N->getValueType(0), TFI,
getSmallIPtrImm(0));
}
case PPCISD::MFOCRF: {
SDValue InFlag = N->getOperand(1);
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::MFOCRF, dl, MVT::i32,
N->getOperand(0), InFlag);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::SDIV: {
// FIXME: since this depends on the setting of the carry flag from the srawi
// we should really be making notes about that for the scheduler.
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// FIXME: It sure would be nice if we could cheaply recognize the
// srl/add/sra pattern the dag combiner will generate for this as
// sra/addze rather than having to handle sdiv ourselves. oh well.
unsigned Imm;
if (isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm)) {
SDValue N0 = N->getOperand(0);
if ((signed)Imm > 0 && isPowerOf2_32(Imm)) {
SDNode *Op =
CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::SRAWI, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
N0, getI32Imm(Log2_32(Imm)));
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::ADDZE, MVT::i32,
SDValue(Op, 0), SDValue(Op, 1));
} else if ((signed)Imm < 0 && isPowerOf2_32(-Imm)) {
SDNode *Op =
CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::SRAWI, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
N0, getI32Imm(Log2_32(-Imm)));
SDValue PT =
SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDZE, dl, MVT::i32,
SDValue(Op, 0), SDValue(Op, 1)),
0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::NEG, MVT::i32, PT);
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Other cases are autogenerated.
break;
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::LOAD: {
// Handle preincrement loads.
LoadSDNode *LD = cast<LoadSDNode>(N);
EVT LoadedVT = LD->getMemoryVT();
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Normal loads are handled by code generated from the .td file.
if (LD->getAddressingMode() != ISD::PRE_INC)
break;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDValue Offset = LD->getOffset();
if (Offset.getOpcode() == ISD::TargetConstant ||
Offset.getOpcode() == ISD::TargetGlobalAddress) {
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
unsigned Opcode;
bool isSExt = LD->getExtensionType() == ISD::SEXTLOAD;
if (LD->getValueType(0) != MVT::i64) {
// Handle PPC32 integer and normal FP loads.
assert((!isSExt || LoadedVT == MVT::i16) && "Invalid sext update load");
switch (LoadedVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Invalid PPC load type!");
case MVT::f64: Opcode = PPC::LFDU; break;
case MVT::f32: Opcode = PPC::LFSU; break;
case MVT::i32: Opcode = PPC::LWZU; break;
case MVT::i16: Opcode = isSExt ? PPC::LHAU : PPC::LHZU; break;
case MVT::i1:
case MVT::i8: Opcode = PPC::LBZU; break;
}
} else {
assert(LD->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64 && "Unknown load result type!");
assert((!isSExt || LoadedVT == MVT::i16) && "Invalid sext update load");
switch (LoadedVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Invalid PPC load type!");
case MVT::i64: Opcode = PPC::LDU; break;
case MVT::i32: Opcode = PPC::LWZU8; break;
case MVT::i16: Opcode = isSExt ? PPC::LHAU8 : PPC::LHZU8; break;
case MVT::i1:
case MVT::i8: Opcode = PPC::LBZU8; break;
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
SDValue Chain = LD->getChain();
SDValue Base = LD->getBasePtr();
SDValue Ops[] = { Offset, Base, Chain };
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opcode, dl, LD->getValueType(0),
PPCLowering->getPointerTy(),
MVT::Other, Ops);
} else {
unsigned Opcode;
bool isSExt = LD->getExtensionType() == ISD::SEXTLOAD;
if (LD->getValueType(0) != MVT::i64) {
// Handle PPC32 integer and normal FP loads.
assert((!isSExt || LoadedVT == MVT::i16) && "Invalid sext update load");
switch (LoadedVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Invalid PPC load type!");
case MVT::f64: Opcode = PPC::LFDUX; break;
case MVT::f32: Opcode = PPC::LFSUX; break;
case MVT::i32: Opcode = PPC::LWZUX; break;
case MVT::i16: Opcode = isSExt ? PPC::LHAUX : PPC::LHZUX; break;
case MVT::i1:
case MVT::i8: Opcode = PPC::LBZUX; break;
}
} else {
assert(LD->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64 && "Unknown load result type!");
assert((!isSExt || LoadedVT == MVT::i16 || LoadedVT == MVT::i32) &&
"Invalid sext update load");
switch (LoadedVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Invalid PPC load type!");
case MVT::i64: Opcode = PPC::LDUX; break;
case MVT::i32: Opcode = isSExt ? PPC::LWAUX : PPC::LWZUX8; break;
case MVT::i16: Opcode = isSExt ? PPC::LHAUX8 : PPC::LHZUX8; break;
case MVT::i1:
case MVT::i8: Opcode = PPC::LBZUX8; break;
}
}
SDValue Chain = LD->getChain();
SDValue Base = LD->getBasePtr();
SDValue Ops[] = { Base, Offset, Chain };
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opcode, dl, LD->getValueType(0),
PPCLowering->getPointerTy(),
MVT::Other, Ops);
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
case ISD::AND: {
unsigned Imm, Imm2, SH, MB, ME;
uint64_t Imm64;
// If this is an and of a value rotated between 0 and 31 bits and then and'd
// with a mask, emit rlwinm
if (isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm) &&
isRotateAndMask(N->getOperand(0).getNode(), Imm, false, SH, MB, ME)) {
SDValue Val = N->getOperand(0).getOperand(0);
SDValue Ops[] = { Val, getI32Imm(SH), getI32Imm(MB), getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
// If this is just a masked value where the input is not handled above, and
// is not a rotate-left (handled by a pattern in the .td file), emit rlwinm
if (isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm) &&
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
isRunOfOnes(Imm, MB, ME) &&
N->getOperand(0).getOpcode() != ISD::ROTL) {
SDValue Val = N->getOperand(0);
SDValue Ops[] = { Val, getI32Imm(0), getI32Imm(MB), getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
// If this is a 64-bit zero-extension mask, emit rldicl.
if (isInt64Immediate(N->getOperand(1).getNode(), Imm64) &&
isMask_64(Imm64)) {
SDValue Val = N->getOperand(0);
MB = 64 - CountTrailingOnes_64(Imm64);
SH = 0;
// If the operand is a logical right shift, we can fold it into this
// instruction: rldicl(rldicl(x, 64-n, n), 0, mb) -> rldicl(x, 64-n, mb)
// for n <= mb. The right shift is really a left rotate followed by a
// mask, and this mask is a more-restrictive sub-mask of the mask implied
// by the shift.
if (Val.getOpcode() == ISD::SRL &&
isInt32Immediate(Val.getOperand(1).getNode(), Imm) && Imm <= MB) {
assert(Imm < 64 && "Illegal shift amount");
Val = Val.getOperand(0);
SH = 64 - Imm;
}
SDValue Ops[] = { Val, getI32Imm(SH), getI32Imm(MB) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLDICL, MVT::i64, Ops);
}
// AND X, 0 -> 0, not "rlwinm 32".
if (isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm) && (Imm == 0)) {
ReplaceUses(SDValue(N, 0), N->getOperand(1));
return nullptr;
}
// ISD::OR doesn't get all the bitfield insertion fun.
