//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Instcombine misses several of these cases (see the testcase in the patch):
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg01519.html
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
viterbi speeds up *significantly* if the various "history" related copy loops
are turned into memcpy calls at the source level. We need a "loops to memcpy"
pass.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+This GCC bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34043
+contains a testcase that compiles down to:
+
+ %struct.XMM128 = type { <4 x float> }
+..
+ %src = alloca %struct.XMM128
+..
+ %tmp6263 = bitcast %struct.XMM128* %src to <2 x i64>*
+ %tmp65 = getelementptr %struct.XMM128* %src, i32 0, i32 0
+ store <2 x i64> %tmp5899, <2 x i64>* %tmp6263, align 16
+ %tmp66 = load <4 x float>* %tmp65, align 16
+ %tmp71 = add <4 x float> %tmp66, %tmp66
+
+If the mid-level optimizer turned the bitcast of pointer + store of tmp5899
+into a bitcast of the vector value and a store to the pointer, then the
+store->load could be easily removed.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
Consider:
int test() {
...
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+http://llvm.org/PR717:
+
+The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
+produces "ret int 0":
+
+int f() {
+ int x = 4;
+ int y;
+ if (x == 3) y = 0;
+ return y;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
+when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
+of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
+
+#include <stdio.h>
+int main() {
+ int nRet = 17;
+ int nLoop;
+ for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
+ if ( nLoop & 1 )
+ nRet += 2;
+ else
+ nRet -= 1;
+ }
+ return nRet;
+}
+
+Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
+reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
+exit value computation.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
+etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
+matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
+enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
+
+unsigned long long f(unsigned long long x, int y) {
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
+}
+unsigned f2(unsigned x, int y){
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
+}
+unsigned long long f3(unsigned long long x){
+ int y = 9;
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
+}
+unsigned f4(unsigned x){
+ int y = 10;
+ return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
+}
+unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
+ return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
+}
+unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
+ switch(z) {
+ case 1:
+ return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
+ case 2:
+ return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
+ case 3:
+ return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
+ case 4:
+ return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
+ default:
+ return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
+ }
+}
+
+On X86-64, we only handle f3/f4 right. On x86-32, several of these
+generate truly horrible code, instead of using shld and friends. On
+ARM, we end up with calls to L___lshrdi3/L___ashldi3 in f, which is
+badness. PPC64 misses f, f5 and f6. CellSPU aborts in isel.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
+standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
+example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
+be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We should be able to evaluate this loop:
+
+int test(int x_offs) {
+ while (x_offs > 4)
+ x_offs -= 4;
+ return x_offs;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff