1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-11-01 00:12:50 +01:00
Commit Graph

15 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Duncan Sands
1faa8712c9 At -O123 the early-cse pass is run before instcombine has run. According to my
auto-simplier the transform most missed by early-cse is (zext X) != 0 -> X != 0.
This patch adds this transform and some related logic to InstructionSimplify
and removes some of the logic from instcombine (unfortunately not all because
there are several situations in which instcombine can improve things by making
new instructions, whereas instsimplify is not allowed to do this).  At -O2 this
often results in more than 15% more simplifications by early-cse, and results in
hundreds of lines of bitcode being eliminated from the testsuite.  I did see some
small negative effects in the testsuite, for example a few additional instructions
in three programs.  One program, 483.xalancbmk, got an additional 35 instructions,
which seems to be due to a function getting an additional instruction and then
being inlined all over the place.

llvm-svn: 123911
2011-01-20 13:21:55 +00:00
Duncan Sands
732cb58b61 For completeness, generalize the (X + Y) - Y -> X transform and add X - (X + 1) -> -1.
These were not recommended by my auto-simplifier since they don't fire often enough.
However they do fire from time to time, for example they remove one subtraction from
the final bitcode for 483.xalancbmk.

llvm-svn: 123755
2011-01-18 11:50:19 +00:00
Duncan Sands
2abe6f500f Simplify (X<<1)-X into X. According to my auto-simplier this is the most common missed
simplification in fully optimized code.  It occurs sporadically in the testsuite, and
many times in 403.gcc: the final bitcode has 131 fewer subtractions after this change.
The reason that the multiplies are not eliminated is the same reason that instcombine
did not catch this: they are used by other instructions (instcombine catches this with
a more general transform which in general is only profitable if the operands have only
one use).

llvm-svn: 123754
2011-01-18 09:24:58 +00:00
Duncan Sands
dc51b0ee48 Turn X-(X-Y) into Y. According to my auto-simplifier this is the most common
simplification present in fully optimized code (I think instcombine fails to
transform some of these when "X-Y" has more than one use).  Fires here and
there all over the test-suite, for example it eliminates 8 subtractions in
the final IR for 445.gobmk, 2 subs in 447.dealII, 2 in paq8p etc.

llvm-svn: 123442
2011-01-14 15:26:10 +00:00
Duncan Sands
4757061c47 Factorize common code out of the InstructionSimplify shift logic. Add in
threading of shifts over selects and phis while there.  This fires here and
there in the testsuite, to not much effect.  For example when compiling spirit
it fires 5 times, during early-cse, resulting in 6 more cse simplifications,
and 3 more terminators being folded by jump threading, but the final bitcode
doesn't change in any interesting way: other optimizations would have caught
the opportunity anyway, only later.

llvm-svn: 123441
2011-01-14 14:44:12 +00:00
Duncan Sands
01be7e406d Rename this test.
llvm-svn: 123440
2011-01-14 14:16:33 +00:00
Duncan Sands
36b007d63b The most common simplification missed by instsimplify in unoptimized bitcode
is "X != 0 -> X" when X is a boolean.  This occurs a lot because of the way
llvm-gcc converts gcc's conditional expressions.  Add this, and a few other
similar transforms for completeness.

llvm-svn: 123372
2011-01-13 08:56:29 +00:00
Duncan Sands
aaddf57af9 Revert commit 122654 at the request of Chris, who reckons that instsimplify
is the wrong hammer for this nail, and is probably right.

llvm-svn: 122661
2011-01-01 20:08:02 +00:00
Duncan Sands
ec8b2b4cc5 Fix a README item by having InstructionSimplify do a mild form of value
numbering, in which it considers (for example) "%a = add i32 %x, %y" and
"%b = add i32 %x, %y" to be equal because the operands are equal and the
result of the instructions only depends on the values of the operands.
This has almost no effect (it removes 4 instructions from gcc-as-one-file),
and perhaps slows down compilation: I measured a 0.4% slowdown on the large
gcc-as-one-file testcase, but it wasn't statistically significant.

llvm-svn: 122654
2011-01-01 16:12:09 +00:00
Duncan Sands
68d969c2f5 When determining whether the new instruction was already present in
the original instruction, half the cases were missed (making it not
wrong but suboptimal).  Also correct a typo (A <-> B) in the second
chunk. 

llvm-svn: 122414
2010-12-22 17:15:25 +00:00
Duncan Sands
658dd68e10 Add an additional InstructionSimplify factorization test.
llvm-svn: 122333
2010-12-21 15:12:22 +00:00
Duncan Sands
b4497c7e0f While I don't think any later transforms can fire, it seems cleaner to
not assume this (for example in case more transforms get added below
it).  Suggested by Frits van Bommel.

llvm-svn: 122332
2010-12-21 15:03:43 +00:00
Duncan Sands
3ceeaf218e Fix typo in comment, spotted by Deewiant.
llvm-svn: 122329
2010-12-21 13:39:20 +00:00
Duncan Sands
0bd25425b6 Teach InstructionSimplify about distributive laws. These transforms fire
quite often, but don't make much difference in practice presumably because
instcombine also knows them and more.

llvm-svn: 122328
2010-12-21 13:32:22 +00:00
Duncan Sands
5880f299da Add generic simplification of associative operations, generalizing
a couple of existing transforms.  This fires surprisingly often, for
example when compiling gcc "(X+(-1))+1->X" fires quite a lot as well
as various "and" simplifications (usually with a phi node operand).
Most of the time this doesn't make a real difference since the same
thing would have been done elsewhere anyway, eg: by instcombine, but
there are a few places where this results in simplifications that we
were not doing before.

llvm-svn: 122326
2010-12-21 08:49:00 +00:00