// (and (or x, c1), c2) where isRunOfOnes(~(c1^c2)) is a bitfield insert
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
if (isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(1), Imm) &&
N->getOperand(0).getOpcode() == ISD::OR &&
isInt32Immediate(N->getOperand(0).getOperand(1), Imm2)) {
unsigned MB, ME;
Imm = ~(Imm^Imm2);
if (isRunOfOnes(Imm, MB, ME)) {
SDValue Ops[] = { N->getOperand(0).getOperand(0),
N->getOperand(0).getOperand(1),
getI32Imm(0), getI32Imm(MB),getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::RLWIMI, dl, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Other cases are autogenerated.
break;
}
case ISD::OR:
if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32)
if (SDNode *I = SelectBitfieldInsert(N))
return I;
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Other cases are autogenerated.
break;
2005-08-19 07:38:00 +08:00
case ISD::SHL: {
unsigned Imm, SH, MB, ME;
if (isOpcWithIntImmediate(N->getOperand(0).getNode(), ISD::AND, Imm) &&
isRotateAndMask(N, Imm, true, SH, MB, ME)) {
SDValue Ops[] = { N->getOperand(0).getOperand(0),
getI32Imm(SH), getI32Imm(MB), getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Other cases are autogenerated.
break;
2005-08-19 07:38:00 +08:00
}
case ISD::SRL: {
unsigned Imm, SH, MB, ME;
if (isOpcWithIntImmediate(N->getOperand(0).getNode(), ISD::AND, Imm) &&
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
isRotateAndMask(N, Imm, true, SH, MB, ME)) {
SDValue Ops[] = { N->getOperand(0).getOperand(0),
getI32Imm(SH), getI32Imm(MB), getI32Imm(ME) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::RLWINM, MVT::i32, Ops);
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
// Other cases are autogenerated.
break;
2005-08-19 07:38:00 +08:00
}
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
// FIXME: Remove this once the ANDI glue bug is fixed:
case PPCISD::ANDIo_1_EQ_BIT:
case PPCISD::ANDIo_1_GT_BIT: {
if (!ANDIGlueBug)
break;
EVT InVT = N->getOperand(0).getValueType();
assert((InVT == MVT::i64 || InVT == MVT::i32) &&
"Invalid input type for ANDIo_1_EQ_BIT");
unsigned Opcode = (InVT == MVT::i64) ? PPC::ANDIo8 : PPC::ANDIo;
SDValue AndI(CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opcode, dl, InVT, MVT::Glue,
N->getOperand(0),
CurDAG->getTargetConstant(1, InVT)), 0);
SDValue CR0Reg = CurDAG->getRegister(PPC::CR0, MVT::i32);
SDValue SRIdxVal =
CurDAG->getTargetConstant(N->getOpcode() == PPCISD::ANDIo_1_EQ_BIT ?
PPC::sub_eq : PPC::sub_gt, MVT::i32);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, TargetOpcode::EXTRACT_SUBREG, MVT::i1,
CR0Reg, SRIdxVal,
SDValue(AndI.getNode(), 1) /* glue */);
}
case ISD::SELECT_CC: {
ISD::CondCode CC = cast<CondCodeSDNode>(N->getOperand(4))->get();
EVT PtrVT = CurDAG->getTargetLoweringInfo().getPointerTy();
bool isPPC64 = (PtrVT == MVT::i64);
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
// If this is a select of i1 operands, we'll pattern match it.
if (PPCSubTarget->useCRBits() &&
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
N->getOperand(0).getValueType() == MVT::i1)
break;
// Handle the setcc cases here. select_cc lhs, 0, 1, 0, cc
if (!isPPC64)
if (ConstantSDNode *N1C = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(1)))
if (ConstantSDNode *N2C = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(2)))
if (ConstantSDNode *N3C = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(3)))
if (N1C->isNullValue() && N3C->isNullValue() &&
N2C->getZExtValue() == 1ULL && CC == ISD::SETNE &&
// FIXME: Implement this optzn for PPC64.
N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32) {
SDNode *Tmp =
CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDIC, dl, MVT::i32, MVT::Glue,
N->getOperand(0), getI32Imm(~0U));
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::SUBFE, MVT::i32,
SDValue(Tmp, 0), N->getOperand(0),
SDValue(Tmp, 1));
}
SDValue CCReg = SelectCC(N->getOperand(0), N->getOperand(1), CC, dl);
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i1) {
// An i1 select is: (c & t) | (!c & f).
