In the case where op = add, y = base_ptr, and x = offset, this
transform:
(op y, (op x, c1)) -> (op (op x, y), c1)
breaks the canonical form of add by putting the base pointer in the
second operand and the offset in the first.
This fix is important for the R600 target, because for some address
spaces the base pointer and the offset are stored in separate register
classes. The old pattern caused the ISel code for matching addressing
modes to put the base pointer and offset in the wrong register classes,
which required no-trivial code transformations to fix.
llvm-svn: 262148
autogenerated.
Also update existing test cases which appear to be generated by it and
weren't modified (other than addition of the header) by rerunning it.
llvm-svn: 253917
The motivation for this patch starts with PR20134:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20134
void foo(int *a, int i) {
a[i] = a[i+1] + a[i+2];
}
It seems better to produce this (14 bytes):
movslq %esi, %rsi
movl 0x4(%rdi,%rsi,4), %eax
addl 0x8(%rdi,%rsi,4), %eax
movl %eax, (%rdi,%rsi,4)
Rather than this (22 bytes):
leal 0x1(%rsi), %eax
cltq
leal 0x2(%rsi), %ecx
movslq %ecx, %rcx
movl (%rdi,%rcx,4), %ecx
addl (%rdi,%rax,4), %ecx
movslq %esi, %rax
movl %ecx, (%rdi,%rax,4)
The most basic problem (the first test case in the patch combines constants) should also be fixed in InstCombine,
but it gets more complicated after that because we need to consider architecture and micro-architecture. For
example, AArch64 may not see any benefit from the more general transform because the ISA solves the sexting in
hardware. Some x86 chips may not want to replace 2 ADD insts with 1 LEA, and there's an attribute for that:
FeatureSlowLEA. But I suspect that doesn't go far enough or maybe it's not getting used when it should; I'm
also not sure if FeatureSlowLEA should also mean "slow complex addressing mode".
I see no perf differences on test-suite with this change running on AMD Jaguar, but I see small code size
improvements when building clang and the LLVM tools with the patched compiler.
A more general solution to the sext(add nsw(x, C)) problem that works for multiple targets is available
in CodeGenPrepare, but it may take quite a bit more work to get that to fire on all of the test cases that
this patch takes care of.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13757
llvm-svn: 250560
Matt Arsenault