Summary:
When doing the conversion: MachineInst -> MCInst, we should ignore the
implicit operands, it will expose more opportunity for InstiAlias.
Reviewed By: steven.zhang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77118
We want to run the Machine Scheduler instead of the List Scheduler after RA.
Checked with a performance run on a Power 9 machine with SPEC 2006 and while
some benchmarks improved and others degraded the geomean was slightly improved
with the Machine Scheduler.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45265
llvm-svn: 336295
The pass to expand ISEL instructions into if-then-else sequences in patch D23630
is currently disabled. This patch partially enable it by always removing the
unnecessary ISELs (all registers used by the ISELs are the same one) and folding
the ISELs which have the same input registers into unconditional copies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40497
llvm-svn: 320414
This re-commits everything that was pulled in r314244. The transformation
is off by default (patch to enable it to follow). The code is refactored
to have a single entry-point and provide fine-grained control over patterns
that it selects. This patch also fixes the bugs in the original code.
Everything that failed with the original patch has been re-tested with this
patch (with the transformation turned on). So the patch to turn this on is
soon to follow.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38575
llvm-svn: 319434
This patch enables redundant sign- and zero-extension elimination in PowerPC MI Peephole pass.
If the input value of a sign- or zero-extension is known to be already sign- or zero-extended, the operation is redundant and can be eliminated.
One common case is sign-extensions for a method parameter or for a method return value; they must be sign- or zero-extended as defined in PPC ELF ABI.
For example of the following simple code, two extsw instructions are generated before the invocation of int_func and before the return. With this patch, both extsw are eliminated.
void int_func(int);
void ii_test(int a) {
if (a & 1) return int_func(a);
}
Such redundant sign- or zero-extensions are quite common in many programs; e.g. I observed about 60,000 occurrences of the elimination while compiling the LLVM+CLANG.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31319
llvm-svn: 315888
In the past while, I've committed a number of patches in the PowerPC back end
aimed at eliminating comparison instructions. However, this causes some failures
in proprietary source and these issues are not observed in SPEC or any open
source packages I've been able to run.
As a result, I'm pulling the entire series and will refactor it to:
- Have a single entry point for easy control
- Have fine-grained control over which patterns we transform
A side-effect of this is that test cases for these patches (and modified by
them) are XFAIL-ed. This is a temporary measure as it is counter-productive
to remove/modify these test cases and then have to modify them again when
the refactored patch is recommitted.
The failure will be investigated in parallel to the refactoring effort and
the recommit will either have a fix for it or will leave this transformation
off by default until the problem is resolved.
llvm-svn: 314244
This patch just adds printing of CR bit registers in a more human-readable
form akin to that used by the GNU binutils.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31494
llvm-svn: 309001
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292154
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292128
Kang Zhang