bool Inv;
unsigned Idx = getCRIdxForSetCC(CC, Inv);
unsigned SRI;
switch (Idx) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Invalid CC index");
case 0: SRI = PPC::sub_lt; break;
case 1: SRI = PPC::sub_gt; break;
case 2: SRI = PPC::sub_eq; break;
case 3: SRI = PPC::sub_un; break;
}
SDValue CCBit = CurDAG->getTargetExtractSubreg(SRI, dl, MVT::i1, CCReg);
SDValue NotCCBit(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, dl, MVT::i1,
CCBit, CCBit), 0);
SDValue C = Inv ? NotCCBit : CCBit,
NotC = Inv ? CCBit : NotCCBit;
SDValue CAndT(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRAND, dl, MVT::i1,
C, N->getOperand(2)), 0);
SDValue NotCAndF(CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRAND, dl, MVT::i1,
NotC, N->getOperand(3)), 0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::CROR, MVT::i1, CAndT, NotCAndF);
}
unsigned BROpc = getPredicateForSetCC(CC);
unsigned SelectCCOp;
if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i32)
SelectCCOp = PPC::SELECT_CC_I4;
else if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64)
SelectCCOp = PPC::SELECT_CC_I8;
else if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::f32)
SelectCCOp = PPC::SELECT_CC_F4;
else if (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::f64)
SelectCCOp = PPC::SELECT_CC_F8;
else
SelectCCOp = PPC::SELECT_CC_VRRC;
SDValue Ops[] = { CCReg, N->getOperand(2), N->getOperand(3),
getI32Imm(BROpc) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, SelectCCOp, N->getValueType(0), Ops);
}
case ISD::VSELECT:
if (PPCSubTarget->hasVSX()) {
SDValue Ops[] = { N->getOperand(2), N->getOperand(1), N->getOperand(0) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::XXSEL, N->getValueType(0), Ops);
}
break;
case ISD::VECTOR_SHUFFLE:
if (PPCSubTarget->hasVSX() && (N->getValueType(0) == MVT::v2f64 ||
N->getValueType(0) == MVT::v2i64)) {
ShuffleVectorSDNode *SVN = cast<ShuffleVectorSDNode>(N);
SDValue Op1 = N->getOperand(SVN->getMaskElt(0) < 2 ? 0 : 1),
Op2 = N->getOperand(SVN->getMaskElt(1) < 2 ? 0 : 1);
unsigned DM[2];
for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
if (SVN->getMaskElt(i) <= 0 || SVN->getMaskElt(i) == 2)
DM[i] = 0;
else
DM[i] = 1;
SDValue DMV = CurDAG->getTargetConstant(DM[1] | (DM[0] << 1), MVT::i32);
if (Op1 == Op2 && DM[0] == 0 && DM[1] == 0 &&
Op1.getOpcode() == ISD::SCALAR_TO_VECTOR &&
isa<LoadSDNode>(Op1.getOperand(0))) {
LoadSDNode *LD = cast<LoadSDNode>(Op1.getOperand(0));
SDValue Base, Offset;
if (LD->isUnindexed() &&
SelectAddrIdxOnly(LD->getBasePtr(), Base, Offset)) {
SDValue Chain = LD->getChain();
SDValue Ops[] = { Base, Offset, Chain };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::LXVDSX,
N->getValueType(0), Ops);
}
}
SDValue Ops[] = { Op1, Op2, DMV };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::XXPERMDI, N->getValueType(0), Ops);
}
break;
Implement PPC counter loops as a late IR-level pass The old PPCCTRLoops pass, like the Hexagon pass version from which it was derived, could only handle some simple loops in canonical form. We cannot directly adapt the new Hexagon hardware loops pass, however, because the Hexagon pass contains a fundamental assumption that non-constant-trip-count loops will contain a guard, and this is not always true (the result being that incorrect negative counts can be generated). With this commit, we replace the pass with a late IR-level pass which makes use of SE to calculate the backedge-taken counts and safely generate the loop-count expressions (including any necessary max() parts). This IR level pass inserts custom intrinsics that are lowered into the desired decrement-and-branch instructions. The most fragile part of this new implementation is that interfering uses of the counter register must be detected on the IR level (and, on PPC, this also includes any indirect branches in addition to function calls). Also, to make all of this work, we need a variant of the mtctr instruction that is marked as having side effects. Without this, machine-code level CSE, DCE, etc. illegally transform the resulting code. Hopefully, this can be improved in the future. This new pass is smaller than the original (and much smaller than the new Hexagon hardware loops pass), and can handle many additional cases correctly. In addition, the preheader-creation code has been copied from LoopSimplify, and after we decide on where it belongs, this code will be refactored so that it can be explicitly shared (making this implementation even smaller). The new test-case files ctrloop-{le,lt,ne}.ll have been adapted from tests for the new Hexagon pass. There are a few classes of loops that this pass does not transform (noted by FIXMEs in the files), but these deficiencies can be addressed within the SE infrastructure (thus helping many other passes as well). llvm-svn: 181927
2013-05-16 05:37:41 +08:00
case PPCISD::BDNZ:
case PPCISD::BDZ: {
bool IsPPC64 = PPCSubTarget->isPPC64();
Implement PPC counter loops as a late IR-level pass The old PPCCTRLoops pass, like the Hexagon pass version from which it was derived, could only handle some simple loops in canonical form. We cannot directly adapt the new Hexagon hardware loops pass, however, because the Hexagon pass contains a fundamental assumption that non-constant-trip-count loops will contain a guard, and this is not always true (the result being that incorrect negative counts can be generated). With this commit, we replace the pass with a late IR-level pass which makes use of SE to calculate the backedge-taken counts and safely generate the loop-count expressions (including any necessary max() parts). This IR level pass inserts custom intrinsics that are lowered into the desired decrement-and-branch instructions. The most fragile part of this new implementation is that interfering uses of the counter register must be detected on the IR level (and, on PPC, this also includes any indirect branches in addition to function calls). Also, to make all of this work, we need a variant of the mtctr instruction that is marked as having side effects. Without this, machine-code level CSE, DCE, etc. illegally transform the resulting code. Hopefully, this can be improved in the future. This new pass is smaller than the original (and much smaller than the new Hexagon hardware loops pass), and can handle many additional cases correctly. In addition, the preheader-creation code has been copied from LoopSimplify, and after we decide on where it belongs, this code will be refactored so that it can be explicitly shared (making this implementation even smaller). The new test-case files ctrloop-{le,lt,ne}.ll have been adapted from tests for the new Hexagon pass. There are a few classes of loops that this pass does not transform (noted by FIXMEs in the files), but these deficiencies can be addressed within the SE infrastructure (thus helping many other passes as well). llvm-svn: 181927
2013-05-16 05:37:41 +08:00
SDValue Ops[] = { N->getOperand(1), N->getOperand(0) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, N->getOpcode() == PPCISD::BDNZ ?
(IsPPC64 ? PPC::BDNZ8 : PPC::BDNZ) :
(IsPPC64 ? PPC::BDZ8 : PPC::BDZ),
MVT::Other, Ops);
Implement PPC counter loops as a late IR-level pass The old PPCCTRLoops pass, like the Hexagon pass version from which it was derived, could only handle some simple loops in canonical form. We cannot directly adapt the new Hexagon hardware loops pass, however, because the Hexagon pass contains a fundamental assumption that non-constant-trip-count loops will contain a guard, and this is not always true (the result being that incorrect negative counts can be generated). With this commit, we replace the pass with a late IR-level pass which makes use of SE to calculate the backedge-taken counts and safely generate the loop-count expressions (including any necessary max() parts). This IR level pass inserts custom intrinsics that are lowered into the desired decrement-and-branch instructions. The most fragile part of this new implementation is that interfering uses of the counter register must be detected on the IR level (and, on PPC, this also includes any indirect branches in addition to function calls). Also, to make all of this work, we need a variant of the mtctr instruction that is marked as having side effects. Without this, machine-code level CSE, DCE, etc. illegally transform the resulting code. Hopefully, this can be improved in the future. This new pass is smaller than the original (and much smaller than the new Hexagon hardware loops pass), and can handle many additional cases correctly. In addition, the preheader-creation code has been copied from LoopSimplify, and after we decide on where it belongs, this code will be refactored so that it can be explicitly shared (making this implementation even smaller). The new test-case files ctrloop-{le,lt,ne}.ll have been adapted from tests for the new Hexagon pass. There are a few classes of loops that this pass does not transform (noted by FIXMEs in the files), but these deficiencies can be addressed within the SE infrastructure (thus helping many other passes as well). llvm-svn: 181927
2013-05-16 05:37:41 +08:00
}
case PPCISD::COND_BRANCH: {
// Op #0 is the Chain.
