In some loops, we end up generating loop induction variables that look like:
{(-1 * (zext i16 (%i0 * %i1) to i32))<nsw>,+,1}
As opposed to the simpler:
{(zext i16 (%i0 * %i1) to i32),+,-1}
i.e we count up from -limit to 0, not the simpler counting down from limit to
0. This is because the scores, as LSR calculates them, are the same and the
second is filtered in place of the first. We end up with a redundant SUB from 0
in the code.
This patch tries to make the calculation of the setup cost a little more
thoroughly, recursing into the scev members to better approximate the setup
required. The cost function for comparing LSR costs is:
return std::tie(C1.NumRegs, C1.AddRecCost, C1.NumIVMuls, C1.NumBaseAdds,
C1.ScaleCost, C1.ImmCost, C1.SetupCost) <
std::tie(C2.NumRegs, C2.AddRecCost, C2.NumIVMuls, C2.NumBaseAdds,
C2.ScaleCost, C2.ImmCost, C2.SetupCost);
So this will only alter results if none of the other variables turn out to be
different.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58770
llvm-svn: 355597
This is the most important uaddo problem mentioned in PR31754:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
...but that was overcome in x86 codegen with D57637.
That patch also corrects the inc vs. add regressions seen with the previous attempt at this.
Still, we want to make this matcher complete, so we can potentially canonicalize the pattern
even if it's an 'add 1' operation.
Pattern matching, however, shouldn't assume that we have canonicalized IR, so we match 4
commuted variants of uaddo.
There's also a test with a crazy type to show that the existing CGP transform based on this
matcher is not limited by target legality checks.
I'm not sure if the Hexagon diff means the test is no longer testing what it intended to
test, but that should be solvable in a follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57516
llvm-svn: 352998
David Green