// Random ideas for the X86 backend.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Add a MUL2U and MUL2S nodes to represent a multiply that returns both the
-Hi and Lo parts (combination of MUL and MULH[SU] into one node). Add this to
-X86, & make the dag combiner produce it when needed. This will eliminate one
-imul from the code generated for:
-
-long long test(long long X, long long Y) { return X*Y; }
-
-by using the EAX result from the mul. We should add a similar node for
-DIVREM.
-
-another case is:
-
-long long test(int X, int Y) { return (long long)X*Y; }
-
-... which should only be one imul instruction.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
This should be one DIV/IDIV instruction, not a libcall:
unsigned test(unsigned long long X, unsigned Y) {
This can be done trivially with a custom legalizer. What about overflow
though? http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14224
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Some targets (e.g. athlons) prefer freep to fstp ST(0):
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00659.html
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-This should use fiadd on chips where it is profitable:
-double foo(double P, int *I) { return P+*I; }
-
-We have fiadd patterns now but the followings have the same cost and
-complexity. We need a way to specify the later is more profitable.
-
-def FpADD32m : FpI<(ops RFP:$dst, RFP:$src1, f32mem:$src2), OneArgFPRW,
- [(set RFP:$dst, (fadd RFP:$src1,
- (extloadf64f32 addr:$src2)))]>;
- // ST(0) = ST(0) + [mem32]
-
-def FpIADD32m : FpI<(ops RFP:$dst, RFP:$src1, i32mem:$src2), OneArgFPRW,
- [(set RFP:$dst, (fadd RFP:$src1,
- (X86fild addr:$src2, i32)))]>;
- // ST(0) = ST(0) + [mem32int]
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-The FP stackifier needs to be global. Also, it should handle simple permutates
-to reduce number of shuffle instructions, e.g. turning:
-
-fld P -> fld Q
-fld Q fld P
-fxch
-
-or:
-
-fxch -> fucomi
-fucomi jl X
-jg X
-
-Ideas:
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02410.html
-
-
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Improvements to the multiply -> shift/add algorithm:
Another useful one would be ~0ULL >> X and ~0ULL << X.
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+One better solution for 1LL << x is:
+ xorl %eax, %eax
+ xorl %edx, %edx
+ testb $32, %cl
+ sete %al
+ setne %dl
+ sall %cl, %eax
+ sall %cl, %edx
-Compile this:
-_Bool f(_Bool a) { return a!=1; }
+But that requires good 8-bit subreg support.
-into:
- movzbl %dil, %eax
- xorl $1, %eax
- ret
+Also, this might be better. It's an extra shift, but it's one instruction
+shorter, and doesn't stress 8-bit subreg support.
+(From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01148.html,
+but without the unnecessary and.)
+ movl %ecx, %eax
+ shrl $5, %eax
+ movl %eax, %edx
+ xorl $1, %edx
+ sall %cl, %eax
+ sall %cl. %edx
+
+64-bit shifts (in general) expand to really bad code. Instead of using
+cmovs, we should expand to a conditional branch like GCC produces.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Some isel ideas:
-1. Dynamic programming based approach when compile time if not an
+1. Dynamic programming based approach when compile time is not an
issue.
2. Code duplication (addressing mode) during isel.
3. Other ideas from "Register-Sensitive Selection, Duplication, and
Leave any_extend as pseudo instruction and hint to register
allocator. Delay codegen until post register allocation.
+Note. any_extend is now turned into an INSERT_SUBREG. We still need to teach
+the coalescer how to deal with it though.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Add a target specific hook to DAG combiner to handle SINT_TO_FP and
-FP_TO_SINT when the source operand is already in memory.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Model X86 EFLAGS as a real register to avoid redudant cmp / test. e.g.
-
- cmpl $1, %eax
- setg %al
- testb %al, %al # unnecessary
- jne .BB7
+It appears icc use push for parameter passing. Need to investigate.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Count leading zeros and count trailing zeros:
-
-int clz(int X) { return __builtin_clz(X); }
-int ctz(int X) { return __builtin_ctz(X); }
-
-$ gcc t.c -S -o - -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -masm=intel
-clz:
- bsr %eax, DWORD PTR [%esp+4]
- xor %eax, 31
- ret
-ctz:
- bsf %eax, DWORD PTR [%esp+4]
- ret
+This:
-however, check that these are defined for 0 and 32. Our intrinsics are, GCC's
-aren't.
+void foo(void);
+void bar(int x, int *P) {
+ x >>= 2;
+ if (x)
+ foo();
+ *P = x;
+}
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+compiles into:
-Use push/pop instructions in prolog/epilog sequences instead of stores off
-ESP (certain code size win, perf win on some [which?] processors).
-Also, it appears icc use push for parameter passing. Need to investigate.
+ movq %rsi, %rbx
+ movl %edi, %r14d
+ sarl $2, %r14d
+ testl %r14d, %r14d
+ je LBB0_2
+
+Instead of doing an explicit test, we can use the flags off the sar. This
+occurs in a bigger testcase like this, which is pretty common:
+
+#include <vector>
+int test1(std::vector<int> &X) {
+ int Sum = 0;
+ for (long i = 0, e = X.size(); i != e; ++i)
+ X[i] = 0;
+ return Sum;
+}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Open code rint,floor,ceil,trunc:
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02006.html
-http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02011.html
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
-
-Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
- double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
- float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
- long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
-
-Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
-http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
The instruction selector sometimes misses folding a load into a compare. The
pattern is written as (cmp reg, (load p)). Because the compare isn't
commutative, it is not matched with the load on both sides. The dag combiner
should be made smart enough to cannonicalize the load into the RHS of a compare
when it can invert the result of the compare for free.
-How about intrinsics? An example is:
- *res = _mm_mulhi_epu16(*A, _mm_mul_epu32(*B, *C));
-
-compiles to
- pmuludq (%eax), %xmm0
- movl 8(%esp), %eax
- movdqa (%eax), %xmm1
- pmulhuw %xmm0, %xmm1
-
-The transformation probably requires a X86 specific pass or a DAG combiner
-target specific hook.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-LSR should be turned on for the X86 backend and tuned to take advantage of its
-addressing modes.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-When compiled with unsafemath enabled, "main" should enable SSE DAZ mode and
-other fast SSE modes.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Think about doing i64 math in SSE regs.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-The DAG Isel doesn't fold the loads into the adds in this testcase. The
-pattern selector does. This is because the chain value of the load gets
-selected first, and the loads aren't checking to see if they are only used by
-and add.
-
-.ll:
-
-int %test(int* %x, int* %y, int* %z) {
- %X = load int* %x
- %Y = load int* %y
- %Z = load int* %z
- %a = add int %X, %Y
- %b = add int %a, %Z
- ret int %b
-}
-
-dag isel:
-
-_test:
- movl 4(%esp), %eax
- movl (%eax), %eax
- movl 8(%esp), %ecx
- movl (%ecx), %ecx
- addl %ecx, %eax
- movl 12(%esp), %ecx
- movl (%ecx), %ecx
- addl %ecx, %eax
- ret
-
-pattern isel:
-
-_test:
- movl 12(%esp), %ecx
- movl 4(%esp), %edx
- movl 8(%esp), %eax
- movl (%eax), %eax
- addl (%edx), %eax
- addl (%ecx), %eax
- ret
-
-This is bad for register pressure, though the dag isel is producing a
-better schedule. :)
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-This testcase should have no SSE instructions in it, and only one load from
-a constant pool:
-
-double %test3(bool %B) {
- %C = select bool %B, double 123.412, double 523.01123123
- ret double %C
-}
-
-Currently, the select is being lowered, which prevents the dag combiner from
-turning 'select (load CPI1), (load CPI2)' -> 'load (select CPI1, CPI2)'
-
-The pattern isel got this one right.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-We need to lower switch statements to tablejumps when appropriate instead of
-always into binary branch trees.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-SSE doesn't have [mem] op= reg instructions. If we have an SSE instruction
-like this:
-
- X += y
-
-and the register allocator decides to spill X, it is cheaper to emit this as:
-
-Y += [xslot]
-store Y -> [xslot]
-
-than as:
-
-tmp = [xslot]
-tmp += y
-store tmp -> [xslot]
-
-..and this uses one fewer register (so this should be done at load folding
-time, not at spiller time). *Note* however that this can only be done
-if Y is dead. Here's a testcase:
-
-%.str_3 = external global [15 x sbyte] ; <[15 x sbyte]*> [#uses=0]
-implementation ; Functions:
-declare void %printf(int, ...)
-void %main() {
-build_tree.exit:
- br label %no_exit.i7
-no_exit.i7: ; preds = %no_exit.i7, %build_tree.exit
- %tmp.0.1.0.i9 = phi double [ 0.000000e+00, %build_tree.exit ], [ %tmp.34.i18, %no_exit.i7 ] ; <double> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.0.0.0.i10 = phi double [ 0.000000e+00, %build_tree.exit ], [ %tmp.28.i16, %no_exit.i7 ] ; <double> [#uses=1]
- %tmp.28.i16 = add double %tmp.0.0.0.i10, 0.000000e+00
- %tmp.34.i18 = add double %tmp.0.1.0.i9, 0.000000e+00
- br bool false, label %Compute_Tree.exit23, label %no_exit.i7
-Compute_Tree.exit23: ; preds = %no_exit.i7
- tail call void (int, ...)* %printf( int 0 )
- store double %tmp.34.i18, double* null
- ret void
-}
-
-We currently emit:
-
-.BBmain_1:
- xorpd %XMM1, %XMM1
- addsd %XMM0, %XMM1
-*** movsd %XMM2, QWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
-*** addsd %XMM2, %XMM1
-*** movsd QWORD PTR [%ESP + 8], %XMM2
- jmp .BBmain_1 # no_exit.i7
-
-This is a bugpoint reduced testcase, which is why the testcase doesn't make
-much sense (e.g. its an infinite loop). :)
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-None of the FPStack instructions are handled in
-X86RegisterInfo::foldMemoryOperand, which prevents the spiller from
-folding spill code into the instructions.
