This commit changes the interface of the vld[1234], vld[234]lane, and vst[1234],
vst[234]lane ARM neon intrinsics and associates an address space with the
pointer that these intrinsics take. This changes, e.g.,
<2 x i32> @llvm.arm.neon.vld1.v2i32(i8*, i32)
to
<2 x i32> @llvm.arm.neon.vld1.v2i32.p0i8(i8*, i32)
This change ensures that address spaces are fully taken into account in the ARM
target during lowering of interleaved loads and stores.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12985
llvm-svn: 248887
In ARMBaseInstrInfo::isProfitableToIfCvt(), there is a simple cost model in which the number of cycles is scaled by a probability to estimate the cost. However, when the number of cycles is small (which is usually the case), there is a precision issue after the computation. To avoid this issue, this patch scales those cycles by 1024 (chosen to make the multiplication a litter faster) before they are scaled by the probability. Other variables are also scaled up for the final comparison.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12742
llvm-svn: 248018
This commit makes LLVM not estimate branch probabilities when doing a
single bit bitmask tests.
The code that originally made me discover this is:
if ((a & 0x1) == 0x1) {
..
}
In this case we don't actually have any branch probability information
and should not assume to have any. LLVM transforms this into:
%and = and i32 %a, 1
%tobool = icmp eq i32 %and, 0
So, in this case, the result of a bitwise and is compared against 0,
but nevertheless, we should not assume to have probability
information.
CodeGen/ARM/2013-10-11-select-stalls.ll started failing because the
changed probabilities changed the results of
ARMBaseInstrInfo::isProfitableToIfCvt() and led to an Ifcvt of the
diamond in the test. AFAICT, the test was never meant to test this and
thus changing the test input slightly to not change the probabilities
seems like the best way to preserve the meaning of the test.
llvm-svn: 234979
Per original comment, the intention of this loop
is to go ahead and break the critical edge
(in order to sink this instruction) if there's
reason to believe doing so might "unblock" the
sinking of additional instructions that define
registers used by this one. The idea is that if
we have a few instructions to sink "together"
breaking the edge might be worthwhile.
This commit makes a few small changes
to help better realize this goal:
First, modify the loop to ignore registers
defined by this instruction. We don't
sink definitions of physical registers,
and sinking an SSA definition isn't
going to unblock an upstream instruction.
Second, ignore uses of physical registers.
Instructions that define physical registers are
rejected for sinking, and so moving this one
won't enable moving any defining instructions.
As an added bonus, while virtual register
use-def chains are generally small due
to SSA goodness, iteration over the uses
and definitions (used by hasOneNonDBGUse)
for physical registers like EFLAGS
can be rather expensive in practice.
(This is the original reason for looking at this)
Finally, to keep things simple continue
to only consider this trick for registers that
have a single use (via hasOneNonDBGUse),
but to avoid spuriously breaking critical edges
only do so if the definition resides
in the same MBB and therefore this one directly
blocks it from being sunk as well.
If sinking them together is meant to be,
let the iterative nature of this pass
sink the definition into this block first.
Update tests to accomodate this change,
add new testcase where sinking avoids pipeline stalls.
llvm-svn: 192608
Jeroen Ketema