Pointed out by Javier Martinez (who also provided a patch). Since
this logic is not used on (for example) x86, I guess nobody noticed.
Tested by generating SHL, SRL, SRA on various choices of i64 for all
possible shift amounts, and comparing with gcc. Since I did this on
x86-32, I had to force the use of ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit.
What I'm saying here is that I don't have a testcase I can add to the
repository.
llvm-svn: 90482
- A valno should be set HasRedefByEC if there is an early clobber def in the middle of its live ranges. It should not be set if the def of the valno is defined by an early clobber.
- If a physical register def is tied to an use and it's an early clobber, it just means the HasRedefByEC is set since it's still one continuous live range.
- Add a couple of missing checks for HasRedefByEC in the coalescer. In general, it should not coalesce a vr with a physical register if the physical register has a early clobber def somewhere. This is overly conservative but that's the price for using such a nasty inline asm "feature".
llvm-svn: 90269
We want LiveVariables clients to use methods rather than accessing the
getVarInfo data structure directly. That way it will be possible to change the
LiveVariables representation.
llvm-svn: 90240
This means that well connected blocks are copy coalesced before the less connected blocks. Connected blocks are more difficult to
coalesce because intervals are more complicated, so handling them first gives a greater chance of success.
llvm-svn: 90194
This helps us avoid silly copies when rematting values that are copied to a physical register:
leaq _.str44(%rip), %rcx
movq %rcx, %rsi
call _strcmp
becomes:
leaq _.str44(%rip), %rsi
call _strcmp
The coalescer will not touch the movq because that would tie down the physical register.
llvm-svn: 90163
branches even when optimizing for code size. Unless we find evidence to the
contrary in the future, the special treatment for indirect branches does not
have a significant effect on code size, and performance still matters with -Os.
llvm-svn: 90147
for all the processors where I have tried it, and even when it might not help
performance, the cost is quite low. The opportunities for duplicating
indirect branches are limited by other factors so code size does not change
much due to tail duplicating indirect branches aggressively.
llvm-svn: 90144
running tail duplication when doing branch folding for if-conversion, and
we also want to be able to run tail duplication earlier to fix some
reg alloc problems. Move the CanFallThrough function from BranchFolding
to MachineBasicBlock so that it can be shared by TailDuplication.
llvm-svn: 89904
Make tail duplication of indirect branches much more aggressive (for targets
that indicate that it is profitable), based on further experience with
this transformation. I compiled 3 large applications with and without
this more aggressive tail duplication and measured minimal changes in code
size. ("size" on Darwin seems to round the text size up to the nearest
page boundary, so I can only say that any code size increase was less than
one 4k page.) Radar 7421267.
llvm-svn: 89814
