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
Not all ConstantExprs can be represented by a global variable, for example most
pointer arithmetic other than addition of a constant, so we can't convert these
values from switch statements to lookup tables.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25550
llvm-svn: 284379
With the ROPI and RWPI relocation models we can't always have pointers
to global data or functions in constant data, so don't try to convert switches
into lookup tables if any value in the lookup table would require a relocation.
We can still safely emit lookup tables of other values, such as simple
constants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24462
llvm-svn: 283530
ARM V6T2 has instructions for efficient count-leading/trailing-zeros, so this should be
considered a cheap operation (and therefore fair game for speculation) for any ARM V6T2
implementation.
The net result of allowing this speculation for the regression tests in this patch is
that we get this code:
ctlz:
clz r0, r0
bx lr
cttz:
rbit r0, r0
clz r0, r0
bx lr
Instead of:
ctlz:
cmp r0, #0
moveq r0, #32
clzne r0, r0
bx lr
cttz:
cmp r0, #0
moveq r0, #32
rbitne r0, r0
clzne r0, r0
bx lr
This will help solve a general speculation/despeculation problem noted in PR24818:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24818
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14469
llvm-svn: 252639
Joerg Sonnenberger