X-Git-Url: http://demsky.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=blobdiff_plain;ds=sidebyside;f=lib%2FTarget%2FREADME.txt;h=282d9234c1a5a5db8d96e5292b690b28911e92ab;hb=bae3cf3a1bb2fe2a86172403645d097069bd8f9b;hp=f85914b61d9d81323f68c4f3bfbe653ec66cf987;hpb=19310fc199418d5f71bb4824f75de21a8324c93e;p=oota-llvm.git diff --git a/lib/Target/README.txt b/lib/Target/README.txt index f85914b61d9..282d9234c1a 100644 --- a/lib/Target/README.txt +++ b/lib/Target/README.txt @@ -2,22 +2,6 @@ Target Independent Opportunities: //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -With the recent changes to make the implicit def/use set explicit in -machineinstrs, we should change the target descriptions for 'call' instructions -so that the .td files don't list all the call-clobbered registers as implicit -defs. Instead, these should be added by the code generator (e.g. on the dag). - -This has a number of uses: - -1. PPC32/64 and X86 32/64 can avoid having multiple copies of call instructions - for their different impdef sets. -2. Targets with multiple calling convs (e.g. x86) which have different clobber - sets don't need copies of call instructions. -3. 'Interprocedural register allocation' can be done to reduce the clobber sets - of calls. - -//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// - We should recognized various "overflow detection" idioms and translate them into llvm.uadd.with.overflow and similar intrinsics. Here is a multiply idiom: @@ -109,44 +93,6 @@ This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available, something that reassoc doesn't think about yet. -//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// - -This function: (derived from GCC PR19988) -double foo(double x, double y) { - return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x + -0.1234 * y)); -} - -compiles to: -_foo: - movapd %xmm1, %xmm2 - mulsd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm1 - mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2 - addsd %xmm0, %xmm1 - addsd %xmm0, %xmm2 - movapd %xmm1, %xmm0 - mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0 - ret - -Reassociate should be able to turn it into: - -double foo(double x, double y) { - return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x - 0.1234 * y)); -} - -Which allows the multiply by constant to be CSE'd, producing: - -_foo: - mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm1 - movapd %xmm1, %xmm2 - addsd %xmm0, %xmm2 - subsd %xmm1, %xmm0 - mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0 - ret - -This doesn't need -ffast-math support at all. This is particularly bad because -the llvm-gcc frontend is canonicalizing the later into the former, but clang -doesn't have this problem. - //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems: @@ -168,7 +114,7 @@ stuff too. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal +For vector types, DataLayout.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of specific vector types are target dependent. @@ -278,22 +224,7 @@ unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) { c += v & 1; return c; } -unsigned countbits_fast(unsigned v){ - unsigned c; - for (c = 0; v; c++) - v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set - return c; -} -BITBOARD = unsigned long long -int PopCnt(register BITBOARD a) { - register int c=0; - while(a) { - c++; - a &= a - 1; - } - return c; -} unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) { unsigned int count = 0; for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++) @@ -392,34 +323,6 @@ PHI Slicing could be extended to do this. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -LSR should know what GPR types a target has from TargetData. This code: - -volatile short X, Y; // globals - -void foo(int N) { - int i; - for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { X = i; Y = i*4; } -} - -produces two near identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM: - -LBB1_2: - ldr r3, LCPI1_0 - ldr r3, [r3] - strh r2, [r3] - ldr r3, LCPI1_1 - ldr r3, [r3] - strh r1, [r3] - add r1, r1, #4 - add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1] - sub r0, r0, #1 <- [0,-,1] - cmp r0, #0 - bne LBB1_2 - -LSR should reuse the "+" IV for the exit test. - -//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// - Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is followed by an uncond branch to an exit block. @@ -830,7 +733,7 @@ f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c) return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0); } Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with -"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -843,7 +746,7 @@ void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) } The expression should optimize to something like "!