* We would really like to support UXTAB16, but we need to prove that the
add doesn't need to overflow between the two 16-bit chunks.
-* implement predication support
* Implement pre/post increment support. (e.g. PR935)
* Coalesce stack slots!
* Implement smarter constant generation for binops with large immediates.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-The constant island pass is extremely naive. If a constant pool entry is
-out of range, it *always* splits a block and inserts a copy of the cp
-entry inline. It should:
+Crazy idea: Consider code that uses lots of 8-bit or 16-bit values. By the
+time regalloc happens, these values are now in a 32-bit register, usually with
+the top-bits known to be sign or zero extended. If spilled, we should be able
+to spill these to a 8-bit or 16-bit stack slot, zero or sign extending as part
+of the reload.
-1. Check to see if there is already a copy of this constant nearby. If so,
- reuse it.
-2. Instead of always splitting blocks to insert the constant, insert it in
- nearby 'water'.
-3. Constant island references should be ref counted. If a constant reference
- is out-of-range, and the last reference to a constant is relocated, the
- dead constant should be removed.
+Doing this reduces the size of the stack frame (important for thumb etc), and
+also increases the likelihood that we will be able to reload multiple values
+from the stack with a single load.
-This pass has all the framework needed to implement this, but it hasn't
-been done.
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The constant island pass is in good shape. Some cleanups might be desirable,
+but there is unlikely to be much improvement in the generated code.
+
+1. There may be some advantage to trying to be smarter about the initial
+placement, rather than putting everything at the end.
+
+2. There might be some compile-time efficiency to be had by representing
+consecutive islands as a single block rather than multiple blocks.
+
+3. Use a priority queue to sort constant pool users in inverse order of
+ position so we always process the one closed to the end of functions
+ first. This may simply CreateNewWater.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Eliminate copysign custom expansion. We are still generating crappy code with
+default expansion + if-conversion.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We need to start generating predicated instructions. The .td files have a way
-to express this now (see the PPC conditional return instruction), but the
-branch folding pass (or a new if-cvt pass) should start producing these, at
-least in the trivial case.
+Eliminate one instruction from:
-Among the obvious wins, doing so can eliminate the need to custom expand
-copysign (i.e. we won't need to custom expand it to get the conditional
-negate).
+define i32 @_Z6slow4bii(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
+ %tmp = icmp sgt i32 %x, %y
+ %retval = select i1 %tmp, i32 %x, i32 %y
+ ret i32 %retval
+}
+
+__Z6slow4bii:
+ cmp r0, r1
+ movgt r1, r0
+ mov r0, r1
+ bx lr
+=>
+
+__Z6slow4bii:
+ cmp r0, r1
+ movle r0, r1
+ bx lr
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
aligned on 8-byte boundary. This requires more information on load / store
nodes (and MI's?) then we currently carry.
+6) struct copies appear to be done field by field
+instead of by words, at least sometimes:
+
+struct foo { int x; short s; char c1; char c2; };
+void cpy(struct foo*a, struct foo*b) { *a = *b; }
+
+llvm code (-O2)
+ ldrb r3, [r1, #+6]
+ ldr r2, [r1]
+ ldrb r12, [r1, #+7]
+ ldrh r1, [r1, #+4]
+ str r2, [r0]
+ strh r1, [r0, #+4]
+ strb r3, [r0, #+6]
+ strb r12, [r0, #+7]
+gcc code (-O2)
+ ldmia r1, {r1-r2}
+ stmia r0, {r1-r2}
+
+In this benchmark poor handling of aggregate copies has shown up as
+having a large effect on size, and possibly speed as well (we don't have
+a good way to measure on ARM).
+
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
* Consider this silly example:
}
_bar:
- sub sp, sp, #16
- str r4, [sp, #+12]
- str r5, [sp, #+8]
- str lr, [sp, #+4]
- mov r4, r0
- mov r5, r1
- ldr r0, LCPI2_0
- bl _foo
- fmsr f0, r0
- fcvtsd d0, f0
- fmdrr d1, r4, r5
- faddd d0, d0, d1
- fmrrd r0, r1, d0
- ldr lr, [sp, #+4]
- ldr r5, [sp, #+8]
- ldr r4, [sp, #+12]
- add sp, sp, #16
- bx lr
+ stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r7, lr}
+ add r7, sp, #8
+ mov r4, r0
+ mov r5, r1
+ fldd d0, LCPI1_0
+ fmrrd r0, r1, d0
+ bl _foo
+ fmdrr d0, r4, r5
+ fmsr s2, r0
+ fsitod d1, s2
+ faddd d0, d1, d0
+ fmrrd r0, r1, d0
+ ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r7, pc}
Ignore the prologue and epilogue stuff for a second. Note
mov r4, r0
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We need register scavenging. Currently, the 'ip' register is reserved in case
-frame indexes are too big. This means that we generate extra code for stuff
-like this:
-
-void foo(unsigned x, unsigned y, unsigned z, unsigned *a, unsigned *b, unsigned *c) {
- short Rconst = (short) (16384.0f * 1.40200 + 0.5 );
- *a = x * Rconst;
- *b = y * Rconst;
- *c = z * Rconst;
-}
-
-we compile it to:
-
-_foo:
-*** stmfd sp!, {r4, r7}
-*** add r7, sp, #4
- mov r4, #186
- orr r4, r4, #89, 24 @ 22784
- mul r0, r0, r4
- str r0, [r3]
- mul r0, r1, r4
- ldr r1, [sp, #+8]
- str r0, [r1]
- mul r0, r2, r4
- ldr r1, [sp, #+12]
- str r0, [r1]
-*** sub sp, r7, #4
-*** ldmfd sp!, {r4, r7}
- bx lr
-
-GCC produces:
-
-_foo:
- ldr ip, L4
- mul r0, ip, r0
- mul r1, ip, r1
- str r0, [r3, #0]
- ldr r3, [sp, #0]
- mul r2, ip, r2
- str r1, [r3, #0]
- ldr r3, [sp, #4]
- str r2, [r3, #0]
- bx lr
-L4:
- .long 22970
-
-This is apparently all because we couldn't use ip here.
+Register scavenging is now implemented. The example in the previous version
+of this document produces optimal code at -O2.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/debus04linktime.html
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+gcc generates smaller code for this function at -O2 or -Os:
+
+void foo(signed char* p) {
+ if (*p == 3)
+ bar();
+ else if (*p == 4)
+ baz();
+ else if (*p == 5)
+ quux();
+}
+
+llvm decides it's a good idea to turn the repeated if...else into a
+binary tree, as if it were a switch; the resulting code requires -1
+compare-and-branches when *p<=2 or *p==5, the same number if *p==4
+or *p>6, and +1 if *p==3. So it should be a speed win
+(on balance). However, the revised code is larger, with 4 conditional
+branches instead of 3.
+
+More seriously, there is a byte->word extend before
+each comparison, where there should be only one, and the condition codes
+are not remembered when the same two values are compared twice.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+More register scavenging work:
+
+1. Use the register scavenger to track frame index materialized into registers
+ (those that do not fit in addressing modes) to allow reuse in the same BB.
+2. Finish scavenging for Thumb.
+3. We know some spills and restores are unnecessary. The issue is once live
+ intervals are merged, they are not never split. So every def is spilled
+ and every use requires a restore if the register allocator decides the
+ resulting live interval is not assigned a physical register. It may be
+ possible (with the help of the scavenger) to turn some spill / restore
+ pairs into register copies.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+More LSR enhancements possible:
+
+1. Teach LSR about pre- and post- indexed ops to allow iv increment be merged
+ in a load / store.
+2. Allow iv reuse even when a type conversion is required. For example, i8
+ and i32 load / store addressing modes are identical.
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This:
+
+int foo(int a, int b, int c, int d) {
+ long long acc = (long long)a * (long long)b;
+ acc += (long long)c * (long long)d;
+ return (int)(acc >> 32);
+}
+
+Should compile to use SMLAL (Signed Multiply Accumulate Long) which multiplies
+two signed 32-bit values to produce a 64-bit value, and accumulates this with
+a 64-bit value.
+
+We currently get this with both v4 and v6:
+
+_foo:
+ smull r1, r0, r1, r0
+ smull r3, r2, r3, r2
+ adds r3, r3, r1
+ adc r0, r2, r0
+ bx lr
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This:
+ #include <algorithm>
+ std::pair<unsigned, bool> full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
+ bool no_overflow(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return !full_add(a, b).second; }
+
+Should compile to:
+
+_Z8full_addjj:
+ adds r2, r1, r2
+ movcc r1, #0
+ movcs r1, #1
+ str r2, [r0, #0]
+ strb r1, [r0, #4]
+ mov pc, lr
+
+_Z11no_overflowjj:
+ cmn r0, r1
+ movcs r0, #0
+ movcc r0, #1
+ mov pc, lr
+
+not:
+
+__Z8full_addjj:
+ add r3, r2, r1
+ str r3, [r0]
+ mov r2, #1
+ mov r12, #0
+ cmp r3, r1
+ movlo r12, r2
+ str r12, [r0, #+4]
+ bx lr
+__Z11no_overflowjj:
+ add r3, r1, r0
+ mov r2, #1
+ mov r1, #0
+ cmp r3, r0
+ movhs r1, r2
+ mov r0, r1
+ bx lr
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff