X-Git-Url: http://demsky.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=lib%2FTarget%2FREADME.txt;h=bf8d465d0aeebe9db2b1a2e5375fef188fa8853c;hb=12af22e8cc217827cf4f118b0f5e4ebbda9925ae;hp=99616b47c841401f05ee90aa18dfa068a2794228;hpb=ef7b8d9e5a66f411b396b4ae8fc6b6640ffb2ba8;p=oota-llvm.git

diff --git a/lib/Target/README.txt b/lib/Target/README.txt
index 99616b47c84..bf8d465d0ae 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++)
@@ -870,11 +801,6 @@ 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".
@@ -966,6 +892,31 @@ optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
 
 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 
+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 -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+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 -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+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 -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+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 -std-compile-opts".
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
 This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
 
         %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4          
@@ -1174,7 +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
@@ -1767,7 +1718,6 @@ 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 +1738,15 @@ 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
@@ -2258,3 +2204,113 @@ 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.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//