smaller integer loads and stores.
The high-level motivation is that the frontend sometimes generates
a single whole-alloca integer load or store during ABI lowering of
splittable allocas. We need to be able to break this apart in order to
see the underlying elements and properly promote them to SSA values. The
hope is that this fixes some performance regressions on x86-32 with the
new SROA pass.
Unfortunately, this causes quite a bit of churn in the test cases, and
bloats some IR that comes out. When we see an alloca that consists soley
of bits and bytes being extracted and re-inserted, we now do some
splitting first, before building widened integer "bucket of bits"
representations. These are always well folded by instcombine however, so
this shouldn't actually result in missed opportunities.
If this splitting of all-integer allocas does cause problems (perhaps
due to smaller SSA values going into the RA), we could potentially go to
some extreme measures to only do this integer splitting trick when there
are non-integer component accesses of an alloca, but discovering this is
quite expensive: it adds yet another complete walk of the recursive use
tree of the alloca.
Either way, I will be watching build bots and LNT bots to see what
fallout there is here. If anyone gets x86-32 numbers before & after this
change, I would be very interested.
llvm-svn: 166662
Sorry for this being broken so long. =/
As part of this, switch all of the existing tests to be Little Endian,
which is the behavior I was asserting in them anyways! Add in a new
big-endian test that checks the interesting behavior there.
Another part of this is to tighten the rules abotu when we perform the
full-integer promotion. This logic now rejects cases where there fully
promoted integer is a non-multiple-of-8 bitwidth or cases where the
loads or stores touch bits which are in the allocated space of the
alloca but are not loaded or stored when accessing the integer. Sadly,
these aren't really observable today as the rest of the pass will
already ensure the invariants hold. However, the latter situation is
likely to become a potential concern in the future.
Thanks to Benjamin and Duncan for early review of this patch. I'm still
looking into whether there are further endianness issues, please let me
know if anyone sees BE failures persisting past this.
llvm-svn: 165219
Chandler Carruth