-
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In many cases, LLVM generates code like this:
_test:
movl 8(%esp), %ebx
- xor %eax, %eax
+ xor %eax, %eax
cmpl %ebx, 4(%esp)
setl %al
ret
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We should generate 'test' instead of 'cmp' in various cases, e.g.:
-
-bool %test(int %X) {
- %Y = shl int %X, ubyte 1
- %C = seteq int %Y, 0
- ret bool %C
-}
-bool %test(int %X) {
- %Y = and int %X, 8
- %C = seteq int %Y, 0
- ret bool %C
-}
-
-This may just be a matter of using 'test' to write bigger patterns for X86cmp.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-SSE should implement 'select_cc' using 'emulated conditional moves' that use
-pcmp/pand/pandn/por to do a selection instead of a conditional branch:
-
-double %X(double %Y, double %Z, double %A, double %B) {
- %C = setlt double %A, %B
- %z = add double %Z, 0.0 ;; select operand is not a load
- %D = select bool %C, double %Y, double %z
- ret double %D
-}
-
-We currently emit:
-
-_X:
- subl $12, %esp
- xorpd %xmm0, %xmm0
- addsd 24(%esp), %xmm0
- movsd 32(%esp), %xmm1
- movsd 16(%esp), %xmm2
- ucomisd 40(%esp), %xmm1
- jb LBB_X_2
-LBB_X_1:
- movsd %xmm0, %xmm2
-LBB_X_2:
- movsd %xmm2, (%esp)
- fldl (%esp)
- addl $12, %esp
- ret
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
We should generate bts/btr/etc instructions on targets where they are cheap or
when codesize is important. e.g., for:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-It's not clear whether we should use pxor or xorps / xorpd to clear XMM
-registers. The choice may depend on subtarget information. We should do some
-more experiments on different x86 machines.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Evaluate what the best way to codegen sdiv X, (2^C) is. For X/8, we currently
get this:
-int %test1(int %X) {
- %Y = div int %X, 8
- ret int %Y
+define i32 @test1(i32 %X) {
+ %Y = sdiv i32 %X, 8
+ ret i32 %Y
}
_test1:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Currently the x86 codegen isn't very good at mixing SSE and FPStack
-code:
-
-unsigned int foo(double x) { return x; }
-
-foo:
- subl $20, %esp
- movsd 24(%esp), %xmm0
- movsd %xmm0, 8(%esp)
- fldl 8(%esp)
- fisttpll (%esp)
- movl (%esp), %eax
- addl $20, %esp
- ret
-
-This will be solved when we go to a dynamic programming based isel.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Should generate min/max for stuff like:
-
-void minf(float a, float b, float *X) {
- *X = a <= b ? a : b;
-}
-
-Make use of floating point min / max instructions. Perhaps introduce ISD::FMIN
-and ISD::FMAX node types?
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-The first BB of this code:
-
-declare bool %foo()
-int %bar() {
- %V = call bool %foo()
- br bool %V, label %T, label %F
-T:
- ret int 1
-F:
- call bool %foo()
- ret int 12
-}
-
-compiles to:
-
-_bar:
- subl $12, %esp
- call L_foo$stub
- xorb $1, %al
- testb %al, %al
- jne LBB_bar_2 # F
-
-It would be better to emit "cmp %al, 1" than a xor and test.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Enable X86InstrInfo::convertToThreeAddress().
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Investigate whether it is better to codegen the following
-
- %tmp.1 = mul int %x, 9
-to
-
- movl 4(%esp), %eax
- leal (%eax,%eax,8), %eax
-
-as opposed to what llc is currently generating:
-
- imull $9, 4(%esp), %eax
-
-Currently the load folding imull has a higher complexity than the LEA32 pattern.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
We are currently lowering large (1MB+) memmove/memcpy to rep/stosl and rep/movsl
We should leave these as libcalls for everything over a much lower threshold,
since libc is hand tuned for medium and large mem ops (avoiding RFO for large
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Lower memcpy / memset to a series of SSE 128 bit move instructions when it's
-feasible.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Teach the coalescer to commute 2-addr instructions, allowing us to eliminate
-the reg-reg copy in this example:
-
-float foo(int *x, float *y, unsigned c) {
- float res = 0.0;
- unsigned i;
- for (i = 0; i < c; i++) {
- float xx = (float)x[i];
- xx = xx * y[i];
- xx += res;
- res = xx;
- }
- return res;
-}
-
-LBB_foo_3: # no_exit
- cvtsi2ss %XMM0, DWORD PTR [%EDX + 4*%ESI]
- mulss %XMM0, DWORD PTR [%EAX + 4*%ESI]
- addss %XMM0, %XMM1
- inc %ESI
- cmp %ESI, %ECX
-**** movaps %XMM1, %XMM0
- jb LBB_foo_3 # no_exit
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Codegen:
- if (copysign(1.0, x) == copysign(1.0, y))
-into:
- if (x^y & mask)
-when using SSE.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Optimize this into something reasonable:
x * copysign(1.0, y) * copysign(1.0, z)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-%X = weak global int 0
-
-void %foo(int %N) {
- %N = cast int %N to uint
- %tmp.24 = setgt int %N, 0
- br bool %tmp.24, label %no_exit, label %return
-
-no_exit:
- %indvar = phi uint [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %no_exit ]
- %i.0.0 = cast uint %indvar to int
- volatile store int %i.0.0, int* %X
- %indvar.next = add uint %indvar, 1
- %exitcond = seteq uint %indvar.next, %N
- br bool %exitcond, label %return, label %no_exit
-
-return:
- ret void
-}
-
-compiles into:
-
- .text
- .align 4
- .globl _foo
-_foo:
- movl 4(%esp), %eax
- cmpl $1, %eax
- jl LBB_foo_4 # return
-LBB_foo_1: # no_exit.preheader
- xorl %ecx, %ecx
-LBB_foo_2: # no_exit
- movl L_X$non_lazy_ptr, %edx
- movl %ecx, (%edx)
- incl %ecx
- cmpl %eax, %ecx
- jne LBB_foo_2 # no_exit
-LBB_foo_3: # return.loopexit
-LBB_foo_4: # return
- ret
-
-We should hoist "movl L_X$non_lazy_ptr, %edx" out of the loop after
-remateralization is implemented. This can be accomplished with 1) a target
-dependent LICM pass or 2) makeing SelectDAG represent the whole function.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
The following tests perform worse with LSR:
lambda, siod, optimizer-eval, ackermann, hash2, nestedloop, strcat, and Treesor.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Teach the coalescer to coalesce vregs of different register classes. e.g. FR32 /
-FR64 to VR128.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-mov $reg, 48(%esp)
-...
-leal 48(%esp), %eax
-mov %eax, (%esp)
-call _foo
-
-Obviously it would have been better for the first mov (or any op) to store
-directly %esp[0] if there are no other uses.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Use movhps to update upper 64-bits of a v4sf value. Also movlps on lower half
-of a v4sf value.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Better codegen for vector_shuffles like this { x, 0, 0, 0 } or { x, 0, x, 0}.
-Perhaps use pxor / xorp* to clear a XMM register first?
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Better codegen for:
-
-void f(float a, float b, vector float * out) { *out = (vector float){ a, 0.0, 0.0, b}; }
-void f(float a, float b, vector float * out) { *out = (vector float){ a, b, 0.0, 0}; }
-
-For the later we generate:
-
-_f:
- pxor %xmm0, %xmm0
- movss 8(%esp), %xmm1
- movaps %xmm0, %xmm2
- unpcklps %xmm1, %xmm2
- movss 4(%esp), %xmm1
- unpcklps %xmm0, %xmm1
- unpcklps %xmm2, %xmm1
- movl 12(%esp), %eax
- movaps %xmm1, (%eax)
- ret
-
-This seems like it should use shufps, one for each of a & b.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
Adding to the list of cmp / test poor codegen issues:
int test(__m128 *A, __m128 *B) {
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-How to decide when to use the "floating point version" of logical ops? Here are
-some code fragments:
-
- movaps LCPI5_5, %xmm2
- divps %xmm1, %xmm2
- mulps %xmm2, %xmm3
- mulps 8656(%ecx), %xmm3
- addps 8672(%ecx), %xmm3
- andps LCPI5_6, %xmm2
- andps LCPI5_1, %xmm3
- por %xmm2, %xmm3
- movdqa %xmm3, (%edi)
-
- movaps LCPI5_5, %xmm1
- divps %xmm0, %xmm1
- mulps %xmm1, %xmm3
- mulps 8656(%ecx), %xmm3
- addps 8672(%ecx), %xmm3
- andps LCPI5_6, %xmm1
- andps LCPI5_1, %xmm3
- orps %xmm1, %xmm3
- movaps %xmm3, 112(%esp)
- movaps %xmm3, (%ebx)
+We generate significantly worse code for this than GCC:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21150
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8701
-Due to some minor source change, the later case ended up using orps and movaps
-instead of por and movdqa. Does it matter?
+There is also one case we do worse on PPC.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Use movddup to splat a v2f64 directly from a memory source. e.g.
-
-#include <emmintrin.h>
+For this:
-void test(__m128d *r, double A) {
- *r = _mm_set1_pd(A);
+int test(int a)
+{
+ return a * 3;
}
-llc:
+We currently emits
+ imull $3, 4(%esp), %eax
-_test:
- movsd 8(%esp), %xmm0
- unpcklpd %xmm0, %xmm0
- movl 4(%esp), %eax
- movapd %xmm0, (%eax)
- ret
+Perhaps this is what we really should generate is? Is imull three or four
+cycles? Note: ICC generates this:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ leal (%eax,%eax,2), %eax
-icc:
+The current instruction priority is based on pattern complexity. The former is
+more "complex" because it folds a load so the latter will not be emitted.
