This patch is part of the work to make PPCLoopDataPrefetch
target-independent
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92758).
As it was discussed in the above thread, getPrefetchDistance is
currently using instruction count which may change in the future.
llvm-svn: 258995
Summary:
And use it in PPCLoopDataPrefetch.cpp.
@hfinkel, please let me know if your preference would be to preserve the
ppc-loop-prefetch-cache-line option in order to be able to override the
value of TTI::getCacheLineSize for PPC.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: hulx2000, mcrosier, mssimpso, hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16306
llvm-svn: 258419
This adds a basic cost model for interleaved-access vectorization (and a better
default for shuffles), and enables interleaved-access vectorization by default.
The relevant difference from the default cost model for interleaved-access
vectorization, is that on PPC, the shuffles that end up being used are *much*
cheaper than modeling the process with insert/extract pairs (which are
quite expensive, especially on older cores).
llvm-svn: 246824
rather than 'unsigned' for their costs.
For something like costs in particular there is a natural "negative"
value, that of savings or saved cost. As a consequence, there is a lot
of code that subtracts or creates negative values based on cost, all of
which is prone to awkwardness or bugs when dealing with an unsigned
type. Similarly, we *never* want these values to wrap, as that would
cause Very Bad code generation (likely percieved as an infinite loop as
we try to emit over 2^32 instructions or some such insanity).
All around 'int' seems a much better fit for these basic metrics. I've
added asserts to ensure that at least the TTI interface never returns
negative numbers here. If we ever have a use case for negative numbers,
we can remove this, but this way a bug where someone used '-1' to
produce a 'very large' cost will be caught by the assert.
This passes all tests, and is also UBSan clean.
No functional change intended.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11741
llvm-svn: 244080
DataLayout is no longer optional. It was initialized with or without
a DataLayout, and the DataLayout when supplied could have been the
one from the TargetMachine.
Summary:
This change is part of a series of commits dedicated to have a single
DataLayout during compilation by using always the one owned by the
module.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits, rafael, yaron.keren
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11021
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 241774
The patch disabled unrolling in loop vectorization pass when VF==1 on x86 architecture,
by setting MaxInterleaveFactor to 1. Unrolling in loop vectorization pass may introduce
the cost of overflow check, memory boundary check and extra prologue/epilogue code when
regular unroller will unroll the loop another time. Disable it when VF==1 remove the
unnecessary cost on x86. The same can be done for other platforms after verifying
interleaving/memory bound checking to be not perf critical on those platforms.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9515
llvm-svn: 236613
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
intermediate TTI implementation template and instead query up to the
derived class for both the TargetMachine and the TargetLowering.
Most of the derived types had a TLI cached already and there is no need
to store a less precisely typed target machine pointer.
This will in turn make it much cleaner to look up the TLI via
a per-function subtarget instead of the generic subtarget, and it will
pave the way toward pulling the subtarget used for unroll preferences
into the same form once we are *always* using the function to look up
the correct subtarget.
llvm-svn: 227737
TargetIRAnalysis access path directly rather than implementing getTTI.
This even removes getTTI from the interface. It's more efficient for
each target to just register a precise callback that creates their
specific TTI.
As part of this, all of the targets which are building their subtargets
individually per-function now build their TTI instance with the function
and thus look up the correct subtarget and cache it. NVPTX, R600, and
XCore currently don't leverage this functionality, but its trivial for
them to add it now.
llvm-svn: 227735
null.
For some reason some of the original TTI code supported a null target
machine. This seems to have been legacy, and I made matters worse when
refactoring this code by spreading that pattern further through the
various targets.
The TargetMachine can't actually be null, and it doesn't make sense to
support that use case. I've now consistently removed it and removed all
of the code trying to cope with that situation. This is probably good,
as several targets *didn't* cope with it being null despite the null
default argument in their constructors. =]
llvm-svn: 227734
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
Adam Nemet