maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCTargetTransformInfo.cpp

334 lines
10 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

[PM] Switch the TargetMachine interface from accepting a pass manager base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine. This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI *pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make types available in a header file for use in a different source file within each target. I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line with this move, but let me know if I missed anything. With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine. Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept a function argument as well. llvm-svn: 227685
2015-01-31 19:17:59 +08:00
//===-- PPCTargetTransformInfo.cpp - PPC specific TTI ---------------------===//
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[PM] Switch the TargetMachine interface from accepting a pass manager base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine. This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI *pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make types available in a header file for use in a different source file within each target. I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line with this move, but let me know if I missed anything. With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine. Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept a function argument as well. llvm-svn: 227685
2015-01-31 19:17:59 +08:00
#include "PPCTargetTransformInfo.h"
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h"
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
#include "llvm/CodeGen/BasicTTIImpl.h"
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Target/CostTable.h"
Re-sort all of the includes with ./utils/sort_includes.py so that subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn. Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to match the usage in Memory.inc. llvm-svn: 198685
2014-01-07 19:48:04 +08:00
#include "llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h"
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
using namespace llvm;
[Modules] Fix potential ODR violations by sinking the DEBUG_TYPE definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Target/... edition. llvm-svn: 206842
2014-04-22 10:41:26 +08:00
#define DEBUG_TYPE "ppctti"
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
static cl::opt<bool> DisablePPCConstHoist("disable-ppc-constant-hoisting",
cl::desc("disable constant hoisting on PPC"), cl::init(false), cl::Hidden);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// PPC cost model.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
TargetTransformInfo::PopcntSupportKind
PPCTTIImpl::getPopcntSupport(unsigned TyWidth) {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
assert(isPowerOf2_32(TyWidth) && "Ty width must be power of 2");
Add the PPC64 popcntd instruction PPC ISA 2.06 (P7, A2, etc.) has a popcntd instruction. Add this instruction and tell TTI about it so that popcount-loop recognition will know about it. llvm-svn: 178233
2013-03-28 21:29:47 +08:00
if (ST->hasPOPCNTD() && TyWidth <= 64)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::PSK_FastHardware;
return TTI::PSK_Software;
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(const APInt &Imm, Type *Ty) {
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
if (BitSize == 0)
return ~0U;
if (Imm == 0)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64) {
if (isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Basic;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (isInt<32>(Imm.getSExtValue())) {
// A constant that can be materialized using lis.
if ((Imm.getZExtValue() & 0xFFFF) == 0)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Basic;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return 2 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return 4 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Intrinsic::ID IID, unsigned Idx,
const APInt &Imm, Type *Ty) {
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(IID, Idx, Imm, Ty);
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
if (BitSize == 0)
return ~0U;
switch (IID) {
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
default:
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
case Intrinsic::sadd_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::uadd_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::ssub_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::usub_with_overflow:
if ((Idx == 1) && Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
break;
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support"" This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs. These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many (but not all) systems. Original commit message: This commit does two things: 1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them). 2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences (different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted from the AArch64 test cases. One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address (assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it). StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment! llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
case Intrinsic::experimental_stackmap:
if ((Idx < 2) || (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<64>(Imm.getSExtValue())))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support"" This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs. These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many (but not all) systems. Original commit message: This commit does two things: 1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them). 2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences (different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted from the AArch64 test cases. One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address (assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it). StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment! llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
break;
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_void:
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_i64:
if ((Idx < 4) || (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64 && isInt<64>(Imm.getSExtValue())))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
Revert "r225811 - Revert "r225808 - [PowerPC] Add StackMap/PatchPoint support"" This re-applies r225808, fixed to avoid problems with SDAG dependencies along with the preceding fix to ScheduleDAGSDNodes::RegDefIter::InitNodeNumDefs. These problems caused the original regression tests to assert/segfault on many (but not all) systems. Original commit message: This commit does two things: 1. Refactors PPCFastISel to use more of the common infrastructure for call lowering (this lets us take advantage of this common code for lowering some common intrinsics, stackmap/patchpoint among them). 2. Adds support for stackmap/patchpoint lowering. For the most part, this is very similar to the support in the AArch64 target, with the obvious differences (different registers, NOP instructions, etc.). The test cases are adapted from the AArch64 test cases. One difference of note is that the patchpoint call sequence takes 24 bytes, so you can't use less than that (on AArch64 you can go down to 16). Also, as noted in the docs, we take the patchpoint address to be the actual code address (assuming the call is local in the TOC-sharing sense), which should yield higher performance than generating the full cross-DSO indirect-call sequence and is likely just as useful for JITed code (if not, we'll change it). StackMaps and Patchpoints are still marked as experimental, and so this support is doubly experimental. So go ahead and experiment! llvm-svn: 225909
2015-01-14 09:07:51 +08:00
break;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(unsigned Opcode, unsigned Idx,
const APInt &Imm, Type *Ty) {
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (DisablePPCConstHoist)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getIntImmCost(Opcode, Idx, Imm, Ty);
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
assert(Ty->isIntegerTy());
unsigned BitSize = Ty->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
if (BitSize == 0)
return ~0U;
unsigned ImmIdx = ~0U;
bool ShiftedFree = false, RunFree = false, UnsignedFree = false,
ZeroFree = false;
switch (Opcode) {
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
default:
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
// Always hoist the base address of a GetElementPtr. This prevents the
// creation of new constants for every base constant that gets constant
// folded with the offset.