-_test:
- movl 4(%esp), %eax
- movddup 8(%esp), %xmm0
- movapd %xmm0, (%eax)
- ret
+Perhaps we should use AddedComplexity to give LEA32r a higher priority? We
+should always try to match LEA first since the LEA matching code does some
+estimate to determine whether the match is profitable.
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+However, if we care more about code size, then imull is better. It's two bytes
+shorter than movl + leal.
-A Mac OS X IA-32 specific ABI bug wrt returning value > 8 bytes:
-http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=729
+On a Pentium M, both variants have the same characteristics with regard
+to throughput; however, the multiplication has a latency of four cycles, as
+opposed to two cycles for the movl+lea variant.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-X86RegisterInfo::copyRegToReg() returns X86::MOVAPSrr for VR128. Is it possible
-to choose between movaps, movapd, and movdqa based on types of source and
-destination?
+__builtin_ffs codegen is messy.
-How about andps, andpd, and pand? Do we really care about the type of the packed
-elements? If not, why not always use the "ps" variants which are likely to be
-shorter.
+int ffs_(unsigned X) { return __builtin_ffs(X); }
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+llvm produces:
+ffs_:
+ movl 4(%esp), %ecx
+ bsfl %ecx, %eax
+ movl $32, %edx
+ cmove %edx, %eax
+ incl %eax
+ xorl %edx, %edx
+ testl %ecx, %ecx
+ cmove %edx, %eax
+ ret
-We are emitting bad code for this:
+vs gcc:
-float %test(float* %V, int %I, int %D, float %V) {
-entry:
- %tmp = seteq int %D, 0
- br bool %tmp, label %cond_true, label %cond_false23
-
-cond_true:
- %tmp3 = getelementptr float* %V, int %I
- %tmp = load float* %tmp3
- %tmp5 = setgt float %tmp, %V
- %tmp6 = tail call bool %llvm.isunordered.f32( float %tmp, float %V )
- %tmp7 = or bool %tmp5, %tmp6
- br bool %tmp7, label %UnifiedReturnBlock, label %cond_next
-
-cond_next:
- %tmp10 = add int %I, 1
- %tmp12 = getelementptr float* %V, int %tmp10
- %tmp13 = load float* %tmp12
- %tmp15 = setle float %tmp13, %V
- %tmp16 = tail call bool %llvm.isunordered.f32( float %tmp13, float %V )
- %tmp17 = or bool %tmp15, %tmp16
- %retval = select bool %tmp17, float 0.000000e+00, float 1.000000e+00
- ret float %retval
-
-cond_false23:
- %tmp28 = tail call float %foo( float* %V, int %I, int %D, float %V )
- ret float %tmp28
-
-UnifiedReturnBlock: ; preds = %cond_true
- ret float 0.000000e+00
-}
+_ffs_:
+ movl $-1, %edx
+ bsfl 4(%esp), %eax
+ cmove %edx, %eax
+ addl $1, %eax
+ ret
-declare bool %llvm.isunordered.f32(float, float)
+Another example of __builtin_ffs (use predsimplify to eliminate a select):
-declare float %foo(float*, int, int, float)
+int foo (unsigned long j) {
+ if (j)
+ return __builtin_ffs (j) - 1;
+ else
+ return 0;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+It appears gcc place string data with linkonce linkage in
+.section __TEXT,__const_coal,coalesced instead of
+.section __DATA,__const_coal,coalesced.
+Take a look at darwin.h, there are other Darwin assembler directives that we
+do not make use of.
-It exposes a known load folding problem:
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
- movss (%edx,%ecx,4), %xmm1
- ucomiss %xmm1, %xmm0
+define i32 @foo(i32* %a, i32 %t) {
+entry:
+ br label %cond_true
+
+cond_true: ; preds = %cond_true, %entry
+ %x.0.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %tmp9, %cond_true ] ; <i32> [#uses=3]
+ %t_addr.0.0 = phi i32 [ %t, %entry ], [ %tmp7, %cond_true ] ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp2 = getelementptr i32* %a, i32 %x.0.0 ; <i32*> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp3 = load i32* %tmp2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp5 = add i32 %t_addr.0.0, %x.0.0 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp7 = add i32 %tmp5, %tmp3 ; <i32> [#uses=2]
+ %tmp9 = add i32 %x.0.0, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=2]
+ %tmp = icmp sgt i32 %tmp9, 39 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp, label %bb12, label %cond_true
+
+bb12: ; preds = %cond_true
+ ret i32 %tmp7
+}
+is pessimized by -loop-reduce and -indvars
-As well as this:
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-LBB_test_2: # cond_next
- movss LCPI1_0, %xmm2
- pxor %xmm3, %xmm3
- ucomiss %xmm0, %xmm1
- jbe LBB_test_6 # cond_next
-LBB_test_5: # cond_next
- movaps %xmm2, %xmm3
-LBB_test_6: # cond_next
- movss %xmm3, 40(%esp)
- flds 40(%esp)
- addl $44, %esp
- ret
+u32 to float conversion improvement:
-Clearly it's unnecessary to clear %xmm3. It's also not clear why we are emitting
-three moves (movss, movaps, movss).
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-External test Nurbs exposed some problems. Look for
-__ZN15Nurbs_SSE_Cubic17TessellateSurfaceE, bb cond_next140. This is what icc
-emits:
-
- movaps (%edx), %xmm2 #59.21
- movaps (%edx), %xmm5 #60.21
- movaps (%edx), %xmm4 #61.21
- movaps (%edx), %xmm3 #62.21
- movl 40(%ecx), %ebp #69.49
- shufps $0, %xmm2, %xmm5 #60.21
- movl 100(%esp), %ebx #69.20
- movl (%ebx), %edi #69.20
- imull %ebp, %edi #69.49
- addl (%eax), %edi #70.33
- shufps $85, %xmm2, %xmm4 #61.21
- shufps $170, %xmm2, %xmm3 #62.21
- shufps $255, %xmm2, %xmm2 #63.21
- lea (%ebp,%ebp,2), %ebx #69.49
- negl %ebx #69.49
- lea -3(%edi,%ebx), %ebx #70.33
- shll $4, %ebx #68.37
- addl 32(%ecx), %ebx #68.37
- testb $15, %bl #91.13
- jne L_B1.24 # Prob 5% #91.13
-
-This is the llvm code after instruction scheduling:
-
-cond_next140 (0xa910740, LLVM BB @0xa90beb0):
- %reg1078 = MOV32ri -3
- %reg1079 = ADD32rm %reg1078, %reg1068, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %reg1037 = MOV32rm %reg1024, 1, %NOREG, 40
- %reg1080 = IMUL32rr %reg1079, %reg1037
- %reg1081 = MOV32rm %reg1058, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %reg1038 = LEA32r %reg1081, 1, %reg1080, -3
- %reg1036 = MOV32rm %reg1024, 1, %NOREG, 32
- %reg1082 = SHL32ri %reg1038, 4
- %reg1039 = ADD32rr %reg1036, %reg1082
- %reg1083 = MOVAPSrm %reg1059, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %reg1034 = SHUFPSrr %reg1083, %reg1083, 170
- %reg1032 = SHUFPSrr %reg1083, %reg1083, 0
- %reg1035 = SHUFPSrr %reg1083, %reg1083, 255
- %reg1033 = SHUFPSrr %reg1083, %reg1083, 85
- %reg1040 = MOV32rr %reg1039
- %reg1084 = AND32ri8 %reg1039, 15
- CMP32ri8 %reg1084, 0
- JE mbb<cond_next204,0xa914d30>
-
-Still ok. After register allocation:
-
-cond_next140 (0xa910740, LLVM BB @0xa90beb0):
- %EAX = MOV32ri -3
- %EDX = MOV32rm <fi#3>, 1, %NOREG, 0
- ADD32rm %EAX<def&use>, %EDX, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %EDX = MOV32rm <fi#7>, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %EDX = MOV32rm %EDX, 1, %NOREG, 40
- IMUL32rr %EAX<def&use>, %EDX
- %ESI = MOV32rm <fi#5>, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %ESI = MOV32rm %ESI, 1, %NOREG, 0
- MOV32mr <fi#4>, 1, %NOREG, 0, %ESI
- %EAX = LEA32r %ESI, 1, %EAX, -3
- %ESI = MOV32rm <fi#7>, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %ESI = MOV32rm %ESI, 1, %NOREG, 32
- %EDI = MOV32rr %EAX
- SHL32ri %EDI<def&use>, 4
- ADD32rr %EDI<def&use>, %ESI
- %XMM0 = MOVAPSrm %ECX, 1, %NOREG, 0
- %XMM1 = MOVAPSrr %XMM0
- SHUFPSrr %XMM1<def&use>, %XMM1, 170
- %XMM2 = MOVAPSrr %XMM0
- SHUFPSrr %XMM2<def&use>, %XMM2, 0
- %XMM3 = MOVAPSrr %XMM0
- SHUFPSrr %XMM3<def&use>, %XMM3, 255
- SHUFPSrr %XMM0<def&use>, %XMM0, 85
- %EBX = MOV32rr %EDI
- AND32ri8 %EBX<def&use>, 15
- CMP32ri8 %EBX, 0
- JE mbb<cond_next204,0xa914d30>
-
-This looks really bad. The problem is shufps is a destructive opcode. Since it
-appears as operand two in more than one shufps ops. It resulted in a number of
-copies. Note icc also suffers from the same problem. Either the instruction
-selector should select pshufd or The register allocator can made the two-address
-to three-address transformation.
-
-It also exposes some other problems. See MOV32ri -3 and the spills.
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25500
-
-LLVM is producing bad code.
