//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Re-Materialize load from frame index.
+Use local info (i.e. register scavenger) to assign it a free register to allow
+reuse:
+ ldr r3, [sp, #+4]
+ add r3, r3, #3
+ ldr r2, [sp, #+8]
+ add r2, r2, #2
+ ldr r1, [sp, #+4] <==
+ add r1, r1, #1
+ ldr r0, [sp, #+4]
+ add r0, r0, #2
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+LLVM aggressively lift CSE out of loop. Sometimes this can be negative side-
+effects:
+
+R1 = X + 4
+R2 = X + 7
+R3 = X + 15
+
+loop:
+load [i + R1]
+...
+load [i + R2]
+...
+load [i + R3]
+
+Suppose there is high register pressure, R1, R2, R3, can be spilled. We need
+to implement proper re-materialization to handle this:
+
+R1 = X + 4
+R2 = X + 7
+R3 = X + 15
+
+loop:
+R1 = X + 4 @ re-materialized
+load [i + R1]
+...
+R2 = X + 7 @ re-materialized
+load [i + R2]
+...
+R3 = X + 15 @ re-materialized
+load [i + R3]
+
+Furthermore, with re-association, we can enable sharing:
+
+R1 = X + 4
+R2 = X + 7
+R3 = X + 15
+
+loop:
+T = i + X
+load [T + 4]
+...
+load [T + 7]
+...
+load [T + 15]
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+It's not always a good idea to choose rematerialization over spilling. If all
+the load / store instructions would be folded then spilling is cheaper because
+it won't require new live intervals / registers. See 2003-05-31-LongShifts for
+an example.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+With a copying garbage collector, derived pointers must not be retained across
+collector safe points; the collector could move the objects and invalidate the
+derived pointer. This is bad enough in the first place, but safe points can
+crop up unpredictably. Consider:
+
+ %array = load { i32, [0 x %obj] }** %array_addr
+ %nth_el = getelementptr { i32, [0 x %obj] }* %array, i32 0, i32 %n
+ %old = load %obj** %nth_el
+ %z = div i64 %x, %y
+ store %obj* %new, %obj** %nth_el
+
+If the i64 division is lowered to a libcall, then a safe point will (must)
+appear for the call site. If a collection occurs, %array and %nth_el no longer
+point into the correct object.
+
+The fix for this is to copy address calculations so that dependent pointers
+are never live across safe point boundaries. But the loads cannot be copied
+like this if there was an intervening store, so may be hard to get right.
+
+Only a concurrent mutator can trigger a collection at the libcall safe point.
+So single-threaded programs do not have this requirement, even with a copying
+collector. Still, LLVM optimizations would probably undo a front-end's careful
+work.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The ocaml frametable structure supports liveness information. It would be good
+to support it.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The FIXME in ComputeCommonTailLength in BranchFolding.cpp needs to be
+revisited. The check is there to work around a misuse of directives in inline
+assembly.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+It would be good to detect collector/target compatibility instead of silently
+doing the wrong thing.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+It would be really nice to be able to write patterns in .td files for copies,
+which would eliminate a bunch of explicit predicates on them (e.g. no side
+effects). Once this is in place, it would be even better to have tblgen
+synthesize the various copy insertion/inspection methods in TargetInstrInfo.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff