The first variant contains all current transformations except
transforming switches into lookup tables. The second variant
contains all current transformations.
The switch-to-lookup-table conversion results in code that is more
difficult to analyze and optimize by other passes. Most importantly,
it can inhibit Dead Code Elimination. As such it is often beneficial to
only apply this transformation very late. A common example is inlining,
which can often result in range restrictions for the switch expression.
Changes in execution time according to LNT:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/fp-convert +3.03%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -11.20%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/perimeter/perimeter -10.43%
and a couple of smaller changes. For perimeter it also results 2.6%
a smaller binary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30333
llvm-svn: 298799
This generated IR based on the order of evaluation, which is different
between GCC and Clang. With that in mind you get bootstrap miscompares
if you compare a Clang built with GCC-built Clang vs. Clang built with
Clang-built Clang. Diagnosing that made my head hurt.
This also reverts commit r277337, which "fixed" the test case.
llvm-svn: 277820
Using RAUW was wrong here; if we have a switch transform such as:
18 -> 6 then
6 -> 0
If we use RAUW, while performing the second transform the *transformed* 6
from the first will be also replaced, so we end up with:
18 -> 0
6 -> 0
Found by clang stage2 bootstrap; testcase added.
llvm-svn: 277332
It looks like the two independent parts of the rotate operation (a lshr and shl) are being reordered on some bots. Add CHECK-DAGs to account for this.
llvm-svn: 277329
If a switch is sparse and all the cases (once sorted) are in arithmetic progression, we can extract the common factor out of the switch and create a dense switch. For example:
switch (i) {
case 5: ...
case 9: ...
case 13: ...
case 17: ...
}
can become:
if ( (i - 5) % 4 ) goto default;
switch ((i - 5) / 4) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
or even better:
switch ( ROTR(i - 5, 2) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
}
The division and remainder operations could be costly so we only do this if the factor is a power of two, and emit a right-rotate instead of a divide/remainder sequence. Dense switches can be lowered significantly better than sparse switches and can even be transformed into lookup tables.
llvm-svn: 277325
Joerg Sonnenberger