The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
llvm-svn: 332240
Add more debug information for peephole optimization passes.
These would only be enabled for debug version binary and could help
analyzing why some optimization opportunities were missed.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327371
This new pass eliminate identical move:
MOV rA, rA
This is particularly possible to happen when sub-register support
enabled. The special type cast insn MOV_32_64 involves different
register class on src (i32) and dst (i64), RA could generate useless
instruction due to this.
This pass also could serve as the bast for further post-RA optimization.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327370
This patch relax the subregister definition check on Phi node.
Previously, we just cancel the optimizatoin when the definition is Phi
node while actually we could further check the definitions of incoming
parameters of PHI node.
This helps catch more elimination opportunities.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327368
The current zero extension elimination was restricted to operands of
comparison. It actually could be extended to more cases.
For example:
int *inc_p (int *p, unsigned a)
{
return p + a;
}
'a' will be promoted to i64 during addition, and the zero extension could
be eliminated as well.
For the elimination optimization, it should be much better to start
recognizing the candidate sequence from the SRL instruction instead of J*
instructions.
This patch makes it an generic zero extension elimination pass instead of
one restricted with comparison.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327367
There is a mistake in current code that we "break" out the optimization
when the first operand of J*_RR doesn't qualify the elimination. This
caused some elimination opportunities missed, for example the one in the
testcase.
The code should just fall through to handle the second operand.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327366
The current subregister definition check stops after the MOV_32_64
instruction.
This means we are thinking all the following instruction sequences
are safe to be eliminated:
MOV_32_64 rB, wA
SLL_ri rB, rB, 32
SRL_ri rB, rB, 32
However, this is *not* true. The source subregister wA of MOV_32_64 could
come from a implicit truncation of 64-bit register in which case the high
bits of the 64-bit register is not zeroed, therefore we can't eliminate
above sequence.
For example, for i32_val, we shouldn't do the elimination:
long long bar ();
int foo (int b, int c)
{
unsigned int i32_val = (unsigned int) bar();
if (i32_val < 10)
return b;
else
return c;
}
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327365
This pass performs peephole optimizations to cleanup ugly code sequences at
MachineInstruction layer.
Currently, the only optimization in this pass is to eliminate type
promotion
sequences for zero extending 32-bit subregisters to 64-bit registers.
If the compiler could prove the zero extended source come from 32-bit
subregistere then it is safe to erase those promotion sequece, because the
upper half of the underlying 64-bit registers were zeroed implicitly
already.
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 325991
Nicola Zaghen