if (Idx == 0)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return 2 * TTI::TCC_Basic;
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
case Instruction::And:
RunFree = true; // (for the rotate-and-mask instructions)
// Fallthrough...
case Instruction::Add:
case Instruction::Or:
case Instruction::Xor:
ShiftedFree = true;
// Fallthrough...
case Instruction::Sub:
case Instruction::Mul:
case Instruction::Shl:
case Instruction::LShr:
case Instruction::AShr:
ImmIdx = 1;
break;
case Instruction::ICmp:
UnsignedFree = true;
ImmIdx = 1;
// Fallthrough... (zero comparisons can use record-form instructions)
case Instruction::Select:
ZeroFree = true;
break;
case Instruction::PHI:
case Instruction::Call:
case Instruction::Ret:
case Instruction::Load:
case Instruction::Store:
break;
}
if (ZeroFree && Imm == 0)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (Idx == ImmIdx && Imm.getBitWidth() <= 64) {
if (isInt<16>(Imm.getSExtValue()))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (RunFree) {
if (Imm.getBitWidth() <= 32 &&
(isShiftedMask_32(Imm.getZExtValue()) ||
isShiftedMask_32(~Imm.getZExtValue())))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (ST->isPPC64() &&
(isShiftedMask_64(Imm.getZExtValue()) ||
isShiftedMask_64(~Imm.getZExtValue())))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
if (UnsignedFree && isUInt<16>(Imm.getZExtValue()))
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
if (ShiftedFree && (Imm.getZExtValue() & 0xFFFF) == 0)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return TTI::TCC_Free;
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return PPCTTIImpl::getIntImmCost(Imm, Ty);
[PowerPC] [Constant Hoisting] Enable constant hoisting on PPC Implements the various TTI functions to enable constant hoisting on PPC. The only significant test-suite change is this: MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm - 20% speedup (which essentially reverses the slowdown from r206120). llvm-svn: 206141
2014-04-14 07:02:40 +08:00
}
[multiversion] Remove the function parameter from the unrolling preferences interface on TTI now that all of TTI is per-function. llvm-svn: 227741
2015-02-01 22:31:23 +08:00
void PPCTTIImpl::getUnrollingPreferences(Loop *L,
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
TTI::UnrollingPreferences &UP) {
[multiversion] Switch the TTI queries from TargetMachine to Subtarget now that we have a correct and cached subtarget specific to the function. Also, finish providing a cached per-function subtarget in the core LLVMTargetMachine -- that layer hadn't switched over yet. The only use of the TargetMachine was to re-lookup a subtarget for a particular function to work around the fact that TTI was immutable. Now that it is per-function and we haved a cached subtarget, use it. This still leaves a few interfaces with real warts on them where we were passing Function objects through the TTI interface. I'll remove these and clean their usage up in subsequent commits now that this isn't necessary. llvm-svn: 227738
2015-02-01 22:22:17 +08:00
if (ST->getDarwinDirective() == PPC::DIR_A2) {
Implement TTI getUnrollingPreferences for PowerPC The PowerPC A2 core greatly benefits from aggressive concatenation unrolling; use the new getUnrollingPreferences to enable this by default when targeting the PPC A2 core. llvm-svn: 190549
2013-09-12 05:20:40 +08:00
// The A2 is in-order with a deep pipeline, and concatenation unrolling
// helps expose latency-hiding opportunities to the instruction scheduler.