-
-LBB_main_4: # cond_true44
- addps %xmm1, %xmm2
- subps %xmm3, %xmm2
- movaps (%ecx), %xmm4
- movaps %xmm2, %xmm1
- addps %xmm4, %xmm1
- addl $16, %ecx
- incl %edx
- cmpl $262144, %edx
- movaps %xmm3, %xmm2
- movaps %xmm4, %xmm3
- jne LBB_main_4 # cond_true44
-
-There are two problems. 1) No need to two loop induction variables. We can
-compare against 262144 * 16. 2) Known register coalescer issue. We should
-be able eliminate one of the movaps:
-
- addps %xmm2, %xmm1 <=== Commute!
- subps %xmm3, %xmm1
- movaps (%ecx), %xmm4
- movaps %xmm1, %xmm1 <=== Eliminate!
- addps %xmm4, %xmm1
- addl $16, %ecx
- incl %edx
- cmpl $262144, %edx
- movaps %xmm3, %xmm2
- movaps %xmm4, %xmm3
- jne LBB_main_4 # cond_true44
-
-//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-
-Consider:
-
-__m128 test(float a) {
- return _mm_set_ps(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, a*a);
+float uint32_2_float( unsigned u ) {
+ float fl = (int) (u & 0xffff);
+ float fh = (int) (u >> 16);
+ fh *= 0x1.0p16f;
+ return fh + fl;
}
-This compiles into:
-
-movss 4(%esp), %xmm1
-mulss %xmm1, %xmm1
-xorps %xmm0, %xmm0
-movss %xmm1, %xmm0
-ret
+00000000 subl $0x04,%esp
+00000003 movl 0x08(%esp,1),%eax
+00000007 movl %eax,%ecx
+00000009 shrl $0x10,%ecx
+0000000c cvtsi2ss %ecx,%xmm0
+00000010 andl $0x0000ffff,%eax
+00000015 cvtsi2ss %eax,%xmm1
+00000019 mulss 0x00000078,%xmm0
+00000021 addss %xmm1,%xmm0
+00000025 movss %xmm0,(%esp,1)
+0000002a flds (%esp,1)
+0000002d addl $0x04,%esp
+00000030 ret
-Because mulss doesn't modify the top 3 elements, the top elements of
-xmm1 are already zero'd. We could compile this to:
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-movss 4(%esp), %xmm0
-mulss %xmm0, %xmm0
-ret
+When using fastcc abi, align stack slot of argument of type double on 8 byte
+boundary to improve performance.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Here's a sick and twisted idea. Consider code like this:
+GCC's ix86_expand_int_movcc function (in i386.c) has a ton of interesting
+simplifications for integer "x cmp y ? a : b".
-__m128 test(__m128 a) {
- float b = *(float*)&A;
- ...
- return _mm_set_ps(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, b);
-}
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-This might compile to this code:
+Consider the expansion of:
-movaps c(%esp), %xmm1
-xorps %xmm0, %xmm0
-movss %xmm1, %xmm0
-ret
+define i32 @test3(i32 %X) {
+ %tmp1 = urem i32 %X, 255
+ ret i32 %tmp1
+}
-Now consider if the ... code caused xmm1 to get spilled. This might produce
-this code:
+Currently it compiles to:
-movaps c(%esp), %xmm1
-movaps %xmm1, c2(%esp)
+...
+ movl $2155905153, %ecx
+ movl 8(%esp), %esi
+ movl %esi, %eax
+ mull %ecx
...
-xorps %xmm0, %xmm0
-movaps c2(%esp), %xmm1
-movss %xmm1, %xmm0
-ret
+This could be "reassociated" into:
-However, since the reload is only used by these instructions, we could
-"fold" it into the uses, producing something like this:
+ movl $2155905153, %eax
+ movl 8(%esp), %ecx
+ mull %ecx
-movaps c(%esp), %xmm1
-movaps %xmm1, c2(%esp)
-...
+to avoid the copy. In fact, the existing two-address stuff would do this
+except that mul isn't a commutative 2-addr instruction. I guess this has
+to be done at isel time based on the #uses to mul?
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-movss c2(%esp), %xmm0
-ret
+Make sure the instruction which starts a loop does not cross a cacheline
+boundary. This requires knowning the exact length of each machine instruction.
+That is somewhat complicated, but doable. Example 256.bzip2:
-... saving two instructions.
+In the new trace, the hot loop has an instruction which crosses a cacheline
+boundary. In addition to potential cache misses, this can't help decoding as I
+imagine there has to be some kind of complicated decoder reset and realignment
+to grab the bytes from the next cacheline.
-The basic idea is that a reload from a spill slot, can, if only one 4-byte
-chunk is used, bring in 3 zeros the the one element instead of 4 elements.
-This can be used to simplify a variety of shuffle operations, where the
-elements are fixed zeros.
+532 532 0x3cfc movb (1809(%esp, %esi), %bl <<<--- spans 2 64 byte lines
+942 942 0x3d03 movl %dh, (1809(%esp, %esi)
+937 937 0x3d0a incl %esi
+3 3 0x3d0b cmpb %bl, %dl
+27 27 0x3d0d jnz 0x000062db <main+11707>
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-We generate significantly worse code for this than GCC:
-http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21150
-http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8701
+In c99 mode, the preprocessor doesn't like assembly comments like #TRUNCATE.
-There is also one case we do worse on PPC.
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This could be a single 16-bit load.
+
+int f(char *p) {
+ if ((p[0] == 1) & (p[1] == 2)) return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-For this:
+We should inline lrintf and probably other libc functions.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Use the FLAGS values from arithmetic instructions more. For example, compile:
+
+int add_zf(int *x, int y, int a, int b) {
+ if ((*x += y) == 0)
+ return a;
+ else
+ return b;
+}
+
+to:
+ addl %esi, (%rdi)
+ movl %edx, %eax
+ cmovne %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+instead of:
+
+_add_zf:
+ addl (%rdi), %esi
+ movl %esi, (%rdi)
+ testl %esi, %esi
+ cmove %edx, %ecx
+ movl %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+
+As another example, compile function f2 in test/CodeGen/X86/cmp-test.ll
+without a test instruction.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These two functions have identical effects:
+
+unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return i;}
+unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
+
+We currently compile them to:
+
+_f:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movl %eax, %ecx
+ incl %ecx
+ movl 8(%esp), %edx
+ cmpl %edx, %ecx
+ jne LBB1_2 #UnifiedReturnBlock
+LBB1_1: #cond_true
+ addl $2, %eax
+ ret
+LBB1_2: #UnifiedReturnBlock
+ movl %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+_f2:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movl %eax, %ecx
+ incl %ecx
+ cmpl 8(%esp), %ecx
+ sete %cl
+ movzbl %cl, %ecx
+ leal 1(%ecx,%eax), %eax
+ ret
+
+both of which are inferior to GCC's:
+
+_f:
+ movl 4(%esp), %edx
+ leal 1(%edx), %eax
+ addl $2, %edx
+ cmpl 8(%esp), %eax
+ cmove %edx, %eax
+ ret
+_f2:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ addl $1, %eax
+ xorl %edx, %edx
+ cmpl 8(%esp), %eax
+ sete %dl
+ addl %edx, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+void test(int X) {
+ if (X) abort();
+}
+
+is currently compiled to:
+
+_test:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ cmpl $0, 16(%esp)
+ jne LBB1_1
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+LBB1_1:
+ call L_abort$stub
+
+It would be better to produce:
+
+_test:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ cmpl $0, 16(%esp)
+ jne L_abort$stub
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+
+This can be applied to any no-return function call that takes no arguments etc.
+Alternatively, the stack save/restore logic could be shrink-wrapped, producing
+something like this:
+
+_test:
+ cmpl $0, 4(%esp)
+ jne LBB1_1
+ ret
+LBB1_1:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ call L_abort$stub
+
+Both are useful in different situations. Finally, it could be shrink-wrapped
+and tail called, like this:
+
+_test:
+ cmpl $0, 4(%esp)
+ jne LBB1_1
+ ret
+LBB1_1:
+ pop %eax # realign stack.
+ call L_abort$stub
+
+Though this probably isn't worth it.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Sometimes it is better to codegen subtractions from a constant (e.g. 7-x) with
+a neg instead of a sub instruction. Consider:
+
+int test(char X) { return 7-X; }
+
+we currently produce:
+_test:
+ movl $7, %eax
+ movsbl 4(%esp), %ecx
+ subl %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+
+We would use one fewer register if codegen'd as:
+
+ movsbl 4(%esp), %eax
+ neg %eax
+ add $7, %eax
+ ret
+
+Note that this isn't beneficial if the load can be folded into the sub. In
+this case, we want a sub:
+
+int test(int X) { return 7-X; }
+_test:
+ movl $7, %eax
+ subl 4(%esp), %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Leaf functions that require one 4-byte spill slot have a prolog like this:
+
+_foo:
+ pushl %esi
+ subl $4, %esp
+...
