X-Git-Url: http://demsky.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=lib%2FTarget%2FREADME.txt;h=1f69ffb09c0a4a04298f9e84b91acd2b3c06b1ec;hb=689b86ed2e1f1daf9201f0ef83ff3bc1d5167232;hp=0105ae4562a988851d267582c11a459fc17b6aa7;hpb=b6fcf4cfbc075fd20f496d992180d177f4f4d721;p=oota-llvm.git diff --git a/lib/Target/README.txt b/lib/Target/README.txt index 0105ae4562a..1f69ffb09c0 100644 --- a/lib/Target/README.txt +++ b/lib/Target/README.txt @@ -870,11 +870,6 @@ 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". @@ -1767,7 +1762,6 @@ case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// -Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch: define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind { entry: switch i32 %x, label %if.end [ @@ -1788,19 +1782,15 @@ 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 @@ -2346,3 +2336,25 @@ 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. + +//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//