When generating table jump code for switch statements, place the jump
table label as the first operand in the various addition instructions
in order to enable addressing mode selectors to better match index
computation and possibly fold them into the addressing mode of the
table entry load instruction.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39752
llvm-svn: 318033
The benchmarking summarized in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113525.html showed
this is beneficial for a wide range of cores.
As is to be expected, quite a few small adaptations are needed to the
regressions tests, as the difference in scheduling results in:
- Quite a few small instruction schedule differences.
- A few changes in register allocation decisions caused by different
instruction schedules.
- A few changes in IfConversion decisions, due to a difference in
instruction schedule and/or the estimated cost of a branch mispredict.
llvm-svn: 306514
When the base register (register pointing to the jump table) is the PC, we expect the jump table to directly follow the jump sequence with no intervening padding.
If there is intervening padding, the calculated offsets will not be correct. One solution would be to account for any padding in the emitted LDRB instruction, but at the moment we don't support emitting MCExprs for the load offset.
In the meantime, it's correct and only a slight amount worse to just move the padding up, from just before the jump table to just before the jump instruction sequence. We can do that by emitting code alignment before the jump sequence, as we know the number of instructions in the sequence is always 4.
llvm-svn: 286107
[Reapplying r284580 and r285917 with fix and testing to ensure emitted jump tables for Thumb-1 have 4-byte alignment]
The TBB and TBH instructions in Thumb-2 allow jump tables to be compressed into sequences of bytes or shorts respectively. These instructions do not exist in Thumb-1, however it is possible to synthesize them out of a sequence of other instructions.
It turns out this sequence is so short that it's almost never a lose for performance and is ALWAYS a significant win for code size.
TBB example:
Before: lsls r0, r0, #2 After: add r0, pc
adr r1, .LJTI0_0 ldrb r0, [r0, #6]
ldr r0, [r0, r1] lsls r0, r0, #1
mov pc, r0 add pc, r0
=> No change in prologue code size or dynamic instruction count. Jump table shrunk by a factor of 4.
The only case that can increase dynamic instruction count is the TBH case:
Before: lsls r0, r4, #2 After: lsls r4, r4, #1
adr r1, .LJTI0_0 add r4, pc
ldr r0, [r0, r1] ldrh r4, [r4, #6]
mov pc, r0 lsls r4, r4, #1
add pc, r4
=> 1 more instruction in prologue. Jump table shrunk by a factor of 2.
So there is an argument that this should be disabled when optimizing for performance (and a TBH needs to be generated). I'm not so sure about that in practice, because on small cores with Thumb-1 performance is often tied to code size. But I'm willing to turn it off when optimizing for performance if people want (also note that TBHs are fairly rare in practice!)
llvm-svn: 285690
The TBB and TBH instructions in Thumb-2 allow jump tables to be compressed into sequences of bytes or shorts respectively. These instructions do not exist in Thumb-1, however it is possible to synthesize them out of a sequence of other instructions.
It turns out this sequence is so short that it's almost never a lose for performance and is ALWAYS a significant win for code size.
TBB example:
Before: lsls r0, r0, #2 After: add r0, pc
adr r1, .LJTI0_0 ldrb r0, [r0, #6]
ldr r0, [r0, r1] lsls r0, r0, #1
mov pc, r0 add pc, r0
=> No change in prologue code size or dynamic instruction count. Jump table shrunk by a factor of 4.
The only case that can increase dynamic instruction count is the TBH case:
Before: lsls r0, r4, #2 After: lsls r4, r4, #1
adr r1, .LJTI0_0 add r4, pc
ldr r0, [r0, r1] ldrh r4, [r4, #6]
mov pc, r0 lsls r4, r4, #1
add pc, r4
=> 1 more instruction in prologue. Jump table shrunk by a factor of 2.
So there is an argument that this should be disabled when optimizing for performance (and a TBH needs to be generated). I'm not so sure about that in practice, because on small cores with Thumb-1 performance is often tied to code size. But I'm willing to turn it off when optimizing for performance if people want (also note that TBHs are fairly rare in practice!)
llvm-svn: 284580
This patch adds support for some new relocation models to the ARM
backend:
* Read-only position independence (ROPI): Code and read-only data is accessed
PC-relative. The offsets between all code and RO data sections are known at
static link time. This does not affect read-write data.
* Read-write position independence (RWPI): Read-write data is accessed relative
to the static base register (r9). The offsets between all writeable data
sections are known at static link time. This does not affect read-only data.
These two modes are independent (they specify how different objects
should be addressed), so they can be used individually or together. They
are otherwise the same as the "static" relocation model, and are not
compatible with SysV-style PIC using a global offset table.
These modes are normally used by bare-metal systems or systems with
small real-time operating systems. They are designed to avoid the need
for a dynamic linker, the only initialisation required is setting r9 to
an appropriate value for RWPI code.
I have only added support to SelectionDAG, not FastISel, because
FastISel is currently disabled for bare-metal targets where these modes
would be used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23195
llvm-svn: 278015
Momchil Velikov