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -862,7 +765,7 @@ int f(int x, int y) return (abs(x)) >= 0; } This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not -optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -898,99 +801,119 @@ rshift_gt (unsigned int a) bar (); } -void neg_eq_cst(unsigned int a) { -if (-a == 123) -bar(); -} - All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt --std-compile-opts". +-O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// From GCC Bug 32605: int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;} Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it). +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3" (although llc can optimize it). //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;} Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized -with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);} Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);} Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with -"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;} Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);} Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc -| opt -std-compile-opts". +| opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);} Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not -optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);} Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);} Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);} Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;} Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;} Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized -with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();} There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang --emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);} Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not -optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts". +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +int g(int x) { return (x - 10) < 0; } +Should combine to "x <= 9" (the sub has nsw). Currently not +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +int g(int x) { return (x + 10) < 0; } +Should combine to "x < -10" (the add has nsw). Currently not +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +int f(int i, int j) { return i < j + 1; } +int g(int i, int j) { return j > i - 1; } +Should combine to "i <= j" (the add/sub has nsw). Currently not +optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +unsigned f(unsigned x) { return ((x & 7) + 1) & 15; } +The & 15 part should be optimized away, it doesn't change the result. Currently +not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3". //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -1202,7 +1125,7 @@ There are many load PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre* in the GCC testsuite, ones we don't get yet are (checked through loadpre25): [CRIT EDGE BREAKING] -loadpre3.c predcom-4.c +predcom-4.c [PRE OF READONLY CALL] loadpre5.c @@ -1325,12 +1248,28 @@ codegen. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// +simplifylibcalls should turn these snprintf idioms into memcpy (GCC PR47917) + +char buf1[6], buf2[6], buf3[4], buf4[4]; +int i; + +int foo (void) { + int ret = snprintf (buf1, sizeof buf1, "abcde"); + ret += snprintf (buf2, sizeof buf2, "abcdef") * 16; + ret += snprintf (buf3, sizeof buf3, "%s", i++ < 6 ? "abc" : "def") * 256; + ret += snprintf (buf4, sizeof buf4, "%s", i++ > 10 ? "abcde" : "defgh")*4096; + return ret; +} + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + "gas" uses this idiom: else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string)) .. else if (strchr ("<>", *intel_parser.op_string) -Those should be turned into a switch. +Those should be turned into a switch. SimplifyLibCalls only gets the second +case. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -1780,44 +1719,6 @@ case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -Take the following testcase on x86-64 (similar testcases exist for all targets -with addc/adde): - -define void @a(i64* nocapture %s, i64* nocapture %t, i64 %a, i64 %b, -i64 %c) nounwind { -entry: - %0 = zext i64 %a to i128 ; [#uses=1] - %1 = zext i64 %b to i128 ; [#uses=1] - %2 = add i128 %1, %0 ; [#uses=2] - %3 = zext i64 %c to i128 ; [#uses=1] - %4 = shl i128 %3, 64 ; [#uses=1] - %5 = add i128 %4, %2 ; [#uses=1] - %6 = lshr i128 %5, 64 ; [#uses=1] - %7 = trunc i128 %6 to i64 ; [#uses=1] - store i64 %7, i64* %s, align 8 - %8 = trunc i128 %2 to i64 ; [#uses=1] - store i64 %8, i64* %t, align 8 - ret void -} - -Generated code: - addq %rcx, %rdx - sbbq %rax, %rax - subq %rax, %r8 - movq %r8, (%rdi) - movq %rdx, (%rsi) - ret - -Expected code: - addq %rcx, %rdx - adcq $0, %r8 - movq %r8, (%rdi) - movq %rdx, (%rsi) - ret - -//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// - -Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch: define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind { entry: switch i32 %x, label %if.end [ @@ -1838,19 +1739,15 @@ declare void @foo() Generated code on x86-64 (other platforms give similar results): a: cmpl $5, %edi - ja .LBB0_2 - movl %edi, %eax - movl $47, %ecx - btq %rax, %rcx - jb .LBB0_3 + ja LBB2_2 + cmpl $4, %edi + jne LBB2_3 .LBB0_2: ret .LBB0_3: jmp foo # TAILCALL -The movl+movl+btq+jb could be simplified to a cmpl+jne. - -Or, if we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to +If