between the high and low registers for prologue/epilogue code. This was
a Darwin-only thing that wasn't providing a realistic benefit anymore.
Combining the save areas simplifies the compiler code and results in better
ARM/Thumb2 codegen.
For example, previously we would generate code like:
push {r4, r5, r6, r7, lr}
add r7, sp, #12
stmdb sp!, {r8, r10, r11}
With this change, we combine the register saves and generate:
push {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r10, r11, lr}
add r7, sp, #12
rdar://8445635
llvm-svn: 114340
take multiple cycles to decode.
For the current if-converter clients (actually only ARM), the instructions that
are predicated on false are not nops. They would still take machine cycles to
decode. Micro-coded instructions such as LDM / STM can potentially take multiple
cycles to decode. If-converter should take treat them as non-micro-coded
simple instructions.
llvm-svn: 113570
"For ARM stack frames that utilize variable sized objects and have either
large local stack areas or require dynamic stack realignment, allocate a
base register via which to access the local frame. This allows efficient
access to frame indices not accessible via the FP (either due to being out
of range or due to dynamic realignment) or the SP (due to variable sized
object allocation). In particular, this greatly improves efficiency of access
to spill slots in Thumb functions which contain VLAs."
r112986 fixed a latent bug exposed by the above.
llvm-svn: 112989
large local stack areas or require dynamic stack realignment, allocate a
base register via which to access the local frame. This allows efficient
access to frame indices not accessible via the FP (either due to being out
of range or due to dynamic realignment) or the SP (due to variable sized
object allocation). In particular, this greatly improves efficiency of access
to spill slots in Thumb functions which contain VLAs.
rdar://7352504
rdar://8374540
rdar://8355680
llvm-svn: 112883
int x(int t) {
if (t & 256)
return -26;
return 0;
}
We generate this:
tst.w r0, #256
mvn r0, #25
it eq
moveq r0, #0
while gcc generates this:
ands r0, r0, #256
it ne
mvnne r0, #25
bx lr
Scandalous really!
During ISel time, we can look for this particular pattern. One where we have a
"MOVCC" that uses the flag off of a CMPZ that itself is comparing an AND
instruction to 0. Something like this (greatly simplified):
%r0 = ISD::AND ...
ARMISD::CMPZ %r0, 0 @ sets [CPSR]
%r0 = ARMISD::MOVCC 0, -26 @ reads [CPSR]
All we have to do is convert the "ISD::AND" into an "ARM::ANDS" that sets [CPSR]
when it's zero. The zero value will all ready be in the %r0 register and we only
need to change it if the AND wasn't zero. Easy!
llvm-svn: 112664
comparison that would overflow.
- The other under/overflow cases can't actually happen because the immediates
which would trigger them are legal (so we don't enter this code), but
adjusted the style to make it clear the transform is always valid.
llvm-svn: 112053
platform. It's apparently "bl __muldf3" on linux, for example. Since that's
not what we're checking here, it's more robust to just force a triple. We
just wwant to check that the inline FP instructions are only generated
on cpus that have them."
llvm-svn: 110830
memory and synchronization barrier dmb and dsb instructions.
- Change instruction names to something more sensible (matching name of actual
instructions).
- Added tests for memory barrier codegen.
llvm-svn: 110785
Also added a test case to check for the added benefit of this patch: it's optimizing away the unnecessary restore of sp from fp for some non-leaf functions.
llvm-svn: 110707
have 4 bits per register in the operand encoding), but have undefined
behavior when the operand value is 13 or 15 (SP and PC, respectively).
The trivial coalescer in linear scan sometimes will merge a copy from
SP into a subsequent instruction which uses the copy, and if that
instruction cannot legally reference SP, we get bad code such as:
mls r0,r9,r0,sp
instead of:
mov r2, sp
mls r0, r9, r0, r2
This patch adds a new register class for use by Thumb2 that excludes
the problematic registers (SP and PC) and is used instead of GPR
for those operands which cannot legally reference PC or SP. The
trivial coalescer explicitly requires that the register class
of the destination for the COPY instruction contain the source
register for the COPY to be considered for coalescing. This prevents
errant instructions like that above.
PR7499
llvm-svn: 109842
integers with mov + vdup. 8003375. This is
currently disabled by default because LICM will
not hoist a VDUP, so it pessimizes the code if
the construct occurs inside a loop (8248029).
llvm-svn: 109799
Add explicit testcases for tail calls within the same module.
Duplicate some code to humor those who think .w doesn't apply on ARM.
Leave this disabled on Thumb1, and add some comments explaining why it's hard
and won't gain much.
llvm-svn: 107851
There are 2 changes relative to the previous version of the patch:
1) For the "simple" if-conversion case, there's no need to worry about
RemoveExtraEdges not handling an unanalyzable branch. Predicated terminators
are ignored in this context, so RemoveExtraEdges does the right thing.
This might break someday if we ever treat indirect branches (BRIND) as
predicable, but for now, I just removed this part of the patch, because
in the case where we do not add an unconditional branch, we rely on keeping
the fall-through edge to CvtBBI (which is empty after this transformation).