// Op #1 is the PPC::PRED_* number.
// Op #2 is the CR#
// Op #3 is the Dest MBB
// Op #4 is the Flag.
// Prevent PPC::PRED_* from being selected into LI.
SDValue Pred =
getI32Imm(cast<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(1))->getZExtValue());
SDValue Ops[] = { Pred, N->getOperand(2), N->getOperand(3),
N->getOperand(0), N->getOperand(4) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::BCC, MVT::Other, Ops);
}
case ISD::BR_CC: {
ISD::CondCode CC = cast<CondCodeSDNode>(N->getOperand(1))->get();
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
unsigned PCC = getPredicateForSetCC(CC);
if (N->getOperand(2).getValueType() == MVT::i1) {
unsigned Opc;
bool Swap;
switch (PCC) {
default: llvm_unreachable("Unexpected Boolean-operand predicate");
case PPC::PRED_LT: Opc = PPC::CRANDC; Swap = true; break;
case PPC::PRED_LE: Opc = PPC::CRORC; Swap = true; break;
case PPC::PRED_EQ: Opc = PPC::CREQV; Swap = false; break;
case PPC::PRED_GE: Opc = PPC::CRORC; Swap = false; break;
case PPC::PRED_GT: Opc = PPC::CRANDC; Swap = false; break;
case PPC::PRED_NE: Opc = PPC::CRXOR; Swap = false; break;
}
SDValue BitComp(CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc, dl, MVT::i1,
N->getOperand(Swap ? 3 : 2),
N->getOperand(Swap ? 2 : 3)), 0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::BC, MVT::Other,
BitComp, N->getOperand(4), N->getOperand(0));
}
SDValue CondCode = SelectCC(N->getOperand(2), N->getOperand(3), CC, dl);
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
SDValue Ops[] = { getI32Imm(PCC), CondCode,
N->getOperand(4), N->getOperand(0) };
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::BCC, MVT::Other, Ops);
}
case ISD::BRIND: {
// FIXME: Should custom lower this.
SDValue Chain = N->getOperand(0);
SDValue Target = N->getOperand(1);
unsigned Opc = Target.getValueType() == MVT::i32 ? PPC::MTCTR : PPC::MTCTR8;
unsigned Reg = Target.getValueType() == MVT::i32 ? PPC::BCTR : PPC::BCTR8;
Chain = SDValue(CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc, dl, MVT::Glue, Target,
Chain), 0);
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, Reg, MVT::Other, Chain);
}
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
case PPCISD::TOC_ENTRY: {
if (PPCSubTarget->isSVR4ABI() && !PPCSubTarget->isPPC64()) {
SDValue GA = N->getOperand(0);
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LWZtoc, dl, MVT::i32, GA,
N->getOperand(1));
}
assert (PPCSubTarget->isPPC64() &&
"Only supported for 64-bit ABI and 32-bit SVR4");
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
// For medium and large code model, we generate two instructions as
// described below. Otherwise we allow SelectCodeCommon to handle this,
// selecting one of LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT.
CodeModel::Model CModel = TM.getCodeModel();
if (CModel != CodeModel::Medium && CModel != CodeModel::Large)
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
break;
// The first source operand is a TargetGlobalAddress or a TargetJumpTable.
// If it is an externally defined symbol, a symbol with common linkage,
// a non-local function address, or a jump table address, or if we are
// generating code for large code model, we generate:
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
// LDtocL(<ga:@sym>, ADDIStocHA(%X2, <ga:@sym>))
// Otherwise we generate:
// ADDItocL(ADDIStocHA(%X2, <ga:@sym>), <ga:@sym>)
SDValue GA = N->getOperand(0);
SDValue TOCbase = N->getOperand(1);
SDNode *Tmp = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDIStocHA, dl, MVT::i64,
TOCbase, GA);
if (isa<JumpTableSDNode>(GA) || CModel == CodeModel::Large)
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LDtocL, dl, MVT::i64, GA,
SDValue(Tmp, 0));
if (GlobalAddressSDNode *G = dyn_cast<GlobalAddressSDNode>(GA)) {
const GlobalValue *GValue = G->getGlobal();
if ((GValue->getType()->getElementType()->isFunctionTy() &&
(GValue->isDeclaration() || GValue->isWeakForLinker())) ||
GValue->isDeclaration() || GValue->hasCommonLinkage() ||
GValue->hasAvailableExternallyLinkage())
This patch implements medium code model support for 64-bit PowerPC. The default for 64-bit PowerPC is small code model, in which TOC entries must be addressable using a 16-bit offset from the TOC pointer. Additionally, only TOC entries are addressed via the TOC pointer. With medium code model, TOC entries and data sections can all be addressed via the TOC pointer using a 32-bit offset. Cooperation with the linker allows 16-bit offsets to be used when these are sufficient, reducing the number of extra instructions that need to be executed. Medium code model also does not generate explicit TOC entries in ".section toc" for variables that are wholly internal to the compilation unit. Consider a load of an external 4-byte integer. With small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei With medium model, it instead generates: addis 3, 2, .LC1@toc@ha ld 3, .LC1@toc@l(3) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc ei[TC],ei Here .LC1@toc@ha is a relocation requesting the upper 16 bits of the 32-bit offset of ei's TOC entry from the TOC base pointer. Similarly, .LC1@toc@l is a relocation requesting the lower 16 bits. Note that if the linker determines that ei's TOC entry is within a 16-bit offset of the TOC base pointer, it will replace the "addis" with a "nop", and replace the "ld" with the identical "ld" instruction from the small code model example. Consider next a load of a function-scope static integer. For small code model, the compiler generates: ld 3, .LC1@toc(2) lwz 4, 0(3) .section .toc,"aw",@progbits .LC1: .tc test_fn_static.si[TC],test_fn_static.si .