we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to something like the following, which eliminates a branch: xorl $1, %edi cmpl $4, %edi @@ -1947,44 +1844,6 @@ we remove checking in code like //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -This code (from Benchmarks/Dhrystone/dry.c): - -define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp { -entry: - %sext = shl i32 %0, 24 - %conv = ashr i32 %sext, 24 - %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24 - %conv4 = ashr i32 %sext6, 24 - %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4 - %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0 - ret i32 %. -} - -Should be simplified into something like: - -define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp { -entry: - %sext = shl i32 %0, 24 - %conv = and i32 %sext, 0xFF000000 - %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24 - %conv4 = and i32 %sext6, 0xFF000000 - %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4 - %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0 - ret i32 %. -} - -and then to: - -define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp { -entry: - %conv = and i32 %0, 0xFF - %conv4 = and i32 %1, 0xFF - %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4 - %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0 - ret i32 %. -} -//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// - clang -O3 currently compiles this code int g(unsigned int a) { @@ -2124,11 +1983,12 @@ for.end: ; preds = %entry } This shouldn't need the ((zext (%n - 1)) + 1) game, and it should ideally fold -the two memset's together. The issue with %n seems to stem from poor handling -of the original loop. +the two memset's together. -To simplify this, we need SCEV to know that "n != 0" because of the dominating -conditional. That would turn the second memset into a simple memset of 'n'. +The issue with the addition only occurs in 64-bit mode, and appears to be at +least partially caused by Scalar Evolution not keeping its cache updated: it +returns the "wrong" result immediately after indvars runs, but figures out the +expected result if it is run from scratch on IR resulting from running indvars. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// @@ -2287,4 +2147,133 @@ missed cases: //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// +define i1 @test1(i32 %x) nounwind { + %and = and i32 %x, 3 + %cmp = icmp ult i32 %and, 2 + ret i1 %cmp +} + +Can be folded to (x & 2) == 0. + +define i1 @test2(i32 %x) nounwind { + %and = and i32 %x, 3 + %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %and, 1 + ret i1 %cmp +} + +Can be folded to (x & 2) != 0. + +SimplifyDemandedBits shrinks the "and" constant to 2 but instcombine misses the +icmp transform. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +This code: + +typedef struct { +int f1:1; +int f2:1; +int f3:1; +int f4:29; +} t1; + +typedef struct { +int f1:1; +int f2:1; +int f3:30; +} t2; + +t1 s1; +t2 s2; + +void func1(void) +{ +s1.f1 = s2.f1; +s1.f2 = s2.f2; +} + +Compiles into this IR (on x86-64 at least): + +%struct.t1 = type { i8, [3 x i8] } +@s2 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4 +@s1 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4 +define void @func1() nounwind ssp noredzone { +entry: + %0 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s2 to i32*), align 4 + %bf.val.sext5 = and i32 %0, 1 + %1 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4 + %2 = and i32 %1, -4 + %3 = or i32 %2, %bf.val.sext5 + %bf.val.sext26 = and i32 %0, 2 + %4 = or i32 %3, %bf.val.sext26 + store i32 %4, i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4 + ret void +} + +The two or/and's should be merged into one each. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +Machine level code hoisting can be useful in some cases. For example, PR9408 +is about: + +typedef union { + void (*f1)(int); + void (*f2)(long); +} funcs; +void foo(funcs f, int which) { + int a = 5; + if (which) { + f.f1(a); + } else { + f.f2(a); + } +} + +which we compile to: + +foo: # @foo +# BB#0: # %entry + pushq %rbp + movq %rsp, %rbp + testl %esi, %esi + movq %rdi, %rax + je .LBB0_2 +# BB#1: # %if.then + movl $5, %edi + callq *%rax + popq %rbp + ret +.LBB0_2: # %if.else + movl $5, %edi + callq *%rax + popq %rbp + ret + +Note that bb1 and bb2 are the same. This doesn't happen at the IR level +because one call is passing an i32 and the other is passing an i64. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +I see this sort of pattern in 176.gcc in a few places (e.g. the start of +store_bit_field). The rem should be replaced with a multiply and subtract: + + %3 = sdiv i32 %A, %B + %4 = srem i32 %A, %B + +Similarly for udiv/urem. Note that this shouldn't be done on X86 or ARM, +which can do this in a single operation (instruction or libcall). It is +probably best to do this in the code generator. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return (x & y) == 0 || x == 0; } +should fold to (x & y) == 0. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; } +should fold to x > y. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//