+and an epilog like this:
+ addl $4, %esp
+ popl %esi
+ ret
+
+It would be smaller, and potentially faster, to push eax on entry and to
+pop into a dummy register instead of using addl/subl of esp. Just don't pop
+into any return registers :)
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The X86 backend should fold (branch (or (setcc, setcc))) into multiple
+branches. We generate really poor code for:
+
+double testf(double a) {
+ return a == 0.0 ? 0.0 : (a > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0);
+}
+
+For example, the entry BB is:
+
+_testf:
+ subl $20, %esp
+ pxor %xmm0, %xmm0
+ movsd 24(%esp), %xmm1
+ ucomisd %xmm0, %xmm1
+ setnp %al
+ sete %cl
+ testb %cl, %al
+ jne LBB1_5 # UnifiedReturnBlock
+LBB1_1: # cond_true
+
+
+it would be better to replace the last four instructions with:
+
+ jp LBB1_1
+ je LBB1_5
+LBB1_1:
+
+We also codegen the inner ?: into a diamond:
+
+ cvtss2sd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2
+ cvtss2sd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm3
+ ucomisd %xmm1, %xmm0
+ ja LBB1_3 # cond_true
+LBB1_2: # cond_true
+ movapd %xmm3, %xmm2
+LBB1_3: # cond_true
+ movapd %xmm2, %xmm0
+ ret
+
+We should sink the load into xmm3 into the LBB1_2 block. This should
+be pretty easy, and will nuke all the copies.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This:
+ #include <algorithm>
+ inline 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:
+ addl %esi, %edi
+ setae %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+on x86-64, instead of the rather stupid-looking:
+ addl %esi, %edi
+ setb %al
+ xorb $1, %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-#include <emmintrin.h>
-void test(__m128d *r, __m128d *A, double B) {
- *r = _mm_loadl_pd(*A, &B);
+The following code:
+
+bb114.preheader: ; preds = %cond_next94
+ %tmp231232 = sext i16 %tmp62 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp233 = sub i32 32, %tmp231232 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp245246 = sext i16 %tmp65 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp252253 = sext i16 %tmp68 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp254 = sub i32 32, %tmp252253 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp553554 = bitcast i16* %tmp37 to i8* ; <i8*> [#uses=2]
+ %tmp583584 = sext i16 %tmp98 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp585 = sub i32 32, %tmp583584 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp614615 = sext i16 %tmp101 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp621622 = sext i16 %tmp104 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp623 = sub i32 32, %tmp621622 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ br label %bb114
+
+produces:
+
+LBB3_5: # bb114.preheader
+ movswl -68(%ebp), %eax
+ movl $32, %ecx
+ movl %ecx, -80(%ebp)
+ subl %eax, -80(%ebp)
+ movswl -52(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %ecx, -84(%ebp)
+ subl %eax, -84(%ebp)
+ movswl -70(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %ecx, -88(%ebp)
+ subl %eax, -88(%ebp)
+ movswl -50(%ebp), %eax
+ subl %eax, %ecx
+ movl %ecx, -76(%ebp)
+ movswl -42(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %eax, -92(%ebp)
+ movswl -66(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %eax, -96(%ebp)
+ movw $0, -98(%ebp)
+
+This appears to be bad because the RA is not folding the store to the stack
+slot into the movl. The above instructions could be:
+ movl $32, -80(%ebp)
+...
+ movl $32, -84(%ebp)
+...
+This seems like a cross between remat and spill folding.
+
+This has redundant subtractions of %eax from a stack slot. However, %ecx doesn't
+change, so we could simply subtract %eax from %ecx first and then use %ecx (or
+vice-versa).
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+ %tmp659 = icmp slt i16 %tmp654, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp659, label %cond_true662, label %cond_next715
+
+produces this:
+
+ testw %cx, %cx
+ movswl %cx, %esi
+ jns LBB4_109 # cond_next715
+
+Shark tells us that using %cx in the testw instruction is sub-optimal. It
+suggests using the 32-bit register (which is what ICC uses).
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We compile this:
+
+void compare (long long foo) {
+ if (foo < 4294967297LL)
+ abort();
+}
+
+to:
+
+compare:
+ subl $4, %esp
+ cmpl $0, 8(%esp)
+ setne %al
+ movzbw %al, %ax
+ cmpl $1, 12(%esp)
+ setg %cl
+ movzbw %cl, %cx
+ cmove %ax, %cx
+ testb $1, %cl
+ jne .LBB1_2 # UnifiedReturnBlock
+.LBB1_1: # ifthen
+ call abort
+.LBB1_2: # UnifiedReturnBlock
+ addl $4, %esp
+ ret
+
+(also really horrible code on ppc). This is due to the expand code for 64-bit
+compares. GCC produces multiple branches, which is much nicer:
+
+compare:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ movl 20(%esp), %edx
+ movl 16(%esp), %eax
+ decl %edx
+ jle .L7
+.L5:
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+ .p2align 4,,7
+.L7:
+ jl .L4
+ cmpl $0, %eax
+ .p2align 4,,8
+ ja .L5
+.L4:
+ .p2align 4,,9
+ call abort
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Tail call optimization improvements: Tail call optimization currently
+pushes all arguments on the top of the stack (their normal place for
+non-tail call optimized calls) that source from the callers arguments
+or that source from a virtual register (also possibly sourcing from
+callers arguments).
+This is done to prevent overwriting of parameters (see example
+below) that might be used later.
+
+example:
+
+int callee(int32, int64);
+int caller(int32 arg1, int32 arg2) {
+ int64 local = arg2 * 2;
+ return callee(arg2, (int64)local);
+}
+
+[arg1] [!arg2 no longer valid since we moved local onto it]
+[arg2] -> [(int64)
+[RETADDR] local ]
+
+Moving arg1 onto the stack slot of callee function would overwrite
+arg2 of the caller.
+
+Possible optimizations:
+
+
+ - Analyse the actual parameters of the callee to see which would
+ overwrite a caller parameter which is used by the callee and only
+ push them onto the top of the stack.
+
+ int callee (int32 arg1, int32 arg2);
+ int caller (int32 arg1, int32 arg2) {
+ return callee(arg1,arg2);
+ }
+
+ Here we don't need to write any variables to the top of the stack
+ since they don't overwrite each other.
+
+ int callee (int32 arg1, int32 arg2);
+ int caller (int32 arg1, int32 arg2) {
+ return callee(arg2,arg1);
+ }
+
+ Here we need to push the arguments because they overwrite each
+ other.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+main ()
+{
+ int i = 0;
+ unsigned long int z = 0;
+
+ do {
+ z -= 0x00004000;
+ i++;
+ if (i > 0x00040000)
+ abort ();
+ } while (z > 0);
+ exit (0);
+}
+
+gcc compiles this to:
+
+_main:
+ subl $28, %esp
+ xorl %eax, %eax
+ jmp L2
+L3:
+ cmpl $262144, %eax
+ je L10
+L2:
+ addl $1, %eax
+ cmpl $262145, %eax
+ jne L3
+ call L_abort$stub
+L10:
+ movl $0, (%esp)
+ call L_exit$stub
+
+llvm:
+
+_main:
+ subl $12, %esp
+ movl $1, %eax
+ movl $16384, %ecx
+LBB1_1: # bb
+ cmpl $262145, %eax
+ jge LBB1_4 # cond_true
+LBB1_2: # cond_next
+ incl %eax
+ addl $4294950912, %ecx
+ cmpl $16384, %ecx
+ jne LBB1_1 # bb
+LBB1_3: # bb11
+ xorl %eax, %eax
+ addl $12, %esp
+ ret
+LBB1_4: # cond_true
+ call L_abort$stub
+
+1. LSR should rewrite the first cmp with induction variable %ecx.
+2. DAG combiner should fold
+ leal 1(%eax), %edx
+ cmpl $262145, %edx
+ =>
+ cmpl $262144, %eax
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+define i64 @test(double %X) {
+ %Y = fptosi double %X to i64
+ ret i64 %Y
+}
+
+compiles to:
+
+_test:
+ subl $20, %esp
+ movsd 24(%esp), %xmm0
+ movsd %xmm0, 8(%esp)
+ fldl 8(%esp)
+ fisttpll (%esp)
+ movl 4(%esp), %edx
+ movl (%esp), %eax
+ addl $20, %esp
+ #FP_REG_KILL
+ ret
+
+This should just fldl directly from the input stack slot.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+int foo (int x) { return (x & 65535) | 255; }
+
+Should compile into:
+
+_foo:
+ movzwl 4(%esp), %eax
+ orl $255, %eax
+ ret
+
+instead of:
+_foo:
+ movl $65280, %eax
+ andl 4(%esp), %eax
+ orl $255, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We're codegen'ing multiply of long longs inefficiently:
+
+unsigned long long LLM(unsigned long long arg1, unsigned long long arg2) {
+ return arg1 * arg2;
}
-We generates:
-
- subl $12, %esp
- movsd 24(%esp), %xmm0
- movsd %xmm0, (%esp)
- movl 20(%esp), %eax
- movapd (%eax), %xmm0
- movlpd (%esp), %xmm0
- movl 16(%esp), %eax
- movapd %xmm0, (%eax)
- addl $12, %esp
+We compile to (fomit-frame-pointer):
+
+_LLM:
+ pushl %esi
+ movl 8(%esp), %ecx
+ movl 16(%esp), %esi
+ movl %esi, %eax
+ mull %ecx
+ imull 12(%esp), %esi
+ addl %edx, %esi
+ imull 20(%esp), %ecx
+ movl %esi, %edx
+ addl %ecx, %edx
+ popl %esi
ret
-icc generates:
+This looks like a scheduling deficiency and lack of remat of the load from
+the argument area. ICC apparently produces:
+
+ movl 8(%esp), %ecx
+ imull 12(%esp), %ecx
+ movl 16(%esp), %eax
+ imull 4(%esp), %eax
+ addl %eax, %ecx
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ mull 12(%esp)
+ addl %ecx, %edx
+ ret
+
+Note that it remat'd loads from 4(esp) and 12(esp). See this GCC PR:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17236
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We can fold a store into "zeroing a reg". Instead of:
+
+xorl %eax, %eax
+movl %eax, 124(%esp)
+
+we should get:
+
+movl $0, 124(%esp)
- movl 4(%esp), %edx #3.6
- movl 8(%esp), %eax #3.6
- movapd (%eax), %xmm0 #4.22
- movlpd 12(%esp), %xmm0 #4.8
- movapd %xmm0, (%edx) #4.3
- ret #5.1
+if the flags of the xor are dead.
-So icc is smart enough to know that B is in memory so it doesn't load it and
-store it back to stack.
+Likewise, we isel "x<<1" into "add reg,reg". If reg is spilled, this should
+be folded into: shl [mem], 1
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-__m128d test1( __m128d A, __m128d B) {
- return _mm_shuffle_pd(A, B, 0x3);
+In SSE mode, we turn abs and neg into a load from the constant pool plus a xor
+or and instruction, for example:
+
+ xorpd LCPI1_0, %xmm2
+
+However, if xmm2 gets spilled, we end up with really ugly code like this:
+
+ movsd (%esp), %xmm0
+ xorpd LCPI1_0, %xmm0
+ movsd %xmm0, (%esp)
+
+Since we 'know' that this is a 'neg', we can actually "fold" the spill into
+the neg/abs instruction, turning it into an *integer* operation, like this:
+
+ xorl 2147483648, [mem+4] ## 2147483648 = (1 << 31)
+
+you could also use xorb, but xorl is less likely to lead to a partial register
+stall. Here is a contrived testcase:
+
+double a, b, c;
+void test(double *P) {
+ double X = *P;
+ a = X;
+ bar();
+ X = -X;
+ b = X;
+ bar();
+ c = X;
}
-compiles to
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The generated code on x86 for checking for signed overflow on a multiply the
+obvious way is much longer than it needs to be.
-shufpd $3, %xmm1, %xmm0
+int x(int a, int b) {
+ long long prod = (long long)a*b;
+ return prod > 0x7FFFFFFF || prod < (-0x7FFFFFFF-1);
+}
-Perhaps it's better to use unpckhpd instead?
+See PR2053 for more details.
-unpckhpd %xmm1, %xmm0
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-Don't know if unpckhpd is faster. But it is shorter.
+We should investigate using cdq/ctld (effect: edx = sar eax, 31)
+more aggressively; it should cost the same as a move+shift on any modern
+processor, but it's a lot shorter. Downside is that it puts more
+pressure on register allocation because it has fixed operands.
+
+Example:
+int abs(int x) {return x < 0 ? -x : x;}
+
+gcc compiles this to the following when using march/mtune=pentium2/3/4/m/etc.:
+abs:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ cltd
+ xorl %edx, %eax
+ subl %edx, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take the following code (from
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16541):
+
+extern unsigned char first_one[65536];
+int FirstOnet(unsigned long long arg1)
+{
+ if (arg1 >> 48)
+ return (first_one[arg1 >> 48]);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
+The following code is currently generated:
+FirstOnet:
+ movl 8(%esp), %eax
+ cmpl $65536, %eax
+ movl 4(%esp), %ecx
+ jb .LBB1_2 # UnifiedReturnBlock
+.LBB1_1: # ifthen
+ shrl $16, %eax
+ movzbl first_one(%eax), %eax
+ ret
+.LBB1_2: # UnifiedReturnBlock
+ xorl %eax, %eax
+ ret
+
+We could change the "movl 8(%esp), %eax" into "movzwl 10(%esp), %eax"; this
+lets us change the cmpl into a testl, which is shorter, and eliminate the shift.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-This testcase:
+We compile this function:
+
+define i32 @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c, i8 zeroext %d) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp2 = icmp eq i8 %d, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp2, label %bb7, label %bb
+
+bb: ; preds = %entry
+ %tmp6 = add i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp6
-%G1 = weak global <4 x float> zeroinitializer ; <<4 x float>*> [#uses=1]
-%G2 = weak global <4 x float> zeroinitializer ; <<4 x float>*> [#uses=1]
-%G3 = weak global <4 x float> zeroinitializer ; <<4 x float>*> [#uses=1]
-%G4 = weak global <4 x float> zeroinitializer ; <<4 x float>*> [#uses=1]
+bb7: ; preds = %entry
+ %tmp10 = sub i32 %a, %c ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp10
+}
+
+to:
+
+foo: # @foo
+# BB#0: # %entry
+ movl 4(%esp), %ecx
+ cmpb $0, 16(%esp)
+ je .LBB0_2
+# BB#1: # %bb
+ movl 8(%esp), %eax
+ addl %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+.LBB0_2: # %bb7
+ movl 12(%esp), %edx
+ movl %ecx, %eax
+ subl %edx, %eax
+ ret
+
+There's an obviously unnecessary movl in .LBB0_2, and we could eliminate a
+couple more movls by putting 4(%esp) into %eax instead of %ecx.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+See rdar://4653682.
+
+From flops:
+
+LBB1_15: # bb310
+ cvtss2sd LCPI1_0, %xmm1
+ addsd %xmm1, %xmm0
+ movsd 176(%esp), %xmm2
+ mulsd %xmm0, %xmm2
+ movapd %xmm2, %xmm3
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm3
+ movapd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ mulsd LCPI1_23, %xmm4
+ addsd LCPI1_24, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ addsd LCPI1_25, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ addsd LCPI1_26, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ addsd LCPI1_27, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ addsd LCPI1_28, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm3, %xmm4
+ addsd %xmm1, %xmm4
+ mulsd %xmm2, %xmm4
+ movsd 152(%esp), %xmm1
+ addsd %xmm4, %xmm1
+ movsd %xmm1, 152(%esp)
+ incl %eax
+ cmpl %eax, %esi
+ jge LBB1_15 # bb310
+LBB1_16: # bb358.loopexit
+ movsd 152(%esp), %xmm0
+ addsd %xmm0, %xmm0
+ addsd LCPI1_22, %xmm0
+ movsd %xmm0, 152(%esp)
+
+Rather than spilling the result of the last addsd in the loop, we should have
+insert a copy to split the interval (one for the duration of the loop, one
+extending to the fall through). The register pressure in the loop isn't high
+enough to warrant the spill.
+
+Also check why xmm7 is not used at all in the function.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take the following:
+
+target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:128:128-S128"
+target triple = "i386-apple-darwin8"
+@in_exit.4870.b = internal global i1 false ; <i1*> [#uses=2]
+define fastcc void @abort_gzip() noreturn nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp.b.i = load i1* @in_exit.4870.b ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ br i1 %tmp.b.i, label %bb.i, label %bb4.i
+bb.i: ; preds = %entry
+ tail call void @exit( i32 1 ) noreturn nounwind
+ unreachable
+bb4.i: ; preds = %entry
+ store i1 true, i1* @in_exit.4870.b
+ tail call void @exit( i32 1 ) noreturn nounwind
+ unreachable
+}
+declare void @exit(i32) noreturn nounwind
+
+This compiles into:
+_abort_gzip: ## @abort_gzip
+## BB#0: ## %entry
+ subl $12, %esp
+ movb _in_exit.4870.b, %al
+ cmpb $1, %al
+ jne LBB0_2
+
+We somehow miss folding the movb into the cmpb.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-implementation ; Functions:
+We compile:
-void %test() {
- %tmp = load <4 x float>* %G1 ; <<4 x float>> [#uses=2]
- %tmp2 = load <4 x float>* %G2 ; <<4 x float>> [#uses=2]
- %tmp135 = shufflevector <4 x float> %tmp, <4 x float> %tmp2, <4 x uint> < uint 0, uint 4, uint 1, uint 5 > ; <<4 x float>> [#uses=1]
- store <4 x float> %tmp135, <4 x float>* %G3
- %tmp293 = shufflevector <4 x float> %tmp, <4 x float> %tmp2, <4 x uint> < uint 1, uint undef, uint 3, uint 4 > ; <<4 x float>> [#uses=1]
- store <4 x float> %tmp293, <4 x float>* %G4
- ret void
+int test(int x, int y) {
+ return x-y-1;
}
-Compiles (llc -march=x86 -mcpu=yonah -relocation-model=static) to:
+into (-m64):
_test:
- movaps _G2, %xmm0
- movaps _G1, %xmm1
- movaps %xmm1, %xmm2
-2) shufps $3, %xmm0, %xmm2
- movaps %xmm1, %xmm3
-2) shufps $1, %xmm0, %xmm3
-1) unpcklps %xmm0, %xmm1
-2) shufps $128, %xmm2, %xmm3
-1) movaps %xmm1, _G3
- movaps %xmm3, _G4
+ decl %edi
+ movl %edi, %eax
+ subl %esi, %eax
+ ret
+
+it would be better to codegen as: x+~y (notl+addl)
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+int foo(const char *str,...)
