Accessing the members of a large data structures needs a lot of GEPs which
usually have large offsets due to the size of the underlying data structure. If
the offsets are too large to fit into the r+i addressing mode, these GEPs cannot
be sunk to their users' blocks and many extra registers are needed then to carry
the values of these GEPs.
This patch tries to split a large data struct starting from %base like the
following.
Before:
BB0:
%base =
BB1:
%gep0 = gep %base, off0
%gep1 = gep %base, off1
%gep2 = gep %base, off2
BB2:
%load1 = load %gep0
%load2 = load %gep1
%load3 = load %gep2
After:
BB0:
%base =
%new_base = gep %base, off0
BB1:
%new_gep0 = %new_base
%new_gep1 = gep %new_base, off1 - off0
%new_gep2 = gep %new_base, off2 - off0
BB2:
%load1 = load i32, i32* %new_gep0
%load2 = load i32, i32* %new_gep1
%load3 = load i32, i32* %new_gep2
In the above example, the struct is split into two parts. The first part still
starts from %base and the second part starts from %new_base. After the
splitting, %new_gep1 and %new_gep2 have smaller offsets and then can be sunk to
BB2 and folded into their users.
The algorithm to split data structure is simple and very similar to the work of
merging SExts. First, it collects GEPs that have large offsets when iterating
the blocks. Second, it splits the underlying data structures and updates the
collected GEPs to use smaller offsets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42759
llvm-svn: 332015
This is recommit of r287553 after fixing the invalid loop info after eliminating an empty block and unit test failures in AVR and WebAssembly :
Summary: Merging an empty case block into the header block of switch could cause ISel to add COPY instructions in the header of switch, instead of the case block, if the case block is used as an incoming block of a PHI. This could potentially increase dynamic instructions, especially when the switch is in a loop. I added a test case which was reduced from the benchmark I was targetting.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, mcrosier, manmanren, wmi, joerg, davidxl
Subscribers: joerg, qcolombet, danielcdh, hfinkel, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22696
llvm-svn: 289988
This is recommit of r287553 after fixing the invalid loop info after eliminating an empty block:
Summary: Merging an empty case block into the header block of switch could cause ISel to add COPY instructions in the header of switch, instead of the case block, if the case block is used as an incoming block of a PHI. This could potentially increase dynamic instructions, especially when the switch is in a loop. I added a test case which was reduced from the benchmark I was targetting.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, mcrosier, manmanren, wmi, joerg, davidxl
Subscribers: joerg, qcolombet, danielcdh, hfinkel, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22696
llvm-svn: 289951
Summary: Merging an empty case block into the header block of switch could cause
ISel to add COPY instructions in the header of switch, instead of the case
block, if the case block is used as an incoming block of a PHI. This could
potentially increase dynamic instructions, especially when the switch is in a
loop. I added a test case which was reduced from the benchmark I was targetting.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, mcrosier, manmanren, wmi, davidxl
Subscribers: qcolombet, danielcdh, hfinkel, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22696
llvm-svn: 287553
This is a redo of r251849 except the tests have been split into arch-specific folders
to hopefully make the bots happy.
This is a follow-up from the discussion in D12965. The block-at-a-time limitation of
SelectionDAG also came up in D13297.
Without the InstCombine change from D12965, I don't expect this patch to make any
difference in the real world because InstCombine does not shrink cases like this in
visitSwitchInst(). But we need to have this CGP safety harness in place before
proceeding with any shrinkage in D12965, so we won't generate extra extends for compares.
I've opted for IR regression tests in the patch because that seems like a clearer way to
test the transform, but PowerPC CodeGen for an i16 widening test is shown below. x86
will need more work to solve: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22473
Before:
BB#0:
mr 4, 3
extsh. 3, 4
ble 0, .LBB0_5
BB#1:
cmpwi 3, 99
bgt 0, .LBB0_9
BB#2:
rlwinm 4, 4, 0, 16, 31 <--- 32-bit mask/extend
li 3, 0
cmplwi 4, 1
beqlr 0
BB#3:
cmplwi 4, 10
bne 0, .LBB0_12
BB#4:
li 3, 1
blr
.LBB0_5:
rlwinm 3, 4, 0, 16, 31 <--- 32-bit mask/extend
cmplwi 3, 65436
beq 0, .LBB0_13
BB#6:
cmplwi 3, 65526
beq 0, .LBB0_15
BB#7:
cmplwi 3, 65535
bne 0, .LBB0_12
BB#8:
li 3, 4
blr
.LBB0_9:
rlwinm 3, 4, 0, 16, 31 <--- 32-bit mask/extend
cmplwi 3, 100
beq 0, .LBB0_14
...
After:
BB#0:
rlwinm 4, 3, 0, 16, 31 <--- mask/extend to 32-bit and then use that for comparisons
cmpwi 4, 999
ble 0, .LBB0_5
BB#1:
lis 3, 0
ori 3, 3, 65525
cmpw 4, 3
bgt 0, .LBB0_9
BB#2:
cmplwi 4, 1000
beq 0, .LBB0_14
BB#3:
cmplwi 4, 65436
bne 0, .LBB0_13
BB#4:
li 3, 6
blr
.LBB0_5:
li 3, 0
cmplwi 4, 1
beqlr 0
BB#6:
cmplwi 4, 10
beq 0, .LBB0_12
BB#7:
cmplwi 4, 100
bne 0, .LBB0_13
BB#8:
li 3, 2
blr
.LBB0_9:
cmplwi 4, 65526
beq 0, .LBB0_15
BB#10:
cmplwi 4, 65535
bne 0, .LBB0_13
...
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13532
llvm-svn: 251857
The test being performed is just an approximation anyway, so it really
shouldn't crash when things don't go entirely as expected.
Should fix PR20474.
llvm-svn: 214177
Haicheng Wu