present in the bottom of the CFG triangle, as the transformation isn't
ever valuable if the branch can't be eliminated.
Also, unify some heuristics between SimplifyCFG's multiple
if-converters, for consistency.
This fixes rdar://10627242.
llvm-svn: 147630
code can incorrectly move the load across a store. This never
happens in practice today, but only because the current
heuristics accidentally preclude it.
llvm-svn: 147623
captured. This allows the tracker to look at the specific use, which may be
especially interesting for function calls.
Use this to fix 'nocapture' deduction in FunctionAttrs. The existing one does
not iterate until a fixpoint and does not guarantee that it produces the same
result regardless of iteration order. The new implementation builds up a graph
of how arguments are passed from function to function, and uses a bottom-up walk
on the argument-SCCs to assign nocapture. This gets us nocapture more often, and
does so rather efficiently and independent of iteration order.
llvm-svn: 147327
This has the obvious advantage of being commutable and is always a win on x86 because
const - x wastes a register there. On less weird architectures this may lead to
a regression because other arithmetic doesn't fuse with it anymore. I'll address that
problem in a followup.
llvm-svn: 147254
time regressions. In general, it is beneficial to compile-time.
Original commit message:
Fix for bug #11429: Wrong behaviour for switches. Small improvement for code
size heuristics.
llvm-svn: 147175
performance regressions (both execution-time and compile-time) on our
nightly testers.
Original commit message:
Fix for bug #11429: Wrong behaviour for switches. Small improvement for code
size heuristics.
llvm-svn: 147131
into Analysis as a standalone function, since there's no need for
it to be in VMCore. Also, update it to use isKnownNonZero and
other goodies available in Analysis, making it more precise,
enabling more aggressive optimization.
llvm-svn: 146610
I followed three heuristics for deciding whether to set 'true' or
'false':
- Everything target independent got 'true' as that is the expected
common output of the GCC builtins.
- If the target arch only has one way of implementing this operation,
set the flag in the way that exercises the most of codegen. For most
architectures this is also the likely path from a GCC builtin, with
'true' being set. It will (eventually) require lowering away that
difference, and then lowering to the architecture's operation.
- Otherwise, set the flag differently dependending on which target
operation should be tested.
Let me know if anyone has any issue with this pattern or would like
specific tests of another form. This should allow the x86 codegen to
just iteratively improve as I teach the backend how to differentiate
between the two forms, and everything else should remain exactly the
same.
llvm-svn: 146370
Patch by Brendon Cahoon!
This extends the existing LoopUnroll and LoopUnrollPass. Brendon
measured no regressions in the llvm test suite with -unroll-runtime
enabled. This implementation works by using the existing loop
unrolling code to unroll the loop by a power-of-two (default 8). It
generates an if-then-else sequence of code prior to the loop to
execute the extra iterations before entering the unrolled loop.
llvm-svn: 146245
It's always good to prune early, but formulae that are unsatisfactory
in their own right need to be removed before running any other pruning
heuristics. We easily avoid generating such formulae, but we need them
as an intermediate basis for forming other good formulae.
llvm-svn: 145906
weak variable are compiled by different compilers, such as GCC and LLVM, while
LLVM may increase the alignment to the preferred alignment there is no reason to
think that GCC will use anything more than the ABI alignment. Since it is the
GCC version that might end up in the final program (as the linkage is weak), it
is wrong to increase the alignment of loads from the global up to the preferred
alignment as the alignment might only be the ABI alignment.
Increasing alignment up to the ABI alignment might be OK, but I'm not totally
convinced that it is. It seems better to just leave the alignment of weak
globals alone.
llvm-svn: 145413
Andrew Trick