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 For medium code model, the compiler generates: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha addi 3, 3, test_fn_static.si@toc@l lwz 4, 0(3) .type test_fn_static.si,@object .local test_fn_static.si .comm test_fn_static.si,4,4 Again, the linker may replace the "addis" with a "nop", calculating only a 16-bit offset when this is sufficient. Note that it would be more efficient for the compiler to generate: addis 3, 2, test_fn_static.si@toc@ha lwz 4, test_fn_static.si@toc@l(3) The current patch does not perform this optimization yet. This will be addressed as a peephole optimization in a later patch. For the moment, the default code model for 64-bit PowerPC will remain the small code model. We plan to eventually change the default to medium code model, which matches current upstream GCC behavior. Note that the different code models are ABI-compatible, so code compiled with different models will be linked and execute correctly. I've tested the regression suite and the application/benchmark test suite in two ways: Once with the patch as submitted here, and once with additional logic to force medium code model as the default. The tests all compile cleanly, with one exception. The mandel-2 application test fails due to an unrelated ABI compatibility with passing complex numbers. It just so happens that small code model was incredibly lucky, in that temporary values in floating-point registers held the expected values needed by the external library routine that was called incorrectly. My current thought is to correct the ABI problems with _Complex before making medium code model the default, to avoid introducing this "regression." Here are a few comments on how the patch works, since the selection code can be difficult to follow: The existing logic for small code model defines three pseudo-instructions: LDtoc for most uses, LDtocJTI for jump table addresses, and LDtocCPT for constant pool addresses. These are expanded by SelectCodeCommon(). The pseudo-instruction approach doesn't work for medium code model, because we need to generate two instructions when we match the same pattern. Instead, new logic in PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select() intercepts the TOC_ENTRY node for medium code model, and generates an ADDIStocHA followed by either a LDtocL or an ADDItocL. These new node types correspond naturally to the sequences described above. The addis/ld sequence is generated for the following cases: * Jump table addresses * Function addresses * External global variables * Tentative definitions of global variables (common linkage) The addis/addi sequence is generated for the following cases: * Constant pool entries * File-scope static global variables * Function-scope static variables Expanding to the two-instruction sequences at select time exposes the instructions to subsequent optimization, particularly scheduling. The rest of the processing occurs at assembly time, in PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction. Each of the instructions is converted to a "real" PowerPC instruction. When a TOC entry needs to be created, this is done here in the same manner as for the existing LDtoc, LDtocJTI, and LDtocCPT pseudo-instructions (I factored out a new routine to handle this). I had originally thought that if a TOC entry was needed for LDtocL or ADDItocL, it would already have been generated for the previous ADDIStocHA. However, at higher optimization levels, the ADDIStocHA may appear in a different block, which may be assembled textually following the block containing the LDtocL or ADDItocL. So it is necessary to include the possibility of creating a new TOC entry for those two instructions. Note that for LDtocL, we generate a new form of LD called LDrs. This allows specifying the @toc@l relocation for the offset field of the LD instruction (i.e., the offset is replaced by a SymbolLo relocation). When the peephole optimization described above is added, we will need to do similar things for all immediate-form load and store operations. The seven "mcm-n.ll" test cases are kept separate because otherwise the intermingling of various TOC entries and so forth makes the tests fragile and hard to understand. The above assumes use of an external assembler. For use of the integrated assembler, new relocations are added and used by PPCELFObjectWriter. Testing is done with "mcm-obj.ll", which tests for proper generation of the various relocations for the same sequences tested with the external assembler. llvm-svn: 168708
2012-11-28 01:35:46 +08:00
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::LDtocL, dl, MVT::i64, GA,
SDValue(Tmp, 0));
}
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::ADDItocL, dl, MVT::i64,
SDValue(Tmp, 0), GA);
}
case PPCISD::PPC32_PICGOT: {
// Generate a PIC-safe GOT reference.
assert(!PPCSubTarget->isPPC64() && PPCSubTarget->isSVR4ABI() &&
"PPCISD::PPC32_PICGOT is only supported for 32-bit SVR4");
return CurDAG->SelectNodeTo(N, PPC::PPC32PICGOT, PPCLowering->getPointerTy(), MVT::i32);
}
case PPCISD::VADD_SPLAT: {
// This expands into one of three sequences, depending on whether
// the first operand is odd or even, positive or negative.
assert(isa<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(0)) &&
isa<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(1)) &&
"Invalid operand on VADD_SPLAT!");
int Elt = N->getConstantOperandVal(0);
int EltSize = N->getConstantOperandVal(1);
unsigned Opc1, Opc2, Opc3;
EVT VT;
if (EltSize == 1) {
Opc1 = PPC::VSPLTISB;
Opc2 = PPC::VADDUBM;
Opc3 = PPC::VSUBUBM;
VT = MVT::v16i8;
} else if (EltSize == 2) {
Opc1 = PPC::VSPLTISH;
Opc2 = PPC::VADDUHM;
Opc3 = PPC::VSUBUHM;
VT = MVT::v8i16;
} else {
assert(EltSize == 4 && "Invalid element size on VADD_SPLAT!");
Opc1 = PPC::VSPLTISW;
Opc2 = PPC::VADDUWM;
Opc3 = PPC::VSUBUWM;
VT = MVT::v4i32;
}
if ((Elt & 1) == 0) {
// Elt is even, in the range [-32,-18] + [16,30].
//
// Convert: VADD_SPLAT elt, size
// Into: tmp = VSPLTIS[BHW] elt
// VADDU[BHW]M tmp, tmp
// Where: [BHW] = B for size = 1, H for size = 2, W for size = 4
SDValue EltVal = getI32Imm(Elt >> 1);
SDNode *Tmp = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc1, dl, VT, EltVal);
SDValue TmpVal = SDValue(Tmp, 0);
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc2, dl, VT, TmpVal, TmpVal);
} else if (Elt > 0) {
// Elt is odd and positive, in the range [17,31].
//
// Convert: VADD_SPLAT elt, size
// Into: tmp1 = VSPLTIS[BHW] elt-16
// tmp2 = VSPLTIS[BHW] -16
// VSUBU[BHW]M tmp1, tmp2
SDValue EltVal = getI32Imm(Elt - 16);
SDNode *Tmp1 = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc1, dl, VT, EltVal);
EltVal = getI32Imm(-16);
SDNode *Tmp2 = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc1, dl, VT, EltVal);
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc3, dl, VT, SDValue(Tmp1, 0),
SDValue(Tmp2, 0));
} else {
// Elt is odd and negative, in the range [-31,-17].
