This is mostly to test the waters. I'd like to get results from FNT
build bots and other bots running on non-x86 platforms.
This feature has been pretty heavily tested over the last few months by
me, and it fixes several of the execution time regressions caused by the
inlining work by preventing inlining decisions from radically impacting
block layout.
I've seen very large improvements in yacr2 and ackermann benchmarks,
along with the expected noise across all of the benchmark suite whenever
code layout changes. I've analyzed all of the regressions and fixed
them, or found them to be impossible to fix. See my email to llvmdev for
more details.
I'd like for this to be in 3.1 as it complements the inliner changes,
but if any failures are showing up or anyone has concerns, it is just
a flag flip and so can be easily turned off.
I'm switching it on tonight to try and get at least one run through
various folks' performance suites in case SPEC or something else has
serious issues with it. I'll watch bots and revert if anything shows up.
llvm-svn: 154816
once we start changing the block layout, so just nuke it. If anyone has
ideas about how to craft a code layout agnostic form of the test please
let me know.
llvm-svn: 154815
rotation. When there is a loop backedge which is an unconditional
branch, we will end up with a branch somewhere no matter what. Try
placing this backedge in a fallthrough position above the loop header as
that will definitely remove at least one branch from the loop iteration,
where whole loop rotation may not.
I haven't seen any benchmarks where this is important but loop-blocks.ll
tests for it, and so this will be covered when I flip the default.
llvm-svn: 154812
laid out in a form with a fallthrough into the header and a fallthrough
out of the bottom. In that case, leave the loop alone because any
rotation will introduce unnecessary branches. If either side looks like
it will require an explicit branch, then the rotation won't add any, do
it to ensure the branch occurs outside of the loop (if possible) and
maximize the benefit of the fallthrough in the bottom.
llvm-svn: 154806
This is a complex change that resulted from a great deal of
experimentation with several different benchmarks. The one which proved
the most useful is included as a test case, but I don't know that it
captures all of the relevant changes, as I didn't have specific
regression tests for each, they were more the result of reasoning about
what the old algorithm would possibly do wrong. I'm also failing at the
moment to craft more targeted regression tests for these changes, if
anyone has ideas, it would be welcome.
The first big thing broken with the old algorithm is the idea that we
can take a basic block which has a loop-exiting successor and a looping
successor and use the looping successor as the layout top in order to
get that particular block to be the bottom of the loop after layout.
This happens to work in many cases, but not in all.
The second big thing broken was that we didn't try to select the exit
which fell into the nearest enclosing loop (to which we exit at all). As
a consequence, even if the rotation worked perfectly, it would result in
one of two bad layouts. Either the bottom of the loop would get
fallthrough, skipping across a nearer enclosing loop and thereby making
it discontiguous, or it would be forced to take an explicit jump over
the nearest enclosing loop to earch its successor. The point of the
rotation is to get fallthrough, so we need it to fallthrough to the
nearest loop it can.
The fix to the first issue is to actually layout the loop from the loop
header, and then rotate the loop such that the correct exiting edge can
be a fallthrough edge. This is actually much easier than I anticipated
because we can handle all the hard parts of finding a viable rotation
before we do the layout. We just store that, and then rotate after
layout is finished. No inner loops get split across the post-rotation
backedge because we check for them when selecting the rotation.
That fix exposed a latent problem with our exitting block selection --
we should allow the backedge to point into the middle of some inner-loop
chain as there is no real penalty to it, the whole point is that it
*won't* be a fallthrough edge. This may have blocked the rotation at all
in some cases, I have no idea and no test case as I've never seen it in
practice, it was just noticed by inspection.
Finally, all of these fixes, and studying the loops they produce,
highlighted another problem: in rotating loops like this, we sometimes
fail to align the destination of these backwards jumping edges. Fix this
by actually walking the backwards edges rather than relying on loopinfo.
This fixes regressions on heapsort if block placement is enabled as well
as lots of other cases where the previous logic would introduce an
abundance of unnecessary branches into the execution.
llvm-svn: 154783
There is an assert at line 558 in ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph(AliasAnalysis *AA).
This assert needs to addressed for post RA scheduler. Until that assert is addressed,
any passes that uses post ra scheduler will fail. So, I am temporarily disabling the
hexagon tests until that fix is in.
The assert is as follows:
assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() &&
"Cannot schedule terminators or labels!");
llvm-svn: 154617
- FCOPYSIGN nodes that have operands of different types were not handled.
- Different code was generated depending on the endianness of the target.
Additionally, code is added that emits INS and EXT instructions, if they are
supported by target (they are R2 instructions).
llvm-svn: 154540
Original message:
Modify the code that lowers shuffles to blends from using blendvXX to vblendXX.
blendV uses a register for the selection while Vblend uses an immediate.
