optimization.
Consider:
static void foo() {
A = alloca
...
}
static void bar() {
B = alloca
...
call foo();
}
void main() {
bar()
}
The inliner proceeds bottom up, but lets pretend it decides not to inline foo
into bar. When it gets to main, it inlines bar into main(), and says "hey, I
just inlined an alloca "B" into main, lets remember that. Then it keeps going
and finds that it now contains a call to foo. It decides to inline foo into
main, and says "hey, foo has an alloca A, and I have an alloca B from another
inlined call site, lets reuse it". The problem with this of course, is that
the lifetime of A and B are nested, not disjoint.
Unfortunately I can't create a reasonable testcase for this: the one in the
PR is both huge and extremely sensitive, because you minor tweaks end up
causing foo to get inlined into bar too early. We already have tests for the
basic alloca merging optimization and this does not break them.
llvm-svn: 120995
memcpy's like:
memcpy(A, B)
memcpy(A, C)
we cannot delete the first memcpy as dead if A and C might be aliases.
If so, we actually get:
memcpy(A, B)
memcpy(A, A)
which is not correct to transform into:
memcpy(A, A)
This patch was heavily influenced by Jakub Staszak's patch in PR8728, thanks
Jakub!
llvm-svn: 120974
difficult on current ARM implementations for a few reasons.
1. Even though a single vmla has latency that is one cycle shorter than a pair
of vmul + vadd, a RAW hazard during the first (4? on Cortex-a8) can cause
additional pipeline stall. So it's frequently better to single codegen
vmul + vadd.
2. A vmla folowed by a vmul, vmadd, or vsub causes the second fp instruction to
stall for 4 cycles. We need to schedule them apart.
3. A vmla followed vmla is a special case. Obvious issuing back to back RAW
vmla + vmla is very bad. But this isn't ideal either:
vmul
vadd
vmla
Instead, we want to expand the second vmla:
vmla
vmul
vadd
Even with the 4 cycle vmul stall, the second sequence is still 2 cycles
faster.
Up to now, isel simply avoid codegen'ing fp vmla / vmls. This works well enough
but it isn't the optimial solution. This patch attempts to make it possible to
use vmla / vmls in cases where it is profitable.
A. Add missing isel predicates which cause vmla to be codegen'ed.
B. Make sure the fmul in (fadd (fmul)) has a single use. We don't want to
compute a fmul and a fmla.
C. Add additional isel checks for vmla, avoid cases where vmla is feeding into
fp instructions (except for the #3 exceptional case).
D. Add ARM hazard recognizer to model the vmla / vmls hazards.
E. Add a special pre-regalloc case to expand vmla / vmls when it's likely the
vmla / vmls will trigger one of the special hazards.
Work in progress, only A+B are enabled.
llvm-svn: 120960
Also add asserts that the indices are valid in InsertValueInst::init(). ExtractValueInst already asserts when constructed with invalid indices.
llvm-svn: 120956
Should have no functional change other than the order of two transformations that are mutually-exclusive and the exact formatting of debug output.
Internally, it now stores the ConstantInt*s as Constant*s, and actual undef values instead of nulls.
llvm-svn: 120946
result. This allows us to compile:
void *test12(long count) {
return new int[count];
}
into:
test12:
movl $4, %ecx
movq %rdi, %rax
mulq %rcx
movq $-1, %rdi
cmovnoq %rax, %rdi
jmp __Znam ## TAILCALL
instead of:
test12:
movl $4, %ecx
movq %rdi, %rax
mulq %rcx
seto %cl
testb %cl, %cl
movq $-1, %rdi
cmoveq %rax, %rdi
jmp __Znam
Of course it would be even better if the regalloc inverted the cmov to 'cmovoq',
which would eliminate the need for the 'movq %rdi, %rax'.
llvm-svn: 120936
backend that they were all implemented except umul. This one fell back
to the default implementation that did a hi/lo multiply and compared the
top. Fix this to check the overflow flag that the 'mul' instruction
sets, so we can avoid an explicit test. Now we compile:
void *func(long count) {
return new int[count];
}
into:
__Z4funcl: ## @_Z4funcl
movl $4, %ecx ## encoding: [0xb9,0x04,0x00,0x00,0x00]
movq %rdi, %rax ## encoding: [0x48,0x89,0xf8]
mulq %rcx ## encoding: [0x48,0xf7,0xe1]
seto %cl ## encoding: [0x0f,0x90,0xc1]
testb %cl, %cl ## encoding: [0x84,0xc9]
movq $-1, %rdi ## encoding: [0x48,0xc7,0xc7,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff]
cmoveq %rax, %rdi ## encoding: [0x48,0x0f,0x44,0xf8]
jmp __Znam ## TAILCALL
instead of:
__Z4funcl: ## @_Z4funcl
movl $4, %ecx ## encoding: [0xb9,0x04,0x00,0x00,0x00]
movq %rdi, %rax ## encoding: [0x48,0x89,0xf8]
mulq %rcx ## encoding: [0x48,0xf7,0xe1]
testq %rdx, %rdx ## encoding: [0x48,0x85,0xd2]
movq $-1, %rdi ## encoding: [0x48,0xc7,0xc7,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff]
cmoveq %rax, %rdi ## encoding: [0x48,0x0f,0x44,0xf8]
jmp __Znam ## TAILCALL
Other than the silly seto+test, this is using the o bit directly, so it's going in the right
direction.
llvm-svn: 120935
foo = a - b
.long foo
instead of just
.long a - b
First, on darwin9 64 bits the assembler produces the wrong result. Second,
if "a" is the end of the section all darwin assemblers (9, 10 and mc) will not
consider a - b to be a constant but will if the dummy foo is created.
Split how we handle these cases. The first one is something MC should take care
of. The second one has to be handled by the caller.
llvm-svn: 120889
Rafael Espindola