The original code attempted to do this, but the std::abs() call didn't
actually do anything due to implicit type conversions. Fix the type
conversions, and perform the correct check for negative immediates.
This probably has very little practical impact, but it's worth fixing
just to avoid confusion in the future, I think.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48907
llvm-svn: 336742
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
The post-dominance property is not sufficient to guarantee that a restore point
inside a loop is safe.
E.g.,
while(1) {
Save
Restore
if (...)
break;
use/def CSRs
}
All the uses/defs of CSRs are dominated by Save and post-dominated
by Restore. However, the CSRs uses are still reachable after
Restore and before Save are executed.
This fixes PR25824
llvm-svn: 255613
Eli Friedman