Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Stephen Lin d24ab20e9b Mass update to CodeGen tests to use CHECK-LABEL for labels corresponding to function definitions for more informative error messages. No functionality change and all updated tests passed locally.
This update was done with the following bash script:

  find test/CodeGen -name "*.ll" | \
  while read NAME; do
    echo "$NAME"
    if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc.*debug" $NAME; then
      TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
      cp $NAME $TEMP
      sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
      while read FUNC; do
        sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_-]*\):\( *\)$FUNC: *\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3$FUNC:/g" $TEMP
      done
      sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-LABEL-LABEL:/;\1-LABEL:/" $TEMP
      sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-NEXT-LABEL:/;\1-NEXT:/" $TEMP
      sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-NOT-LABEL:/;\1-NOT:/" $TEMP
      sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)-DAG-LABEL:/;\1-DAG:/" $TEMP
      mv $TEMP $NAME
    fi
  done

llvm-svn: 186280
2013-07-14 06:24:09 +00:00
Chandler Carruth a3d54fe0ae Use standard promotion for i8 CTTZ nodes and i8 CTLZ nodes when the
LZCNT instructions are available. Force promotion to i32 to get
a smaller encoding since the fix-ups necessary are just as complex for
either promoted type

We can't do standard promotion for CTLZ when lowering through BSR
because it results in poor code surrounding the 'xor' at the end of this
instruction. Essentially, if we promote the entire CTLZ node to i32, we
end up doing the xor on a 32-bit CTLZ implementation, and then
subtracting appropriately to get back to an i8 value. Instead, our
custom logic just uses the knowledge of the incoming size to compute
a perfect xor. I'd love to know of a way to fix this, but so far I'm
drawing a blank. I suspect the legalizer could be more clever and/or it
could collude with the DAG combiner, but how... ;]

llvm-svn: 147251
2011-12-24 12:12:34 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 7e9453e916 Switch the lowering of CTLZ_ZERO_UNDEF from a .td pattern back to the
X86ISelLowering C++ code. Because this is lowered via an xor wrapped
around a bsr, we want the dagcombine which runs after isel lowering to
have a chance to clean things up. In particular, it is very common to
see code which looks like:

  (sizeof(x)*8 - 1) ^ __builtin_clz(x)

Which is trying to compute the most significant bit of 'x'. That's
actually the value computed directly by the 'bsr' instruction, but if we
match it too late, we'll get completely redundant xor instructions.

The more naive code for the above (subtracting rather than using an xor)
still isn't handled correctly due to the dagcombine getting confused.

Also, while here fix an issue spotted by inspection: we should have been
expanding the zero-undef variants to the normal variants when there is
an 'lzcnt' instruction. Do so, and test for this. We don't want to
generate unnecessary 'bsr' instructions.

These two changes fix some regressions in encoding and decoding
benchmarks. However, there is still a *lot* to be improve on in this
type of code.

llvm-svn: 147244
2011-12-24 10:55:54 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 15075d4b19 Cleanup this test a bit, sorting things and grouping them more clearly.
llvm-svn: 147243
2011-12-24 10:55:42 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 6b0e34c445 Manually upgrade the test suite to specify the flag to cttz and ctlz.
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
2011-12-12 11:59:10 +00:00
Craig Topper 603cc851f8 Test case for X86 LZCNT instruction selection.
llvm-svn: 141652
2011-10-11 06:47:01 +00:00