The VSX versions have the advantage of a full 64-register target whereas the FP
ones have the advantage of lower latency and higher throughput. So what we’re
after is using the faster instructions in low register pressure situations and
using the larger register file in high register pressure situations.
The heuristic chooses between the following 7 pairs of instructions.
PPC::LXSSPX vs PPC::LFSX
PPC::LXSDX vs PPC::LFDX
PPC::STXSSPX vs PPC::STFSX
PPC::STXSDX vs PPC::STFDX
PPC::LXSIWAX vs PPC::LFIWAX
PPC::LXSIWZX vs PPC::LFIWZX
PPC::STXSIWX vs PPC::STFIWX
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38486
llvm-svn: 318651
This patch corresponds to review:
The newly added VSX D-Form (register + offset) memory ops target the upper half
of the VSX register set. The existing ones target the lower half. In order to
unify these and have the ability to target all the VSX registers using D-Form
operations, this patch defines Pseudo-ops for the loads/stores which are
expanded post-RA. The expansion then choses the correct opcode based on the
register that was allocated for the operation.
llvm-svn: 283212
This patch adds a pass for doing PowerPC peephole optimizations at the
MI level while the code is still in SSA form. This allows for easy
modifications to the instructions while depending on a subsequent pass
of DCE. Both passes are very fast due to the characteristics of SSA.
At this time, the only peepholes added are for cleaning up various
redundancies involving the XXPERMDI instruction. However, I would
expect this will be a useful place to add more peepholes for
inefficiencies generated during instruction selection. The pass is
placed after VSX swap optimization, as it is best to let that pass
remove unnecessary swaps before performing any remaining clean-ups.
The utility of these clean-ups are demonstrated by changes to four
existing test cases, all of which now have tighter expected code
generation. I've also added Eric Schweiz's bugpoint-reduced test from
PR25157, for which we now generate tight code. One other test started
failing for me, and I've fixed it
(test/Transforms/PlaceSafepoints/finite-loops.ll) as well; this is not
related to my changes, and I'm not sure why it works before and not
after. The problem is that the CHECK-NOT: of "statepoint" from test1
fails because of the "statepoint" in test2, and so forth. Adding a
CHECK-LABEL in between keeps the different occurrences of that string
properly scoped.
llvm-svn: 252651
Tony Jiang