Commit Graph

511 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Duncan Sands 571fd9a606 Factorize common code out of the InstructionSimplify shift logic. Add in
threading of shifts over selects and phis while there.  This fires here and
there in the testsuite, to not much effect.  For example when compiling spirit
it fires 5 times, during early-cse, resulting in 6 more cse simplifications,
and 3 more terminators being folded by jump threading, but the final bitcode
doesn't change in any interesting way: other optimizations would have caught
the opportunity anyway, only later.

llvm-svn: 123441
2011-01-14 14:44:12 +00:00
Duncan Sands c3eb0f4b2e Rename this test.
llvm-svn: 123440
2011-01-14 14:16:33 +00:00
Duncan Sands 8d25a7c3a0 The most common simplification missed by instsimplify in unoptimized bitcode
is "X != 0 -> X" when X is a boolean.  This occurs a lot because of the way
llvm-gcc converts gcc's conditional expressions.  Add this, and a few other
similar transforms for completeness.

llvm-svn: 123372
2011-01-13 08:56:29 +00:00
Duncan Sands 772749aea1 Revert commit 122654 at the request of Chris, who reckons that instsimplify
is the wrong hammer for this nail, and is probably right.

llvm-svn: 122661
2011-01-01 20:08:02 +00:00
Duncan Sands e3c539581c Fix a README item by having InstructionSimplify do a mild form of value
numbering, in which it considers (for example) "%a = add i32 %x, %y" and
"%b = add i32 %x, %y" to be equal because the operands are equal and the
result of the instructions only depends on the values of the operands.
This has almost no effect (it removes 4 instructions from gcc-as-one-file),
and perhaps slows down compilation: I measured a 0.4% slowdown on the large
gcc-as-one-file testcase, but it wasn't statistically significant.

llvm-svn: 122654
2011-01-01 16:12:09 +00:00
Duncan Sands a45cfbd405 When determining whether the new instruction was already present in
the original instruction, half the cases were missed (making it not
wrong but suboptimal).  Also correct a typo (A <-> B) in the second
chunk. 

llvm-svn: 122414
2010-12-22 17:15:25 +00:00
Duncan Sands 76befde93a Add an additional InstructionSimplify factorization test.
llvm-svn: 122333
2010-12-21 15:12:22 +00:00
Duncan Sands fecc642224 While I don't think any later transforms can fire, it seems cleaner to
not assume this (for example in case more transforms get added below
it).  Suggested by Frits van Bommel.

llvm-svn: 122332
2010-12-21 15:03:43 +00:00
Duncan Sands 07c17132d7 Fix typo in comment, spotted by Deewiant.
llvm-svn: 122329
2010-12-21 13:39:20 +00:00
Duncan Sands ee3ec6eb94 Teach InstructionSimplify about distributive laws. These transforms fire
quite often, but don't make much difference in practice presumably because
instcombine also knows them and more.

llvm-svn: 122328
2010-12-21 13:32:22 +00:00
Duncan Sands 6c7a52cf80 Add generic simplification of associative operations, generalizing
a couple of existing transforms.  This fires surprisingly often, for
example when compiling gcc "(X+(-1))+1->X" fires quite a lot as well
as various "and" simplifications (usually with a phi node operand).
Most of the time this doesn't make a real difference since the same
thing would have been done elsewhere anyway, eg: by instcombine, but
there are a few places where this results in simplifications that we
were not doing before.

llvm-svn: 122326
2010-12-21 08:49:00 +00:00