Prior to this patch the TypePromotionHelper was promoting only sign extensions.
Supporting zero extensions changes:
- How constants are extended.
- How sign extensions, zero extensions, and truncate are composed together.
- How the type of the extended operation is recorded. Now we need to know the
kind of the extension as well as its type.
Each change is fairly small, unlike the diff.
Most of the diff are comments/variable renaming to say "extension" instead of
"sign extension".
The performance improvements on the test suite are within the noise.
Related to <rdar://problem/18310086>.
llvm-svn: 221851
introduced in r217629.
We were returning the old sext instead of the new zext as the promoted instruction!
Thanks Joerg Sonnenberger for the test case.
llvm-svn: 217800
The current memory-instruction optimization logic in CGP, which sinks parts of
the address computation that can be adsorbed by the addressing mode, does this
by explicitly converting the relevant part of the address computation into
IR-level integer operations (making use of ptrtoint and inttoptr). For most
targets this is currently not a problem, but for targets wishing to make use of
IR-level aliasing analysis during CodeGen, the use of ptrtoint/inttoptr is a
problem for two reasons:
1. BasicAA becomes less powerful in the face of the ptrtoint/inttoptr
2. In cases where type-punning was used, and BasicAA was used
to override TBAA, BasicAA may no longer do so. (this had forced us to disable
all use of TBAA in CodeGen; something which we can now enable again)
This (use of GEPs instead of ptrtoint/inttoptr) is not currently enabled by
default (except for those targets that use AA during CodeGen), and so aside
from some PowerPC subtargets and SystemZ, there should be no change in
behavior. We may be able to switch completely away from the ptrtoint/inttoptr
sinking on all targets, but further testing is required.
I've doubled-up on a number of existing tests that are sensitive to the
address sinking behavior (including some store-merging tests that are
sensitive to the order of the resulting ADD operations at the SDAG level).
llvm-svn: 206092
profitability check due to some other checks in the addressing
mode matcher. I.e., test case for commit r201121.
<rdar://problem/16020230>
llvm-svn: 201132
mode.
Basically the idea is to transform code like this:
%idx = add nsw i32 %a, 1
%sextidx = sext i32 %idx to i64
%gep = gep i8* %myArray, i64 %sextidx
load i8* %gep
Into:
%sexta = sext i32 %a to i64
%idx = add nsw i64 %sexta, 1
%gep = gep i8* %myArray, i64 %idx
load i8* %gep
That way the computation can be folded into the addressing mode.
This transformation is done as part of the addressing mode matcher.
If the matching fails (not profitable, addressing mode not legal, etc.), the
matcher will revert the related promotions.
<rdar://problem/15519855>
llvm-svn: 200947
Quentin Colombet