//
// Convert: VADD_SPLAT elt, size
// Into: tmp1 = VSPLTIS[BHW] elt+16
// tmp2 = VSPLTIS[BHW] -16
// VADDU[BHW]M tmp1, tmp2
SDValue EltVal = getI32Imm(Elt + 16);
SDNode *Tmp1 = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc1, dl, VT, EltVal);
EltVal = getI32Imm(-16);
SDNode *Tmp2 = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc1, dl, VT, EltVal);
return CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opc2, dl, VT, SDValue(Tmp1, 0),
SDValue(Tmp2, 0));
}
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
return SelectCode(N);
}
/// PostprocessISelDAG - Perform some late peephole optimizations
/// on the DAG representation.
void PPCDAGToDAGISel::PostprocessISelDAG() {
// Skip peepholes at -O0.
if (TM.getOptLevel() == CodeGenOpt::None)
return;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
PeepholePPC64();
PeepholeCROps();
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
}
// Check if all users of this node will become isel where the second operand
// is the constant zero. If this is so, and if we can negate the condition,
// then we can flip the true and false operands. This will allow the zero to
// be folded with the isel so that we don't need to materialize a register
// containing zero.
bool PPCDAGToDAGISel::AllUsersSelectZero(SDNode *N) {
// If we're not using isel, then this does not matter.
if (!PPCSubTarget->hasISEL())
return false;
for (SDNode::use_iterator UI = N->use_begin(), UE = N->use_end();
UI != UE; ++UI) {
SDNode *User = *UI;
if (!User->isMachineOpcode())
return false;
if (User->getMachineOpcode() != PPC::SELECT_I4 &&
User->getMachineOpcode() != PPC::SELECT_I8)
return false;
SDNode *Op2 = User->getOperand(2).getNode();
if (!Op2->isMachineOpcode())
return false;
if (Op2->getMachineOpcode() != PPC::LI &&
Op2->getMachineOpcode() != PPC::LI8)
return false;
ConstantSDNode *C = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(Op2->getOperand(0));
if (!C)
return false;
if (!C->isNullValue())
return false;
}
return true;
}
void PPCDAGToDAGISel::SwapAllSelectUsers(SDNode *N) {
SmallVector<SDNode *, 4> ToReplace;
for (SDNode::use_iterator UI = N->use_begin(), UE = N->use_end();
UI != UE; ++UI) {
SDNode *User = *UI;
assert((User->getMachineOpcode() == PPC::SELECT_I4 ||
User->getMachineOpcode() == PPC::SELECT_I8) &&
"Must have all select users");
ToReplace.push_back(User);
}
for (SmallVector<SDNode *, 4>::iterator UI = ToReplace.begin(),
UE = ToReplace.end(); UI != UE; ++UI) {
SDNode *User = *UI;
SDNode *ResNode =
CurDAG->getMachineNode(User->getMachineOpcode(), SDLoc(User),
User->getValueType(0), User->getOperand(0),
User->getOperand(2),
User->getOperand(1));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "CR Peephole replacing:\nOld: ");
DEBUG(User->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\nNew: ");
DEBUG(ResNode->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
ReplaceUses(User, ResNode);
}
}
void PPCDAGToDAGISel::PeepholeCROps() {
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
bool IsModified;
do {
IsModified = false;
for (SelectionDAG::allnodes_iterator I = CurDAG->allnodes_begin(),
E = CurDAG->allnodes_end(); I != E; ++I) {
MachineSDNode *MachineNode = dyn_cast<MachineSDNode>(I);
if (!MachineNode || MachineNode->use_empty())
continue;
SDNode *ResNode = MachineNode;
bool Op1Set = false, Op1Unset = false,
Op1Not = false,
Op2Set = false, Op2Unset = false,
Op2Not = false;
unsigned Opcode = MachineNode->getMachineOpcode();
switch (Opcode) {
default: break;
case PPC::CRAND:
case PPC::CRNAND:
case PPC::CROR:
case PPC::CRXOR:
case PPC::CRNOR:
case PPC::CREQV:
case PPC::CRANDC:
case PPC::CRORC: {
SDValue Op = MachineNode->getOperand(1);
if (Op.isMachineOpcode()) {
if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRSET)
Op2Set = true;
else if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRUNSET)
Op2Unset = true;
else if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRNOR &&
Op.getOperand(0) == Op.getOperand(1))
Op2Not = true;
}
} // fallthrough
case PPC::BC:
case PPC::BCn:
case PPC::SELECT_I4:
case PPC::SELECT_I8:
case PPC::SELECT_F4:
case PPC::SELECT_F8:
case PPC::SELECT_VRRC: {
SDValue Op = MachineNode->getOperand(0);
if (Op.isMachineOpcode()) {
if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRSET)
Op1Set = true;
else if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRUNSET)
Op1Unset = true;
else if (Op.getMachineOpcode() == PPC::CRNOR &&
Op.getOperand(0) == Op.getOperand(1))
Op1Not = true;
}
}
break;
}
bool SelectSwap = false;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
switch (Opcode) {
default: break;
case PPC::CRAND:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// x & x = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Set)
// 1 & y = y
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(1).getNode();
else if (Op2Set)
// x & 1 = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Unset || Op2Unset)
// x & 0 = 0 & y = 0
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRUNSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Not)
// ~x & y = andc(y, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRANDC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0));
else if (Op2Not)
// x & ~y = andc(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRANDC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNAND, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CRNAND:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// nand(x, x) -> nor(x, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (Op1Set)
// nand(1, y) -> nor(y, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Set)
// nand(x, 1) -> nor(x, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (Op1Unset || Op2Unset)
// nand(x, 0) = nand(0, y) = 1
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Not)
// nand(~x, y) = ~(~x & y) = x | ~y = orc(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRORC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// nand(x, ~y) = ~x | y = orc(y, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRORC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRAND, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CROR:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// x | x = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Set || Op2Set)
// x | 1 = 1 | y = 1
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Unset)
// 0 | y = y
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(1).getNode();
else if (Op2Unset)
// x | 0 = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Not)
// ~x | y = orc(y, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRORC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0));
else if (Op2Not)
// x | ~y = orc(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRORC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CRXOR:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// xor(x, x) = 0
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRUNSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Set)
// xor(1, y) -> nor(y, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Set)
// xor(x, 1) -> nor(x, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (Op1Unset)
// xor(0, y) = y
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(1).getNode();
else if (Op2Unset)
// xor(x, 0) = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Not)
// xor(~x, y) = eqv(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CREQV, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// xor(x, ~y) = eqv(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CREQV, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CREQV, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CRNOR:
if (Op1Set || Op2Set)
// nor(1, y) -> 0
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRUNSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Unset)
// nor(0, y) = ~y -> nor(y, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Unset)
// nor(x, 0) = ~x
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (Op1Not)
// nor(~x, y) = andc(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRANDC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// nor(x, ~y) = andc(y, x)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRANDC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CROR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CREQV:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// eqv(x, x) = 1
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Set)
// eqv(1, y) = y
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(1).getNode();
else if (Op2Set)
// eqv(x, 1) = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Unset)
// eqv(0, y) = ~y -> nor(y, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Unset)
// eqv(x, 0) = ~x
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0));
else if (Op1Not)
// eqv(~x, y) = xor(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRXOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// eqv(x, ~y) = xor(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRXOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRXOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CRANDC:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// andc(x, x) = 0
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRUNSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Set)
// andc(1, y) = ~y
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op1Unset || Op2Set)
// andc(0, y) = andc(x, 1) = 0
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRUNSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op2Unset)
// andc(x, 0) = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Not)
// andc(~x, y) = ~(x | y) = nor(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// andc(x, ~y) = x & y
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRAND, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRORC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(0)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::CRORC:
if (MachineNode->getOperand(0) == MachineNode->getOperand(1))
// orc(x, x) = 1
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op1Set || Op2Unset)
// orc(1, y) = orc(x, 0) = 1
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRSET, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1);
else if (Op2Set)
// orc(x, 1) = x
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(0).getNode();
else if (Op1Unset)
// orc(0, y) = ~y
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNOR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op1Not)
// orc(~x, y) = ~(x & y) = nand(x, y)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRNAND, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
else if (Op2Not)
// orc(x, ~y) = x | y
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CROR, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1).
