Remove movePastCSLoadStoreOps and associated code for simple pointer
increments. Update routines that depended upon other opcodes for save/restore.
Adjust all testcases accordingly.
llvm-svn: 119725
and xor. The 32-bit move immediates can be hoisted out of loops by machine
LICM but the isel hacks were preventing them.
Instead, let peephole optimization pass recognize registers that are defined by
immediates and the ARM target hook will fold the immediates in.
Other changes include 1) do not fold and / xor into cmp to isel TST / TEQ
instructions if there are multiple uses. This happens when the 'and' is live
out, machine sink would have sinked the computation and that ends up pessimizing
code. The peephole pass would recognize situations where the 'and' can be
toggled to define CPSR and eliminate the comparison anyway.
2) Move peephole pass to after machine LICM, sink, and CSE to avoid blocking
important optimizations.
rdar://8663787, rdar://8241368
llvm-svn: 119548
'db', 'ib', 'da') instead of having that mode as a separate field in the
instruction. It's more convenient for the asm parser and much more readable for
humans.
<rdar://problem/8654088>
llvm-svn: 119310
1. Fix pre-ra scheduler so it doesn't try to push instructions above calls to
"optimize for latency". Call instructions don't have the right latency and
this is more likely to use introduce spills.
2. Fix if-converter cost function. For ARM, it should use instruction latencies,
not # of micro-ops since multi-latency instructions is completely executed
even when the predicate is false. Also, some instruction will be "slower"
when they are predicated due to the register def becoming implicit input.
rdar://8598427
llvm-svn: 118135
at more than those which define CPSR. You can have this situation:
(1) subs ...
(2) sub r6, r5, r4
(3) movge ...
(4) cmp r6, 0
(5) movge ...
We cannot convert (2) to "subs" because (3) is using the CPSR set by
(1). There's an analogous situation here:
(1) sub r1, r2, r3
(2) sub r4, r5, r6
(3) cmp r4, ...
(5) movge ...
(6) cmp r1, ...
(7) movge ...
We cannot convert (1) to "subs" because of the intervening use of CPSR.
llvm-svn: 117950
operand and one of them has a single use that is a live out copy, favor the
one that is live out. Otherwise it will be difficult to eliminate the copy
if the instruction is a loop induction variable update. e.g.
BB:
sub r1, r3, #1
str r0, [r2, r3]
mov r3, r1
cmp
bne BB
=>
BB:
str r0, [r2, r3]
sub r3, r3, #1
cmp
bne BB
This fixed the recent 256.bzip2 regression.
llvm-svn: 117675
- For now, loads of [r, r] addressing mode is the same as the
[r, r lsl/lsr/asr #] variants. ARMBaseInstrInfo::getOperandLatency() should
identify the former case and reduce the output latency by 1.
- Also identify [r, r << 2] case. This special form of shifter addressing mode
is "free".
llvm-svn: 117519
the LDR instructions have. This makes the literal/register forms of the
instructions explicit and allows us to assign scheduling itineraries
appropriately. rdar://8477752
llvm-svn: 117505
explicit about the operands. Split out the different variants into separate
instructions. This gives us the ability to, among other things, assign
different scheduling itineraries to the variants. rdar://8477752.
llvm-svn: 117409
"long latency" enough to hoist even if it may increase spilling. Reloading
a value from spill slot is often cheaper than performing an expensive
computation in the loop. For X86, that means machine LICM will hoist
SQRT, DIV, etc. ARM will be somewhat aggressive with VFP and NEON
instructions.
- Enable register pressure aware machine LICM by default.
llvm-svn: 116781
allow target to correctly compute latency for cases where static scheduling
itineraries isn't sufficient. e.g. variable_ops instructions such as
ARM::ldm.
This also allows target without scheduling itineraries to compute operand
latencies. e.g. X86 can return (approximated) latencies for high latency
instructions such as division.
- Compute operand latencies for those defined by load multiple instructions,
e.g. ldm and those used by store multiple instructions, e.g. stm.
llvm-svn: 115755
stick with a constant estimate of 90% (branch predictors are good!), but we might find that we want to provide
more nuanced estimates in the future.
llvm-svn: 115364
cost modeling for if-conversion. Now if only we had a way to estimate the misprediction probability.
Adjsut CodeGen/ARM/ifcvt10.ll. The pipeline on Cortex-A8 is long enough that it is still profitable
to predicate an ldm, but the shorter pipeline on Cortex-A9 makes it unprofitable.
llvm-svn: 114995
Rather than having arbitrary cutoffs, actually try to cost model the conversion.
For now, the constants are tuned to more or less match our existing behavior, but these will be
changed to reflect realistic values as this work proceeds.
llvm-svn: 114973
I am unable to write a test for this case, help is solicited, though...
What I did is to tickle the code in the debugger and verify that we do the right thing.
llvm-svn: 114430
into OptimizeCompareInstr.
This necessitates the passing of CmpValue around,
so widen the virtual functions to accomodate.
No functionality changes.
llvm-svn: 114428
Jim Grosbach