r223862 tried to also combine base-updating load/stores.
r224198 reverted it, as "it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown."
Reapply, with a fix to ignore non-normal load/stores.
Truncstores are handled elsewhere (you can actually write a pattern for
those, whereas for postinc loads you can't, since they return two values),
but it should be possible to also combine extloads base updates, by checking
that the memory (rather than result) type is of the same size as the addend.
Original commit message:
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
llvm-svn: 224203
This reverts commit r223862, as it created a regression on the test-suite
on test MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram by scrambling the order
in which the words are shown. We'll investigate the issue and re-apply
when safe.
llvm-svn: 224198
We used to only combine intrinsics, and turn them into VLD1_UPD/VST1_UPD
when the base pointer is incremented after the load/store.
We can do the same thing for generic load/stores.
Note that we can only combine the first load/store+adds pair in
a sequence (as might be generated for a v16f32 load for instance),
because other combines turn the base pointer addition chain (each
computing the address of the next load, from the address of the last
load) into independent additions (common base pointer + this load's
offset).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6585
llvm-svn: 223862
The C and C++ semantics for compare_exchange require it to return a bool
indicating success. This gets mapped to LLVM IR which follows each cmpxchg with
an icmp of the value loaded against the desired value.
When lowered to ldxr/stxr loops, this extra comparison is redundant: its
results are implicit in the control-flow of the function.
This commit makes two changes: it replaces that icmp with appropriate PHI
nodes, and then makes sure earlyCSE is called after expansion to actually make
use of the opportunities revealed.
I've also added -{arm,aarch64}-enable-atomic-tidy options, so that
existing fragile tests aren't perturbed too much by the change. Many
of them either rely on undef/unreachable too pervasively to be
restored to something well-defined (particularly while making sure
they test the same obscure assert from many years ago), or depend on a
particular CFG shape, which is disrupted by SimplifyCFG.
rdar://problem/16227836
llvm-svn: 209883
The current memory-instruction optimization logic in CGP, which sinks parts of
the address computation that can be adsorbed by the addressing mode, does this
by explicitly converting the relevant part of the address computation into
IR-level integer operations (making use of ptrtoint and inttoptr). For most
targets this is currently not a problem, but for targets wishing to make use of
IR-level aliasing analysis during CodeGen, the use of ptrtoint/inttoptr is a
problem for two reasons:
1. BasicAA becomes less powerful in the face of the ptrtoint/inttoptr
2. In cases where type-punning was used, and BasicAA was used
to override TBAA, BasicAA may no longer do so. (this had forced us to disable
all use of TBAA in CodeGen; something which we can now enable again)
This (use of GEPs instead of ptrtoint/inttoptr) is not currently enabled by
default (except for those targets that use AA during CodeGen), and so aside
from some PowerPC subtargets and SystemZ, there should be no change in
behavior. We may be able to switch completely away from the ptrtoint/inttoptr
sinking on all targets, but further testing is required.
I've doubled-up on a number of existing tests that are sensitive to the
address sinking behavior (including some store-merging tests that are
sensitive to the order of the resulting ADD operations at the SDAG level).
llvm-svn: 206092
- Instead of setting the suffixes in a bunch of places, just set one master
list in the top-level config. We now only modify the suffix list in a few
suites that have one particular unique suffix (.ml, .mc, .yaml, .td, .py).
- Aside from removing the need for a bunch of lit.local.cfg files, this enables
4 tests that were inadvertently being skipped (one in
Transforms/BranchFolding, a .s file each in DebugInfo/AArch64 and
CodeGen/PowerPC, and one in CodeGen/SI which is now failing and has been
XFAILED).
- This commit also fixes a bunch of config files to use config.root instead of
older copy-pasted code.
llvm-svn: 188513
Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register.
Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes
they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from
unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of
"regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on
x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live
range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like
IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll.
A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and
conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't
discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why
we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with
the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live
ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by
processing the live ranges in instruction order.
Other beneficial side effects:
It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks
when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is
still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what
happened locally.
Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on
instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...).
Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold
of register pressure more stable.
llvm-svn: 187139
and allow some optimizations to turn conditional branches into unconditional.
This commit adds a simple control-flow optimization which merges two consecutive
basic blocks which are connected by a single edge. This allows the codegen to
operate on larger basic blocks.
rdar://11973998
llvm-svn: 161852
* Removed test/lib/llvm.exp - it is no longer needed
* Deleted the dg.exp reading code from test/lit.cfg. There are no dg.exp files
left in the test suite so this code is no longer required. test/lit.cfg is
now much shorter and clearer
* Removed a lot of duplicate code in lit.local.cfg files that need access to
the root configuration, by adding a "root" attribute to the TestingConfig
object. This attribute is dynamically computed to provide the same
information as was previously provided by the custom getRoot functions.
* Documented the config.root attribute in docs/CommandGuide/lit.pod
llvm-svn: 153408
These heuristics are sufficient for enabling IV chains by
default. Performance analysis has been done for i386, x86_64, and
thumbv7. The optimization is rarely important, but can significantly
speed up certain cases by eliminating spill code within the
loop. Unrolled loops are prime candidates for IV chains. In many
cases, the final code could still be improved with more target
specific optimization following LSR. The goal of this feature is for
LSR to make the best choice of induction variables.
Instruction selection may not completely take advantage of this
feature yet. As a result, there could be cases of slight code size
increase.
Code size can be worse on x86 because it doesn't support postincrement
addressing. In fact, when chains are formed, you may see redundant
address plus stride addition in the addressing mode. GenerateIVChains
tries to compensate for the common cases.
On ARM, code size increase can be mitigated by using postincrement
addressing, but downstream codegen currently misses some opportunities.
llvm-svn: 147826
Ahmed Bougacha