Summary:
In the following cases, unrolling can be beneficial, even when
optimizing for code size:
1) very low trip counts
2) potential to constant fold most instructions after fully unrolling.
We can unroll in those cases, by setting the unrolling threshold to the
loop size. This might highlight some cost modeling issues and fixing
them will have a positive impact in general.
Reviewers: vsk, efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60265
llvm-svn: 358586
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
As agreed in post-commit review of r265388, I'm switching the flag to
its original value until the 90% runtime performance regression on
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort is addressed.
llvm-svn: 277524
Summary:
It is incorrect to compare TripCount (which is BECount + 1)
with extraiters (or Count) to check if we should enter unrolled
loop or not, because TripCount can potentially overflow
(when BECount is max unsigned integer).
While comparing BECount with (Count - 1) is overflow safe and
therefore correct.
Reviewer: hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19256
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 267662
For inner one of nested loops, it is more likely to be a hot loop,
and the runtime check can be promoted out from patch 0001, so the
overhead is less, we can try a doubled threshold to unroll more loops.
llvm-svn: 231632
Florian Hahn