UP.Partial = UP.Runtime = true;
}
[PowerPC] Enable late partial unrolling on the POWER7 The P7 benefits from not have really-small loops so that we either have multiple dispatch groups in the loop and/or the ability to form more-full dispatch groups during scheduling. Setting the partial unrolling threshold to 44 seems good, empirically, for the P7. Compared to using no late partial unrolling, this yields the following test-suite speedups: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Adobe-C++/simple_types_constant_folding -66.3253% +/- 24.1975% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/oopack_v1p8 -44.0169% +/- 29.4881% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/pi -27.8351% +/- 12.2712% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort -30.9898% +/- 22.4647% I've speculatively added a similar setting for the P8. Also, I've noticed that the unroller does not quite calculate the unrolling factor correctly for really tiny loops because it neglects to account for the fact that not every loop body replicant contains an ending branch and counter increment. I'll fix that later. llvm-svn: 225522
2015-01-09 23:51:16 +08:00
[multiversion] Remove the function parameter from the unrolling preferences interface on TTI now that all of TTI is per-function. llvm-svn: 227741
2015-02-01 22:31:23 +08:00
BaseT::getUnrollingPreferences(L, UP);
Implement TTI getUnrollingPreferences for PowerPC The PowerPC A2 core greatly benefits from aggressive concatenation unrolling; use the new getUnrollingPreferences to enable this by default when targeting the PPC A2 core. llvm-svn: 190549
2013-09-12 05:20:40 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getNumberOfRegisters(bool Vector) {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
if (Vector && !ST->hasAltivec())
return 0;
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds <2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure. The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about unnecessary copies below). Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler are fully implemented and tested. However: - CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures: MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4 - The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the stack that shouldn't be. - A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to be fixed. - Many more regression tests are needed. Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the regular code-review procedures. llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
return ST->hasVSX() ? 64 : 32;
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getRegisterBitWidth(bool Vector) {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
if (Vector) {
if (ST->hasAltivec()) return 128;
return 0;
}
if (ST->isPPC64())
return 64;
return 32;
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getMaxInterleaveFactor() {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
unsigned Directive = ST->getDarwinDirective();
// The 440 has no SIMD support, but floating-point instructions
// have a 5-cycle latency, so unroll by 5x for latency hiding.
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_440)
return 5;
// The A2 has no SIMD support, but floating-point instructions
// have a 6-cycle latency, so unroll by 6x for latency hiding.
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_A2)
return 6;
// FIXME: For lack of any better information, do no harm...
if (Directive == PPC::DIR_E500mc || Directive == PPC::DIR_E5500)
return 1;
// For most things, modern systems have two execution units (and
// out-of-order execution).
return 2;
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getArithmeticInstrCost(
unsigned Opcode, Type *Ty, TTI::OperandValueKind Op1Info,
TTI::OperandValueKind Op2Info, TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd1PropInfo,
TTI::OperandValueProperties Opd2PropInfo) {
Remove unused variables, silences -Wunused-variable llvm-svn: 173526
2013-01-26 07:17:21 +08:00
assert(TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode) && "Invalid opcode");
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
// Fallback to the default implementation.
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getArithmeticInstrCost(Opcode, Ty, Op1Info, Op2Info,
Opd1PropInfo, Opd2PropInfo);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getShuffleCost(TTI::ShuffleKind Kind, Type *Tp, int Index,
Type *SubTp) {
return BaseT::getShuffleCost(Kind, Tp, Index, SubTp);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getCastInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Dst, Type *Src) {
Remove unused variables, silences -Wunused-variable llvm-svn: 173526
2013-01-26 07:17:21 +08:00
assert(TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode) && "Invalid opcode");
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getCastInstrCost(Opcode, Dst, Src);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *ValTy,
Type *CondTy) {
return BaseT::getCmpSelInstrCost(Opcode, ValTy, CondTy);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getVectorInstrCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Val,
unsigned Index) {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
assert(Val->isVectorTy() && "This must be a vector type");
Refine fix to bug 15041. Thanks to help from Nadav and Hal, I have a more reasonable (and even correct!) approach. This specifically penalizes the insertelement and extractelement operations for the performance hit that will occur on PowerPC processors. llvm-svn: 174725
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
int ISD = TLI->InstructionOpcodeToISD(Opcode);
assert(ISD && "Invalid opcode");
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds <2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure. The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about unnecessary copies below). Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler are fully implemented and tested. However: - CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures: MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4 - The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the stack that shouldn't be. - A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to be fixed. - Many more regression tests are needed. Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the regular code-review procedures. llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
if (ST->hasVSX() && Val->getScalarType()->isDoubleTy()) {
// Double-precision scalars are already located in index #0.