getOperand(0));
else if (AllUsersSelectZero(MachineNode))
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(PPC::CRANDC, SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::i1, MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(0)),
SelectSwap = true;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
break;
case PPC::SELECT_I4:
case PPC::SELECT_I8:
case PPC::SELECT_F4:
case PPC::SELECT_F8:
case PPC::SELECT_VRRC:
if (Op1Set)
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(1).getNode();
else if (Op1Unset)
ResNode = MachineNode->getOperand(2).getNode();
else if (Op1Not)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(MachineNode->getMachineOpcode(),
SDLoc(MachineNode),
MachineNode->getValueType(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(2),
MachineNode->getOperand(1));
break;
case PPC::BC:
case PPC::BCn:
if (Op1Not)
ResNode = CurDAG->getMachineNode(Opcode == PPC::BC ? PPC::BCn :
PPC::BC,
SDLoc(MachineNode),
MVT::Other,
MachineNode->getOperand(0).
getOperand(0),
MachineNode->getOperand(1),
MachineNode->getOperand(2));
// FIXME: Handle Op1Set, Op1Unset here too.
break;
}
// If we're inverting this node because it is used only by selects that
// we'd like to swap, then swap the selects before the node replacement.
if (SelectSwap)
SwapAllSelectUsers(MachineNode);
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
if (ResNode != MachineNode) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "CR Peephole replacing:\nOld: ");
DEBUG(MachineNode->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\nNew: ");
DEBUG(ResNode->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
ReplaceUses(MachineNode, ResNode);
IsModified = true;
}
}
if (IsModified)
CurDAG->RemoveDeadNodes();
} while (IsModified);
}
void PPCDAGToDAGISel::PeepholePPC64() {
// These optimizations are currently supported only for 64-bit SVR4.
if (PPCSubTarget->isDarwin() || !PPCSubTarget->isPPC64())
return;
SelectionDAG::allnodes_iterator Position(CurDAG->getRoot().getNode());
++Position;
while (Position != CurDAG->allnodes_begin()) {
SDNode *N = --Position;
// Skip dead nodes and any non-machine opcodes.
if (N->use_empty() || !N->isMachineOpcode())
continue;
unsigned FirstOp;
unsigned StorageOpcode = N->getMachineOpcode();
switch (StorageOpcode) {
default: continue;
case PPC::LBZ:
case PPC::LBZ8:
case PPC::LD:
case PPC::LFD:
case PPC::LFS:
case PPC::LHA:
case PPC::LHA8:
case PPC::LHZ:
case PPC::LHZ8:
case PPC::LWA:
case PPC::LWZ:
case PPC::LWZ8:
FirstOp = 0;
break;
case PPC::STB:
case PPC::STB8:
case PPC::STD:
case PPC::STFD:
case PPC::STFS:
case PPC::STH:
case PPC::STH8:
case PPC::STW:
case PPC::STW8:
FirstOp = 1;
break;
}
// If this is a load or store with a zero offset, we may be able to
// fold an add-immediate into the memory operation.
if (!isa<ConstantSDNode>(N->getOperand(FirstOp)) ||
N->getConstantOperandVal(FirstOp) != 0)
continue;
SDValue Base = N->getOperand(FirstOp + 1);
if (!Base.isMachineOpcode())
continue;
unsigned Flags = 0;
bool ReplaceFlags = true;
// When the feeding operation is an add-immediate of some sort,
// determine whether we need to add relocation information to the
// target flags on the immediate operand when we fold it into the
// load instruction.
//
// For something like ADDItocL, the relocation information is
// inferred from the opcode; when we process it in the AsmPrinter,
// we add the necessary relocation there. A load, though, can receive
// relocation from various flavors of ADDIxxx, so we need to carry
// the relocation information in the target flags.
switch (Base.getMachineOpcode()) {
default: continue;
case PPC::ADDI8:
case PPC::ADDI:
// In some cases (such as TLS) the relocation information
// is already in place on the operand, so copying the operand
// is sufficient.
ReplaceFlags = false;
// For these cases, the immediate may not be divisible by 4, in
// which case the fold is illegal for DS-form instructions. (The
// other cases provide aligned addresses and are always safe.)
if ((StorageOpcode == PPC::LWA ||
StorageOpcode == PPC::LD ||
StorageOpcode == PPC::STD) &&
(!isa<ConstantSDNode>(Base.getOperand(1)) ||
Base.getConstantOperandVal(1) % 4 != 0))
continue;
break;
case PPC::ADDIdtprelL:
Flags = PPCII::MO_DTPREL_LO;
break;
case PPC::ADDItlsldL:
Flags = PPCII::MO_TLSLD_LO;
break;
case PPC::ADDItocL:
Flags = PPCII::MO_TOC_LO;
break;
}
// We found an opportunity. Reverse the operands from the add
// immediate and substitute them into the load or store. If
// needed, update the target flags for the immediate operand to
// reflect the necessary relocation information.