+{
+ __builtin_va_list a; int x;
+ __builtin_va_start(a,str); x = __builtin_va_arg(a,int); __builtin_va_end(a);
+ return x;
+}
+
+gets compiled into this on x86-64:
+ subq $200, %rsp
+ movaps %xmm7, 160(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm6, 144(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm5, 128(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm4, 112(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm3, 96(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm2, 80(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm1, 64(%rsp)
+ movaps %xmm0, 48(%rsp)
+ movq %r9, 40(%rsp)
+ movq %r8, 32(%rsp)
+ movq %rcx, 24(%rsp)
+ movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
+ movq %rsi, 8(%rsp)
+ leaq (%rsp), %rax
+ movq %rax, 192(%rsp)
+ leaq 208(%rsp), %rax
+ movq %rax, 184(%rsp)
+ movl $48, 180(%rsp)
+ movl $8, 176(%rsp)
+ movl 176(%rsp), %eax
+ cmpl $47, %eax
+ jbe .LBB1_3 # bb
+.LBB1_1: # bb3
+ movq 184(%rsp), %rcx
+ leaq 8(%rcx), %rax
+ movq %rax, 184(%rsp)
+.LBB1_2: # bb4
+ movl (%rcx), %eax
+ addq $200, %rsp
+ ret
+.LBB1_3: # bb
+ movl %eax, %ecx
+ addl $8, %eax
+ addq 192(%rsp), %rcx
+ movl %eax, 176(%rsp)
+ jmp .LBB1_2 # bb4
+
+gcc 4.3 generates:
+ subq $96, %rsp
+.LCFI0:
+ leaq 104(%rsp), %rax
+ movq %rsi, -80(%rsp)
+ movl $8, -120(%rsp)
+ movq %rax, -112(%rsp)
+ leaq -88(%rsp), %rax
+ movq %rax, -104(%rsp)
+ movl $8, %eax
+ cmpl $48, %eax
+ jb .L6
+ movq -112(%rsp), %rdx
+ movl (%rdx), %eax
+ addq $96, %rsp
+ ret
+ .p2align 4,,10
+ .p2align 3
+.L6:
+ mov %eax, %edx
+ addq -104(%rsp), %rdx
+ addl $8, %eax
+ movl %eax, -120(%rsp)
+ movl (%rdx), %eax
+ addq $96, %rsp
+ ret
+
+and it gets compiled into this on x86:
+ pushl %ebp
+ movl %esp, %ebp
+ subl $4, %esp
+ leal 12(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %eax, -4(%ebp)
+ leal 16(%ebp), %eax
+ movl %eax, -4(%ebp)
+ movl 12(%ebp), %eax
+ addl $4, %esp
+ popl %ebp
+ ret
+
+gcc 4.3 generates:
+ pushl %ebp
+ movl %esp, %ebp
+ movl 12(%ebp), %eax
+ popl %ebp
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Teach tblgen not to check bitconvert source type in some cases. This allows us
+to consolidate the following patterns in X86InstrMMX.td:
+
+def : Pat<(v2i32 (bitconvert (i64 (vector_extract (v2i64 VR128:$src),
+ (iPTR 0))))),
+ (v2i32 (MMX_MOVDQ2Qrr VR128:$src))>;
+def : Pat<(v4i16 (bitconvert (i64 (vector_extract (v2i64 VR128:$src),
+ (iPTR 0))))),
+ (v4i16 (MMX_MOVDQ2Qrr VR128:$src))>;
+def : Pat<(v8i8 (bitconvert (i64 (vector_extract (v2i64 VR128:$src),
+ (iPTR 0))))),
+ (v8i8 (MMX_MOVDQ2Qrr VR128:$src))>;
+
+There are other cases in various td files.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take something like the following on x86-32:
+unsigned a(unsigned long long x, unsigned y) {return x % y;}
+
+We currently generate a libcall, but we really shouldn't: the expansion is
+shorter and likely faster than the libcall. The expected code is something
+like the following:
+
+ movl 12(%ebp), %eax
+ movl 16(%ebp), %ecx
+ xorl %edx, %edx
+ divl %ecx
+ movl 8(%ebp), %eax
+ divl %ecx
+ movl %edx, %eax
+ ret
+
+A similar code sequence works for division.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+These should compile to the same code, but the later codegen's to useless
+instructions on X86. This may be a trivial dag combine (GCC PR7061):
+
+struct s1 { unsigned char a, b; };
+unsigned long f1(struct s1 x) {
+ return x.a + x.b;
+}
+struct s2 { unsigned a: 8, b: 8; };
+unsigned long f2(struct s2 x) {
+ return x.a + x.b;
+}
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We currently compile this:
+
+define i32 @func1(i32 %v1, i32 %v2) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %t = call {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 %v1, i32 %v2)
+ %sum = extractvalue {i32, i1} %t, 0
+ %obit = extractvalue {i32, i1} %t, 1
+ br i1 %obit, label %overflow, label %normal
+normal:
+ ret i32 %sum
+overflow:
+ call void @llvm.trap()
+ unreachable
+}
+declare {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32, i32)
+declare void @llvm.trap()
+
+to:
+
+_func1:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ addl 8(%esp), %eax
+ jo LBB1_2 ## overflow
+LBB1_1: ## normal
+ ret
+LBB1_2: ## overflow
+ ud2
+
+it would be nice to produce "into" someday.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+void vec_mpys1(int y[], const int x[], int scaler) {
+int i;
+for (i = 0; i < 150; i++)
+ y[i] += (((long long)scaler * (long long)x[i]) >> 31);
+}
+
+Compiles to this loop with GCC 3.x:
+
+.L5:
+ movl %ebx, %eax
+ imull (%edi,%ecx,4)
+ shrdl $31, %edx, %eax
+ addl %eax, (%esi,%ecx,4)
+ incl %ecx
+ cmpl $149, %ecx
+ jle .L5
+
+llvm-gcc compiles it to the much uglier:
+
+LBB1_1: ## bb1
+ movl 24(%esp), %eax
+ movl (%eax,%edi,4), %ebx
+ movl %ebx, %ebp
+ imull %esi, %ebp
+ movl %ebx, %eax
+ mull %ecx
+ addl %ebp, %edx
+ sarl $31, %ebx
+ imull %ecx, %ebx
+ addl %edx, %ebx
+ shldl $1, %eax, %ebx
+ movl 20(%esp), %eax
+ addl %ebx, (%eax,%edi,4)
+ incl %edi
+ cmpl $150, %edi
+ jne LBB1_1 ## bb1
+
+The issue is that we hoist the cast of "scaler" to long long outside of the
+loop, the value comes into the loop as two values, and
+RegsForValue::getCopyFromRegs doesn't know how to put an AssertSext on the
+constructed BUILD_PAIR which represents the cast value.
+
+This can be handled by making CodeGenPrepare sink the cast.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Test instructions can be eliminated by using EFLAGS values from arithmetic
+instructions. This is currently not done for mul, and, or, xor, neg, shl,
+sra, srl, shld, shrd, atomic ops, and others. It is also currently not done
+for read-modify-write instructions. It is also current not done if the
+OF or CF flags are needed.
+
+The shift operators have the complication that when the shift count is
+zero, EFLAGS is not set, so they can only subsume a test instruction if
+the shift count is known to be non-zero. Also, using the EFLAGS value
+from a shift is apparently very slow on some x86 implementations.
+
+In read-modify-write instructions, the root node in the isel match is
+the store, and isel has no way for the use of the EFLAGS result of the
+arithmetic to be remapped to the new node.
+
+Add and subtract instructions set OF on signed overflow and CF on unsiged
+overflow, while test instructions always clear OF and CF. In order to
+replace a test with an add or subtract in a situation where OF or CF is
+needed, codegen must be able to prove that the operation cannot see
+signed or unsigned overflow, respectively.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+memcpy/memmove do not lower to SSE copies when possible. A silly example is:
+define <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float> %A) nounwind {
+ %tmp = alloca <16 x float>, align 16
+ %tmp2 = alloca <16 x float>, align 16
+ store <16 x float> %A, <16 x float>* %tmp
+ %s = bitcast <16 x float>* %tmp to i8*
+ %s2 = bitcast <16 x float>* %tmp2 to i8*
+ call void @llvm.memcpy.i64(i8* %s, i8* %s2, i64 64, i32 16)
+ %R = load <16 x float>* %tmp2
+ ret <16 x float> %R
+}
+
+declare void @llvm.memcpy.i64(i8* nocapture, i8* nocapture, i64, i32) nounwind
+
+which compiles to:
+
+_foo:
+ subl $140, %esp
+ movaps %xmm3, 112(%esp)
+ movaps %xmm2, 96(%esp)
+ movaps %xmm1, 80(%esp)
+ movaps %xmm0, 64(%esp)
+ movl 60(%esp), %eax
+ movl %eax, 124(%esp)
+ movl 56(%esp), %eax
+ movl %eax, 120(%esp)
+ movl 52(%esp), %eax
+ <many many more 32-bit copies>
+ movaps (%esp), %xmm0
+ movaps 16(%esp), %xmm1
+ movaps 32(%esp), %xmm2
+ movaps 48(%esp), %xmm3
+ addl $140, %esp
+ ret
+
+On Nehalem, it may even be cheaper to just use movups when unaligned than to
+fall back to lower-granularity chunks.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Implement processor-specific optimizations for parity with GCC on these
+processors. GCC does two optimizations:
+
+1. ix86_pad_returns inserts a noop before ret instructions if immediately
+ preceded by a conditional branch or is the target of a jump.
+2. ix86_avoid_jump_misspredicts inserts noops in cases where a 16-byte block of
+ code contains more than 3 branches.
+
+The first one is done for all AMDs, Core2, and "Generic"
+The second one is done for: Atom, Pentium Pro, all AMDs, Pentium 4, Nocona,
+ Core 2, and "Generic"
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+Testcase:
+int x(int a) { return (a&0xf0)>>4; }
+
+Current output:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ shrl $4, %eax
+ andl $15, %eax
+ ret
+
+Ideal output:
+ movzbl 4(%esp), %eax
+ shrl $4, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Re-implement atomic builtins __sync_add_and_fetch() and __sync_sub_and_fetch
+properly.
+
+When the return value is not used (i.e. only care about the value in the
+memory), x86 does not have to use add to implement these. Instead, it can use
+add, sub, inc, dec instructions with the "lock" prefix.
+
+This is currently implemented using a bit of instruction selection trick. The
+issue is the target independent pattern produces one output and a chain and we
+want to map it into one that just output a chain. The current trick is to select
+it into a MERGE_VALUES with the first definition being an implicit_def. The
+proper solution is to add new ISD opcodes for the no-output variant. DAG
+combiner can then transform the node before it gets to target node selection.
+
+Problem #2 is we are adding a whole bunch of x86 atomic instructions when in
+fact these instructions are identical to the non-lock versions. We need a way to
+add target specific information to target nodes and have this information
+carried over to machine instructions. Asm printer (or JIT) can use this
+information to add the "lock" prefix.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+struct B {
+ unsigned char y0 : 1;
+};
+
+int bar(struct B* a) { return a->y0; }
+
+define i32 @bar(%struct.B* nocapture %a) nounwind readonly optsize {
+ %1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B* %a, i64 0, i32 0
+ %2 = load i8* %1, align 1
+ %3 = and i8 %2, 1
+ %4 = zext i8 %3 to i32
+ ret i32 %4
+}
+
+bar: # @bar
+# BB#0:
+ movb (%rdi), %al
+ andb $1, %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+Missed optimization: should be movl+andl.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The x86_64 abi says:
+
+Booleans, when stored in a memory object, are stored as single byte objects the
+value of which is always 0 (false) or 1 (true).