if (Index == 0)
return 0;
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds <2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure. The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about unnecessary copies below). Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler are fully implemented and tested. However: - CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures: MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4 - The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the stack that shouldn't be. - A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to be fixed. - Many more regression tests are needed. Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the regular code-review procedures. llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
}
Refine fix to bug 15041. Thanks to help from Nadav and Hal, I have a more reasonable (and even correct!) approach. This specifically penalizes the insertelement and extractelement operations for the performance hit that will occur on PowerPC processors. llvm-svn: 174725
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
// Estimated cost of a load-hit-store delay. This was obtained
// experimentally as a minimum needed to prevent unprofitable
// vectorization for the paq8p benchmark. It may need to be
// raised further if other unprofitable cases remain.
[PowerPC] Adjust load/store costs in PPCTTI This provides more realistic costs for the insert/extractelement instructions (which are load/store pairs), accounts for the cheap unaligned Altivec load sequence, and for unaligned VSX load/stores. Bad news: MultiSource/Applications/sgefa/sgefa - 35% slowdown (this will require more investigation) SingleSource/Benchmarks/McGill/queens - 20% slowdown (we no longer vectorize this, but it was a constant store that was scalarized) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pcompress2/pcompress2 - 2% slowdown Good news: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/ary3 - 54% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ary - 40% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks/ks - 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural - 30% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt - 20% speedup Unfortunately, estimating the costs of the stack-based scalarization sequences is hard, and adjusting these costs is like a game of whac-a-mole :( I'll revisit this again after we have better codegen for vector extloads and truncstores and unaligned load/stores. llvm-svn: 205658
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
unsigned LHSPenalty = 2;
if (ISD == ISD::INSERT_VECTOR_ELT)
LHSPenalty += 7;
Refine fix to bug 15041. Thanks to help from Nadav and Hal, I have a more reasonable (and even correct!) approach. This specifically penalizes the insertelement and extractelement operations for the performance hit that will occur on PowerPC processors. llvm-svn: 174725
2013-02-09 02:19:17 +08:00
// Vector element insert/extract with Altivec is very expensive,
// because they require store and reload with the attendant
// processor stall for load-hit-store. Until VSX is available,
// these need to be estimated as very costly.
if (ISD == ISD::EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT ||
ISD == ISD::INSERT_VECTOR_ELT)
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return LHSPenalty + BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
Constrain PowerPC autovectorization to fix bug 15041. Certain vector operations don't vectorize well with the current PowerPC implementation. Element insert/extract performs poorly without VSX support because Altivec requires going through memory. SREM, UREM, and VSELECT all produce bad scalar code. There's a lot of work to do for the cost model before autovectorization will be tuned well, and this is not an attempt to address the larger problem. llvm-svn: 174660
2013-02-08 04:33:57 +08:00
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
return BaseT::getVectorInstrCost(Opcode, Val, Index);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
}
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned PPCTTIImpl::getMemoryOpCost(unsigned Opcode, Type *Src,
unsigned Alignment,
unsigned AddressSpace) {
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
// Legalize the type.
std::pair<unsigned, MVT> LT = TLI->getTypeLegalizationCost(Src);
assert((Opcode == Instruction::Load || Opcode == Instruction::Store) &&
"Invalid Opcode");
[PM] Change the core design of the TTI analysis to use a polymorphic type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an extremely complex analysis group. The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR. I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes, including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form. There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque, confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it. Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation. The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here. The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even cache it. Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future work below. The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere, a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;] Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts of this. The follow up work should include at least: 1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline. 2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function. This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager. 3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2. 4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to type erase. 5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is easier to understand and less verbose to forward. 6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing the TTI in each target. Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting it sorted out very quickly. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293 llvm-svn: 227669
2015-01-31 11:43:40 +08:00
unsigned Cost = BaseT::getMemoryOpCost(Opcode, Src, Alignment, AddressSpace);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
[PowerPC] Adjust load/store costs in PPCTTI This provides more realistic costs for the insert/extractelement instructions (which are load/store pairs), accounts for the cheap unaligned Altivec load sequence, and for unaligned VSX load/stores. Bad news: MultiSource/Applications/sgefa/sgefa - 35% slowdown (this will require more investigation) SingleSource/Benchmarks/McGill/queens - 20% slowdown (we no longer vectorize this, but it was a constant store that was scalarized) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pcompress2/pcompress2 - 2% slowdown Good news: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/ary3 - 54% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ary - 40% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks/ks - 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural - 30% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt - 20% speedup Unfortunately, estimating the costs of the stack-based scalarization sequences is hard, and adjusting these costs is like a game of whac-a-mole :( I'll revisit this again after we have better codegen for vector extloads and truncstores and unaligned load/stores. llvm-svn: 205658
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
// VSX loads/stores support unaligned access.
if (ST->hasVSX()) {
if (LT.second == MVT::v2f64 || LT.second == MVT::v2i64)
return Cost;
}
bool UnalignedAltivec =
Src->isVectorTy() &&
Src->getPrimitiveSizeInBits() >= LT.second.getSizeInBits() &&
LT.second.getSizeInBits() == 128 &&
Opcode == Instruction::Load;
[PowerPC] VSX loads and stores support unaligned access I've not yet updated PPCTTI because I'm not sure what the actual relative cost is compared to the aligned uses. llvm-svn: 204848
2014-03-27 03:39:09 +08:00
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
// PPC in general does not support unaligned loads and stores. They'll need
// to be decomposed based on the alignment factor.
unsigned SrcBytes = LT.second.getStoreSize();
[PowerPC] Adjust load/store costs in PPCTTI This provides more realistic costs for the insert/extractelement instructions (which are load/store pairs), accounts for the cheap unaligned Altivec load sequence, and for unaligned VSX load/stores. Bad news: MultiSource/Applications/sgefa/sgefa - 35% slowdown (this will require more investigation) SingleSource/Benchmarks/McGill/queens - 20% slowdown (we no longer vectorize this, but it was a constant store that was scalarized) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pcompress2/pcompress2 - 2% slowdown Good news: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/ary3 - 54% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ary - 40% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks/ks - 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural - 30% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt - 20% speedup Unfortunately, estimating the costs of the stack-based scalarization sequences is hard, and adjusting these costs is like a game of whac-a-mole :( I'll revisit this again after we have better codegen for vector extloads and truncstores and unaligned load/stores. llvm-svn: 205658
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
if (SrcBytes && Alignment && Alignment < SrcBytes && !UnalignedAltivec) {
[PowerPC] Make PPCTTI::getMemoryOpCost call BasicTTI::getMemoryOpCost PPCTTI::getMemoryOpCost will now make use of BasicTTI::getMemoryOpCost to calculate the base cost of the memory access, and then adjust on top of that. There is no functionality change from this modification, but it will become important so that PPCTTI can take advantage of scalarization information for which BasicTTI::getMemoryOpCost will account in the near future. llvm-svn: 205476
2014-04-03 06:43:49 +08:00
Cost += LT.first*(SrcBytes/Alignment-1);
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
[PowerPC] Adjust load/store costs in PPCTTI This provides more realistic costs for the insert/extractelement instructions (which are load/store pairs), accounts for the cheap unaligned Altivec load sequence, and for unaligned VSX load/stores. Bad news: MultiSource/Applications/sgefa/sgefa - 35% slowdown (this will require more investigation) SingleSource/Benchmarks/McGill/queens - 20% slowdown (we no longer vectorize this, but it was a constant store that was scalarized) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pcompress2/pcompress2 - 2% slowdown Good news: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/ary3 - 54% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ary - 40% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks/ks - 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural - 30% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt - 20% speedup Unfortunately, estimating the costs of the stack-based scalarization sequences is hard, and adjusting these costs is like a game of whac-a-mole :( I'll revisit this again after we have better codegen for vector extloads and truncstores and unaligned load/stores. llvm-svn: 205658
2014-04-05 07:51:18 +08:00
// For a vector type, there is also scalarization overhead (only for
// stores, loads are expanded using the vector-load + permutation sequence,
// which is much less expensive).
if (Src->isVectorTy() && Opcode == Instruction::Store)
for (int i = 0, e = Src->getVectorNumElements(); i < e; ++i)
Cost += getVectorInstrCost(Instruction::ExtractElement, Src, i);
}
Initial implementation of PPCTargetTransformInfo This provides a place to add customized operation cost information and control some other target-specific IR-level transformations. The only non-trivial logic in this checkin assigns a higher cost to unaligned loads and stores (covered by the included test case). llvm-svn: 173520
2013-01-26 07:05:59 +08:00
return Cost;
}