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Folding add-immediate into mem-op:\nBase: ");
DEBUG(Base->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\nN: ");
DEBUG(N->dump(CurDAG));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
SDValue ImmOpnd = Base.getOperand(1);
// If the relocation information isn't already present on the
// immediate operand, add it now.
if (ReplaceFlags) {
if (GlobalAddressSDNode *GA = dyn_cast<GlobalAddressSDNode>(ImmOpnd)) {
SDLoc dl(GA);
const GlobalValue *GV = GA->getGlobal();
Index: test/CodeGen/PowerPC/reloc-align.ll =================================================================== --- test/CodeGen/PowerPC/reloc-align.ll (revision 0) +++ test/CodeGen/PowerPC/reloc-align.ll (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +; RUN: llc -mcpu=pwr7 -O1 < %s | FileCheck %s + +; This test verifies that the peephole optimization of address accesses +; does not produce a load or store with a relocation that can't be +; satisfied for a given instruction encoding. Reduced from a test supplied +; by Hal Finkel. + +target datalayout = "E-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v128:128:128-n32:64" +target triple = "powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu" + +%struct.S1 = type { [8 x i8] } + +@main.l_1554 = internal global { i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8 } { i8 -1, i8 -6, i8 57, i8 62, i8 -48, i8 0, i8 58, i8 80 }, align 1 + +; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly +define signext i32 @main() #0 { +entry: + %call = tail call fastcc signext i32 @func_90(%struct.S1* byval bitcast ({ i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8, i8 }* @main.l_1554 to %struct.S1*)) +; CHECK-NOT: ld {{[0-9]+}}, main.l_1554@toc@l + ret i32 %call +} + +; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly +define internal fastcc signext i32 @func_90(%struct.S1* byval nocapture %p_91) #0 { +entry: + %0 = bitcast %struct.S1* %p_91 to i64* + %bf.load = load i64* %0, align 1 + %bf.shl = shl i64 %bf.load, 26 + %bf.ashr = ashr i64 %bf.shl, 54 + %bf.cast = trunc i64 %bf.ashr to i32 + ret i32 %bf.cast +} + +attributes #0 = { nounwind readonly "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" } Index: lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp (revision 185327) +++ lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp (working copy) @@ -679,7 +679,26 @@ void PPCAsmPrinter::EmitInstruction(const MachineI OutStreamer.EmitRawText(StringRef("\tmsync")); return; } + break; + case PPC::LD: + case PPC::STD: + case PPC::LWA: { + // Verify alignment is legal, so we don't create relocations + // that can't be supported. + // FIXME: This test is currently disabled for Darwin. The test + // suite shows a handful of test cases that fail this check for + // Darwin. Those need to be investigated before this sanity test + // can be enabled for those subtargets. + if (!Subtarget.isDarwin()) { + unsigned OpNum = (MI->getOpcode() == PPC::STD) ? 2 : 1; + const MachineOperand &MO = MI->getOperand(OpNum); + if (MO.isGlobal() && MO.getGlobal()->getAlignment() < 4) + llvm_unreachable("Global must be word-aligned for LD, STD, LWA!"); + } + // Now process the instruction normally. + break; } + } LowerPPCMachineInstrToMCInst(MI, TmpInst, *this); OutStreamer.EmitInstruction(TmpInst); Index: lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp (revision 185327) +++ lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp (working copy) @@ -1530,6 +1530,14 @@ void PPCDAGToDAGISel::PostprocessISelDAG() { if (GlobalAddressSDNode *GA = dyn_cast<GlobalAddressSDNode>(ImmOpnd)) { SDLoc dl(GA); const GlobalValue *GV = GA->getGlobal(); + // We can't perform this optimization for data whose alignment + // is insufficient for the instruction encoding. + if (GV->getAlignment() < 4 && + (StorageOpcode == PPC::LD || StorageOpcode == PPC::STD || + StorageOpcode == PPC::LWA)) { + DEBUG(dbgs() << "Rejected this candidate for alignment.\n\n"); + continue; + } ImmOpnd = CurDAG->getTargetGlobalAddress(GV, dl, MVT::i64, 0, Flags); } else if (ConstantPoolSDNode *CP = dyn_cast<ConstantPoolSDNode>(ImmOpnd)) { llvm-svn: 185380
2013-07-02 04:52:27 +08:00
// We can't perform this optimization for data whose alignment
// is insufficient for the instruction encoding.
if (GV->getAlignment() < 4 &&
(StorageOpcode == PPC::LD || StorageOpcode == PPC::STD ||
StorageOpcode == PPC::LWA)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Rejected this candidate for alignment.\n\n");
continue;
}
ImmOpnd = CurDAG->getTargetGlobalAddress(GV, dl, MVT::i64, 0, Flags);
2013-02-22 01:26:05 +08:00
} else if (ConstantPoolSDNode *CP =
dyn_cast<ConstantPoolSDNode>(ImmOpnd)) {
const Constant *C = CP->getConstVal();
ImmOpnd = CurDAG->getTargetConstantPool(C, MVT::i64,
CP->getAlignment(),
0, Flags);
}
}
if (FirstOp == 1) // Store
(void)CurDAG->UpdateNodeOperands(N, N->getOperand(0), ImmOpnd,
Base.getOperand(0), N->getOperand(3));
else // Load
(void)CurDAG->UpdateNodeOperands(N, ImmOpnd, Base.getOperand(0),
N->getOperand(2));
// The add-immediate may now be dead, in which case remove it.
if (Base.getNode()->use_empty())
CurDAG->RemoveDeadNode(Base.getNode());
}
}
2010-12-24 12:28:06 +08:00
/// createPPCISelDag - This pass converts a legalized DAG into a
/// PowerPC-specific DAG, ready for instruction scheduling.
///
FunctionPass *llvm::createPPCISelDag(PPCTargetMachine &TM) {
return new PPCDAGToDAGISel(TM);
}
static void initializePassOnce(PassRegistry &Registry) {
const char *Name = "PowerPC DAG->DAG Pattern Instruction Selection";
PassInfo *PI = new PassInfo(Name, "ppc-codegen", &SelectionDAGISel::ID,
nullptr, false, false);
Registry.registerPass(*PI, true);
}
void llvm::initializePPCDAGToDAGISelPass(PassRegistry &Registry) {
CALL_ONCE_INITIALIZATION(initializePassOnce);
}