On sandybridge they still have the same latency and execute on the same execution ports.
llvm-svn: 154483
blendv uses a register for the selection while vblend uses an immediate.
On sandybridge they still have the same latency and execute on the same execution ports.
llvm-svn: 154396
legalizer always use the DAG entry node. This is wrong when the libcall is
emitted as a tail call since it effectively folds the return node. If
the return node's input chain is not the entry (i.e. call, load, or store)
use that as the tail call input chain.
PR12419
rdar://9770785
rdar://11195178
llvm-svn: 154370
in-register, such that we can use a single vector store rather then a
series of scalar stores.
For func_4_8 the generated code
vldr d16, LCPI0_0
vmov d17, r0, r1
vadd.i16 d16, d17, d16
vmov.u16 r0, d16[3]
strb r0, [r2, #3]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[2]
strb r0, [r2, #2]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[1]
strb r0, [r2, #1]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[0]
strb r0, [r2]
bx lr
becomes
vldr d16, LCPI0_0
vmov d17, r0, r1
vadd.i16 d16, d17, d16
vuzp.8 d16, d17
vst1.32 {d16[0]}, [r2, :32]
bx lr
I'm not fond of how this combine pessimizes 2012-03-13-DAGCombineBug.ll,
but I couldn't think of a way to judiciously apply this combine.
This
ldrh r0, [r0, #4]
strh r0, [r1]
becomes
vldr d16, [r0]
vmov.u16 r0, d16[2]
vmov.32 d16[0], r0
vuzp.16 d16, d17
vst1.32 {d16[0]}, [r1, :32]
PR11158
rdar://10703339
llvm-svn: 154340
x86 addressing modes. This allows PIE-based TLS offsets to fit directly
into an addressing mode immediate offset, which is the last remaining
code quality issue from PR12380. With this patch, that PR is completely
fixed.
To understand why this patch is correct to match these offsets into
addressing mode immediates, break it down by cases:
1) 32-bit is trivially correct, and unmodified here.
2) 64-bit non-small mode is unchanged and never matches.
3) 64-bit small PIC code which is RIP-relative is handled specially in
the match to try to fit RIP into the base register. If it fails, it
now early exits. This behavior is unchanged by the patch.
4) 64-bit small non-PIC code which is not RIP-relative continues to work
as it did before. The reason these immediates are safe is because the
ABI ensures they fit in small mode. This behavior is unchanged.
5) 64-bit small PIC code which is *not* using RIP-relative addressing.
This is the only case changed by the patch, and the primary place you
see it is in TLS, either the win64 section offset TLS or Linux
local-exec TLS model in a PIC compilation. Here the ABI again ensures
that the immediates fit because we are in small mode, and any other
operations required due to the PIC relocation model have been handled
externally to the Wrapper node (extra loads etc are made around the
wrapper node in ISelLowering).
I've tested this as much as I can comparing it with GCC's output, and
everything appears safe. I discussed this with Anton and it made sense
to him at least at face value. That said, if there are issues with PIC
code after this patch, yell and we can revert it.
llvm-svn: 154304
comprehensive testing of TLS codegen for x86. Convert all of the ones
that were still using grep to use FileCheck. Remove some redundancies
between them.
Perhaps most interestingly expand the test cases so that they actually
fully list the instruction snippet being tested. TLS operations are
*very* narrowly defined, and so these seem reasonably stable. More
importantly, the existing test cases already were crazy fine grained,
expecting specific registers to be allocated. This just clarifies that
no *other* instructions are expected, and fills in some crucial gaps
that weren't being tested at all.
This will make any subsequent changes to TLS much more clear during
review.
llvm-svn: 154303
when -ffast-math, i.e. don't just always do it if the reciprocal can
be formed exactly. There is already an IR level transform that does
that, and it does it more carefully.
llvm-svn: 154296
optimizations which are valid for position independent code being linked
into a single executable, but not for such code being linked into
a shared library.
I discussed the design of this with Eric Christopher, and the decision
was to support an optional bit rather than a completely separate
relocation model. Fundamentally, this is still PIC relocation, its just
that certain optimizations are only valid under a PIC relocation model
when the resulting code won't be in a shared library. The simplest path
to here is to expose a single bit option in the TargetOptions. If folks
have different/better designs, I'm all ears. =]
I've included the first optimization based upon this: changing TLS
models to the *Exec models when PIE is enabled. This is the LLVM
component of PR12380 and is all of the hard work.
llvm-svn: 154294
Previously we used three instructions to broadcast an immediate value into a
vector register.
On Sandybridge we continue to load the broadcasted value from the constant pool.
llvm-svn: 154284
shuffle node because it could introduce new shuffle nodes that were not
supported efficiently by the target.
2. Add a more restrictive shuffle-of-shuffle optimization for cases where the
second shuffle reverses the transformation of the first shuffle.
llvm-svn: 154266
Jakob Stoklund Olesen