Previously, MBP essentially aligned every branch target it could. This
bloats code quite a bit, especially non-looping code which has no real
reason to prefer aligned branch targets so heavily.
As Andy said in review, it's still a bit odd to do this without a real
cost model, but this at least has much more plausible heuristics.
Fixes PR13265.
llvm-svn: 161409
This is mostly to test the waters. I'd like to get results from FNT
build bots and other bots running on non-x86 platforms.
This feature has been pretty heavily tested over the last few months by
me, and it fixes several of the execution time regressions caused by the
inlining work by preventing inlining decisions from radically impacting
block layout.
I've seen very large improvements in yacr2 and ackermann benchmarks,
along with the expected noise across all of the benchmark suite whenever
code layout changes. I've analyzed all of the regressions and fixed
them, or found them to be impossible to fix. See my email to llvmdev for
more details.
I'd like for this to be in 3.1 as it complements the inliner changes,
but if any failures are showing up or anyone has concerns, it is just
a flag flip and so can be easily turned off.
I'm switching it on tonight to try and get at least one run through
various folks' performance suites in case SPEC or something else has
serious issues with it. I'll watch bots and revert if anything shows up.
llvm-svn: 154816
* Removed test/lib/llvm.exp - it is no longer needed
* Deleted the dg.exp reading code from test/lit.cfg. There are no dg.exp files
left in the test suite so this code is no longer required. test/lit.cfg is
now much shorter and clearer
* Removed a lot of duplicate code in lit.local.cfg files that need access to
the root configuration, by adding a "root" attribute to the TestingConfig
object. This attribute is dynamically computed to provide the same
information as was previously provided by the custom getRoot functions.
* Documented the config.root attribute in docs/CommandGuide/lit.pod
llvm-svn: 153408
LSR has gradually been improved to more aggressively reuse existing code, particularly existing phi cycles. This exposed problems with the SCEVExpander's sloppy treatment of its insertion point. I applied some rigor to the insertion point problem that will hopefully avoid an endless bug cycle in this area. Changes:
- Always used properlyDominates to check safe code hoisting.
- The insertion point provided to SCEV is now considered a lower bound. This is usually a block terminator or the use itself. Under no cirumstance may SCEVExpander insert below this point.
- LSR is reponsible for finding a "canonical" insertion point across expansion of different expressions.
- Robust logic to determine whether IV increments are in "expanded" form and/or can be safely hoisted above some insertion point.
Fixes PR11783: SCEVExpander assert.
llvm-svn: 148535
These heuristics are sufficient for enabling IV chains by
default. Performance analysis has been done for i386, x86_64, and
thumbv7. The optimization is rarely important, but can significantly
speed up certain cases by eliminating spill code within the
loop. Unrolled loops are prime candidates for IV chains. In many
cases, the final code could still be improved with more target
specific optimization following LSR. The goal of this feature is for
LSR to make the best choice of induction variables.
Instruction selection may not completely take advantage of this
feature yet. As a result, there could be cases of slight code size
increase.
Code size can be worse on x86 because it doesn't support postincrement
addressing. In fact, when chains are formed, you may see redundant
address plus stride addition in the addressing mode. GenerateIVChains
tries to compensate for the common cases.
On ARM, code size increase can be mitigated by using postincrement
addressing, but downstream codegen currently misses some opportunities.
llvm-svn: 147826
After collecting chains, check if any should be materialized. If so,
hide the chained IV users from the LSR solver. LSR will only solve for
the head of the chain. GenerateIVChains will then materialize the
chained IV users by computing the IV relative to its previous value in
the chain.
In theory, chained IV users could be exposed to LSR's solver. This
would be considerably complicated to implement and I'm not aware of a
case where we need it. In practice it's more important to
intelligently prune the search space of nontrivial loops before
running the solver, otherwise the solver is often forced to prune the
most optimal solutions. Hiding the chained users does this well, so
that LSR is more likely to find the best IV for the chain as a whole.
llvm-svn: 147801
Chandler Carruth