The change relative to the previous patch is:
@@ -1036,10 +1036,6 @@
IterIfcvt = false;
}
- // RemoveExtraEdges won't work if the block has an unanalyzable branch,
- // which is typically the case for IfConvertSimple, so explicitly remove
- // CvtBBI as a successor.
- BBI.BB->removeSuccessor(CvtBBI->BB);
RemoveExtraEdges(BBI);
// Update block info. BB can be iteratively if-converted.
2) My patch exposed a bug in the code for merging the tail of a "diamond",
which had previously never been exercised. The code was simply checking that
the tail had a single predecessor, but there was a case in
MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/dbms where that single predecessor was
neither edge of the diamond. I added the following change to check for
that:
@@ -1276,7 +1276,18 @@
// tail, add a unconditional branch to it.
if (TailBB) {
BBInfo TailBBI = BBAnalysis[TailBB->getNumber()];
- if (TailBB->pred_size() == 1 && !TailBBI.HasFallThrough) {
+ bool CanMergeTail = !TailBBI.HasFallThrough;
+ // There may still be a fall-through edge from BBI1 or BBI2 to TailBB;
+ // check if there are any other predecessors besides those.
+ unsigned NumPreds = TailBB->pred_size();
+ if (NumPreds > 1)
+ CanMergeTail = false;
+ else if (NumPreds == 1 && CanMergeTail) {
+ MachineBasicBlock::pred_iterator PI = TailBB->pred_begin();
+ if (*PI != BBI1->BB && *PI != BBI2->BB)
+ CanMergeTail = false;
+ }
+ if (CanMergeTail) {
MergeBlocks(BBI, TailBBI);
TailBBI.IsDone = true;
} else {
With these fixes, I was able to run all the SingleSource and MultiSource
tests successfully.
llvm-svn: 107110
if-conversion. The RemoveExtraEdges function doesn't work for blocks that
end with unanalyzable branches, so in those cases, the "extra" edges must
be explicitly removed. The CopyAndPredicateBlock and MergeBlocks methods
can also avoid copying successor edges due to branches that have already
been removed. The latter case is especially helpful when MergeBlocks is
called for handling "diamond" if-conversions, where otherwise you can end
up with some weird intermediate states in the CFG. Unfortunately I've
been unable to find cases where this cleanup actually makes a significant
difference in the code. There is one test where we manage to remove an
empty block at the end of a function. Radar 6911268.
llvm-svn: 106939
when the condition is constant. This optimization shouldn't be
necessary, because codegen shouldn't be able to find dead control
paths that the IR-level optimizer can't find. And it's undesirable,
because it encourages bugpoint to leave "br i1 false" branches
in its output. And it wasn't updating the CFG.
I updated all the tests I could, but some tests are too reduced
and I wasn't able to meaningfully preserve them.
llvm-svn: 106748
- This fixed a number of bugs in if-converter, tail merging, and post-allocation
scheduler. If-converter now runs branch folding / tail merging first to
maximize if-conversion opportunities.
- Also changed the t2IT instruction slightly. It now defines the ITSTATE
register which is read by instructions in the IT block.
- Added Thumb2 specific hazard recognizer to ensure the scheduler doesn't
change the instruction ordering in the IT block (since IT mask has been
finalized). It also ensures no other instructions can be scheduled between
instructions in the IT block.
This is not yet enabled.
llvm-svn: 106344
instructions, but it doesn't really understand live ranges, so the first
INSERT_SUBREG uses an implicitly defined register.
Fix it in LiveVariableAnalysis by adding the <undef> flag.
llvm-svn: 106333
basic tests.
This has been well tested on Darwin but not elsewhere.
It should work provided the linker correctly resolves
B.W <label in other function>
which it has not seen before, at least from llvm-based
compilers. I'm leaving the arm-tail-calls switch in
until I see if there's any problems because of that;
it might need to be disabled for some environments.
llvm-svn: 106299
LiveVariableAnalysis was a bit picky about a register only being redefined once,
but that really isn't necessary.
Here is an example of chained INSERT_SUBREGs that we can handle now:
68 %reg1040<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg1040, %reg1028<kill>, 14
register: %reg1040 +[70,134:0)
76 %reg1040<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg1040, %reg1029<kill>, 13
register: %reg1040 replace range with [70,78:1) RESULT: %reg1040,0.000000e+00 = [70,78:1)[78,134:0) 0@78-(134) 1@70-(78)
84 %reg1040<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg1040, %reg1030<kill>, 12
register: %reg1040 replace range with [78,86:2) RESULT: %reg1040,0.000000e+00 = [70,78:1)[78,86:2)[86,134:0) 0@86-(134) 1@70-(78) 2@78-(86)
92 %reg1040<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg1040, %reg1031<kill>, 11
register: %reg1040 replace range with [86,94:3) RESULT: %reg1040,0.000000e+00 = [70,78:1)[78,86:2)[86,94:3)[94,134:0) 0@94-(134) 1@70-(78) 2@78-(86) 3@86-(94)
rdar://problem/8096390
llvm-svn: 106152
