1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-30 23:42:52 +01:00
llvm-mirror/test/CodeGen/ARM/select-imm.ll

115 lines
2.3 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

; RUN: llc < %s -march=arm | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ARM
; RUN: llc < %s -march=arm -mattr=+thumb2 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ARMT2
; RUN: llc < %s -march=thumb -mattr=+thumb2 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=THUMB2
define i32 @t1(i32 %c) nounwind readnone {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t1:
; ARM: mov [[R1:r[0-9]+]], #101
; ARM: orr [[R1b:r[0-9]+]], [[R1]], #256
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; ARM: movgt {{r[0-1]}}, #123
; ARMT2-LABEL: t1:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; ARMT2: movw [[R:r[0-1]]], #357
; ARMT2: movwgt [[R]], #123
; THUMB2-LABEL: t1:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; THUMB2: movw [[R:r[0-1]]], #357
; THUMB2: movgt [[R]], #123
%0 = icmp sgt i32 %c, 1
%1 = select i1 %0, i32 123, i32 357
ret i32 %1
}
define i32 @t2(i32 %c) nounwind readnone {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t2:
; ARM: mov [[R:r[0-9]+]], #101
; ARM: orr [[R]], [[R]], #256
; ARM: movle [[R]], #123
; ARMT2-LABEL: t2:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; ARMT2: mov [[R:r[0-1]]], #123
; ARMT2: movwgt [[R]], #357
; THUMB2-LABEL: t2:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; THUMB2: mov{{(s|\.w)}} [[R:r[0-1]]], #123
; THUMB2: movwgt [[R]], #357
%0 = icmp sgt i32 %c, 1
%1 = select i1 %0, i32 357, i32 123
ret i32 %1
}
define i32 @t3(i32 %a) nounwind readnone {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t3:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; ARM: mov [[R:r[0-1]]], #0
; ARM: moveq [[R]], #1
; ARMT2-LABEL: t3:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; ARMT2: mov [[R:r[0-1]]], #0
; ARMT2: movweq [[R]], #1
; THUMB2-LABEL: t3:
Allocate local registers in order for optimal coloring. Also avoid locals evicting locals just because they want a cheaper register. Problem: MI Sched knows exactly how many registers we have and assumes they can be colored. In cases where we have large blocks, usually from unrolled loops, greedy coloring fails. This is a source of "regressions" from the MI Scheduler on x86. I noticed this issue on x86 where we have long chains of two-address defs in the same live range. It's easy to see this in matrix multiplication benchmarks like IRSmk and even the unit test misched-matmul.ll. A fundamental difference between the LLVM register allocator and conventional graph coloring is that in our model a live range can't discover its neighbors, it can only verify its neighbors. That's why we initially went for greedy coloring and added eviction to deal with the hard cases. However, for singly defined and two-address live ranges, we can optimally color without visiting neighbors simply by processing the live ranges in instruction order. Other beneficial side effects: It is much easier to understand and debug regalloc for large blocks when the live ranges are allocated in order. Yes, global allocation is still very confusing, but it's nice to be able to comprehend what happened locally. Heuristics could be added to bias register assignment based on instruction locality (think late register pairing, banks...). Intuituvely this will make some test cases that are on the threshold of register pressure more stable. llvm-svn: 187139
2013-07-25 20:35:14 +02:00
; THUMB2: mov{{(s|\.w)}} [[R:r[0-1]]], #0
; THUMB2: moveq [[R]], #1
%0 = icmp eq i32 %a, 160
%1 = zext i1 %0 to i32
ret i32 %1
}
define i32 @t4(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %x) nounwind {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t4:
; ARM: ldr
; ARM: mov{{lt|ge}}
; ARMT2-LABEL: t4:
; ARMT2: movwlt [[R0:r[0-9]+]], #65365
; ARMT2: movtlt [[R0]], #65365
; THUMB2-LABEL: t4:
; THUMB2: mvnlt [[R0:r[0-9]+]], #11141290
%0 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
%1 = select i1 %0, i32 4283826005, i32 %x
ret i32 %1
}
; rdar://9758317
define i32 @t5(i32 %a) nounwind {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t5:
; ARM-NOT: mov
; ARM: cmp r0, #1
; ARM-NOT: mov
; ARM: movne r0, #0
; THUMB2-LABEL: t5:
; THUMB2-NOT: mov
; THUMB2: cmp r0, #1
; THUMB2: it ne
; THUMB2: movne r0, #0
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %a, 1
%conv = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %conv
}
define i32 @t6(i32 %a) nounwind {
entry:
; ARM-LABEL: t6:
; ARM-NOT: mov
; ARM: cmp r0, #0
; ARM: movne r0, #1
; THUMB2-LABEL: t6:
; THUMB2-NOT: mov
; THUMB2: cmp r0, #0
; THUMB2: it ne
; THUMB2: movne r0, #1
%tobool = icmp ne i32 %a, 0
%lnot.ext = zext i1 %tobool to i32
ret i32 %lnot.ext
}