+
+We are not using this fact:
+
+int bar(_Bool *a) { return *a; }
+
+define i32 @bar(i8* nocapture %a) nounwind readonly optsize {
+ %1 = load i8* %a, align 1, !tbaa !0
+ %tmp = and i8 %1, 1
+ %2 = zext i8 %tmp to i32
+ ret i32 %2
+}
+
+bar:
+ movb (%rdi), %al
+ andb $1, %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+GCC produces
+
+bar:
+ movzbl (%rdi), %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Consider the following two functions compiled with clang:
+_Bool foo(int *x) { return !(*x & 4); }
+unsigned bar(int *x) { return !(*x & 4); }
+
+foo:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ testb $4, (%eax)
+ sete %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+bar:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ movl (%eax), %eax
+ shrl $2, %eax
+ andl $1, %eax
+ xorl $1, %eax
+ ret
+
+The second function generates more code even though the two functions are
+are functionally identical.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Take the following C code:
+int f(int a, int b) { return (unsigned char)a == (unsigned char)b; }
+
+We generate the following IR with clang:
+define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %tmp = xor i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp6 = and i32 %tmp, 255 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %cmp = icmp eq i32 %tmp6, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %conv5 = zext i1 %cmp to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %conv5
+}
+
+And the following x86 code:
+ xorl %esi, %edi
+ testb $-1, %dil
+ sete %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+A cmpb instead of the xorl+testb would be one instruction shorter.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+Given the following C code:
+int f(int a, int b) { return (signed char)a == (signed char)b; }
+
+We generate the following IR with clang:
+define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
+entry:
+ %sext = shl i32 %a, 24 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %conv1 = ashr i32 %sext, 24 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %sext6 = shl i32 %b, 24 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %conv4 = ashr i32 %sext6, 24 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv1, %conv4 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %conv5 = zext i1 %cmp to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %conv5
+}
+
+And the following x86 code:
+ movsbl %sil, %eax
+ movsbl %dil, %ecx
+ cmpl %eax, %ecx
+ sete %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+
+It should be possible to eliminate the sign extensions.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+LLVM misses a load+store narrowing opportunity in this code:
+
+%struct.bf = type { i64, i16, i16, i32 }
+
+@bfi = external global %struct.bf* ; <%struct.bf**> [#uses=2]
+
+define void @t1() nounwind ssp {
+entry:
+ %0 = load %struct.bf** @bfi, align 8 ; <%struct.bf*> [#uses=1]
+ %1 = getelementptr %struct.bf* %0, i64 0, i32 1 ; <i16*> [#uses=1]
+ %2 = bitcast i16* %1 to i32* ; <i32*> [#uses=2]
+ %3 = load i32* %2, align 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %4 = and i32 %3, -65537 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ store i32 %4, i32* %2, align 1
+ %5 = load %struct.bf** @bfi, align 8 ; <%struct.bf*> [#uses=1]
+ %6 = getelementptr %struct.bf* %5, i64 0, i32 1 ; <i16*> [#uses=1]
+ %7 = bitcast i16* %6 to i32* ; <i32*> [#uses=2]
+ %8 = load i32* %7, align 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ %9 = and i32 %8, -131073 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ store i32 %9, i32* %7, align 1
+ ret void
+}
+
+LLVM currently emits this:
+
+ movq bfi(%rip), %rax
+ andl $-65537, 8(%rax)
+ movq bfi(%rip), %rax
+ andl $-131073, 8(%rax)
+ ret
+
+It could narrow the loads and stores to emit this:
+
+ movq bfi(%rip), %rax
+ andb $-2, 10(%rax)
+ movq bfi(%rip), %rax
+ andb $-3, 10(%rax)
+ ret
+
+The trouble is that there is a TokenFactor between the store and the
+load, making it non-trivial to determine if there's anything between
+the load and the store which would prohibit narrowing.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+void foo(unsigned x) {
+ if (x == 0) bar();
+ else if (x == 1) qux();
+}
+
+currently compiles into:
+_foo:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ cmpl $1, %eax
+ je LBB0_3
+ testl %eax, %eax
+ jne LBB0_4
+
+the testl could be removed:
+_foo:
+ movl 4(%esp), %eax
+ cmpl $1, %eax
+ je LBB0_3
+ jb LBB0_4
+
+0 is the only unsigned number < 1.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This code:
+
+%0 = type { i32, i1 }
+
+define i32 @add32carry(i32 %sum, i32 %x) nounwind readnone ssp {
+entry:
+ %uadd = tail call %0 @llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 %sum, i32 %x)
+ %cmp = extractvalue %0 %uadd, 1
+ %inc = zext i1 %cmp to i32
+ %add = add i32 %x, %sum
+ %z.0 = add i32 %add, %inc
+ ret i32 %z.0
+}
+
+declare %0 @llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i32(i32, i32) nounwind readnone
+
+compiles to:
+
+_add32carry: ## @add32carry
+ addl %esi, %edi
+ sbbl %ecx, %ecx
+ movl %edi, %eax
+ subl %ecx, %eax
+ ret
+
+But it could be:
+
+_add32carry:
+ leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
+ cmpl %esi, %eax
+ adcl $0, %eax
+ ret
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+The hot loop of 256.bzip2 contains code that looks a bit like this:
+
+int foo(char *P, char *Q, int x, int y) {
+ if (P[0] != Q[0])
+ return P[0] < Q[0];
+ if (P[1] != Q[1])
+ return P[1] < Q[1];
+ if (P[2] != Q[2])
+ return P[2] < Q[2];
+ return P[3] < Q[3];
+}
+
+In the real code, we get a lot more wrong than this. However, even in this
+code we generate:
+
+_foo: ## @foo
+## BB#0: ## %entry
+ movb (%rsi), %al
+ movb (%rdi), %cl
+ cmpb %al, %cl
+ je LBB0_2
+LBB0_1: ## %if.then
+ cmpb %al, %cl
+ jmp LBB0_5
+LBB0_2: ## %if.end
+ movb 1(%rsi), %al
+ movb 1(%rdi), %cl
+ cmpb %al, %cl
+ jne LBB0_1
+## BB#3: ## %if.end38
+ movb 2(%rsi), %al
+ movb 2(%rdi), %cl
+ cmpb %al, %cl
+ jne LBB0_1
+## BB#4: ## %if.end60
+ movb 3(%rdi), %al
+ cmpb 3(%rsi), %al
+LBB0_5: ## %if.end60
+ setl %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+Note that we generate jumps to LBB0_1 which does a redundant compare. The
+redundant compare also forces the register values to be live, which prevents
+folding one of the loads into the compare. In contrast, GCC 4.2 produces:
+
+_foo:
+ movzbl (%rsi), %eax
+ cmpb %al, (%rdi)
+ jne L10
+L12:
+ movzbl 1(%rsi), %eax
+ cmpb %al, 1(%rdi)
+ jne L10
+ movzbl 2(%rsi), %eax
+ cmpb %al, 2(%rdi)
+ jne L10
+ movzbl 3(%rdi), %eax
+ cmpb 3(%rsi), %al
+L10:
+ setl %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ ret
+
+which is "perfect".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+For the branch in the following code:
+int a();
+int b(int x, int y) {
+ if (x & (1<<(y&7)))
+ return a();
+ return y;
+}
+
+We currently generate:
+ movb %sil, %al
+ andb $7, %al
+ movzbl %al, %eax
+ btl %eax, %edi
+ jae .LBB0_2
+
+movl+andl would be shorter than the movb+andb+movzbl sequence.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+For the following:
+struct u1 {
+ float x, y;
+};
+float foo(struct u1 u) {
+ return u.x + u.y;
+}
+
+We currently generate:
+ movdqa %xmm0, %xmm1
+ pshufd $1, %xmm0, %xmm0 # xmm0 = xmm0[1,0,0,0]
+ addss %xmm1, %xmm0
+ ret
+
+We could save an instruction here by commuting the addss.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This (from PR9661):
+
+float clamp_float(float a) {
+ if (a > 1.0f)
+ return 1.0f;
+ else if (a < 0.0f)
+ return 0.0f;
+ else
+ return a;
+}
+
+Could compile to:
+
+clamp_float: # @clamp_float
+ movss .LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm1
+ minss %xmm1, %xmm0
+ pxor %xmm1, %xmm1
+ maxss %xmm1, %xmm0
+ ret
+
+with -ffast-math.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This function (from PR9803):
+
+int clamp2(int a) {
+ if (a > 5)
+ a = 5;
+ if (a < 0)
+ return 0;
+ return a;
+}
+
+Compiles to:
+
+_clamp2: ## @clamp2
+ pushq %rbp
+ movq %rsp, %rbp
+ cmpl $5, %edi
+ movl $5, %ecx
+ cmovlel %edi, %ecx
+ testl %ecx, %ecx
+ movl $0, %eax
+ cmovnsl %ecx, %eax
+ popq %rbp
ret
-The 1) marked instructions could be scheduled better for reduced register
-pressure. The scheduling issue is more pronounced without -static.
+The move of 0 could be scheduled above the test to make it is xor reg,reg.
-The 2) marked instructions are the lowered form of the 1,undef,3,4
-shufflevector. It seems that there should be a better way to do it :)
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+GCC PR48986. We currently compile this:
+void bar(void);
+void yyy(int* p) {
+ if (__sync_fetch_and_add(p, -1) == 1)
+ bar();
+}
+
+into:
+ movl $-1, %eax
+ lock
+ xaddl %eax, (%rdi)
+ cmpl $1, %eax
+ je LBB0_2
+
+Instead we could generate:
+
+ lock
+ dec %rdi
+ je LBB0_2
+
+The trick is to match "fetch_and_add(X, -C) == C".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+unsigned t(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
+ return a <= b ? 5 : -5;
+}
+
+We generate:
+ movl $5, %ecx
+ cmpl %esi, %edi
+ movl $-5, %eax
+ cmovbel %ecx, %eax
+
+GCC:
+ cmpl %edi, %esi
+ sbbl %eax, %eax
+ andl $-10, %eax
+ addl $5, %eax
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff