I followed three heuristics for deciding whether to set 'true' or
'false':
- Everything target independent got 'true' as that is the expected
common output of the GCC builtins.
- If the target arch only has one way of implementing this operation,
set the flag in the way that exercises the most of codegen. For most
architectures this is also the likely path from a GCC builtin, with
'true' being set. It will (eventually) require lowering away that
difference, and then lowering to the architecture's operation.
- Otherwise, set the flag differently dependending on which target
operation should be tested.
Let me know if anyone has any issue with this pattern or would like
specific tests of another form. This should allow the x86 codegen to
just iteratively improve as I teach the backend how to differentiate
between the two forms, and everything else should remain exactly the
same.
llvm-svn: 146370
Patch by Brendon Cahoon!
This extends the existing LoopUnroll and LoopUnrollPass. Brendon
measured no regressions in the llvm test suite with -unroll-runtime
enabled. This implementation works by using the existing loop
unrolling code to unroll the loop by a power-of-two (default 8). It
generates an if-then-else sequence of code prior to the loop to
execute the extra iterations before entering the unrolled loop.
llvm-svn: 146245
It's always good to prune early, but formulae that are unsatisfactory
in their own right need to be removed before running any other pruning
heuristics. We easily avoid generating such formulae, but we need them
as an intermediate basis for forming other good formulae.
llvm-svn: 145906
weak variable are compiled by different compilers, such as GCC and LLVM, while
LLVM may increase the alignment to the preferred alignment there is no reason to
think that GCC will use anything more than the ABI alignment. Since it is the
GCC version that might end up in the final program (as the linkage is weak), it
is wrong to increase the alignment of loads from the global up to the preferred
alignment as the alignment might only be the ABI alignment.
Increasing alignment up to the ABI alignment might be OK, but I'm not totally
convinced that it is. It seems better to just leave the alignment of weak
globals alone.
llvm-svn: 145413
and positive: positive, because it could be directly computed to be positive;
negative, because the nsw flags means it is either negative or undefined (the
multiplication always overflowed).
llvm-svn: 145104
The loop tree's inclusive block lists are painful and expensive to
update. (I have no idea why they're inclusive). The design was
supposed to handle this case but the implementation missed it and my
unit tests weren't thorough enough.
Fixes PR11335: loop unroll update.
llvm-svn: 144970
The right way to check for a binary operation is
cast<BinaryOperator>. The original check: cast<Instruction> &&
numOperands() == 2 would match phi "instructions", leading to an
infinite loop in extreme corner case: a useless phi with operands
[self, constant] that prior optimization passes failed to remove,
being used in the loop by another useless phi, in turn being used by an
lshr or udiv.
Fixes PR11350: runaway iteration assertion.
llvm-svn: 144935
and stores capture) to permit the caller to see each capture point and decide
whether to continue looking.
Use this inside memdep to do an analysis that basicaa won't do. This lets us
solve another devirtualization case, fixing PR8908!
llvm-svn: 144580
lead to it trying to re-mark a value marked as a constant with a different value. It also appears to trigger very rarely.
Fixes PR11357.
llvm-svn: 144352
Currently checks alignment and killing stores on a power of 2 boundary as this is likely
to trim the size of the earlier store without breaking large vector stores into scalar ones.
Fixes <rdar://problem/10140300>
llvm-svn: 144239
Only currently done if the later store is writing to a power of 2 address or
has the same alignment as the earlier store as then its likely to not break up
large stores into smaller ones
Fixes <rdar://problem/10140300>
llvm-svn: 143630
We've been hitting asserts in this code due to the many supported
combintions of modes (iv-rewrite/no-iv-rewrite) and IV types. This
second rewrite of the code attempts to deal with these cases systematically.
llvm-svn: 143546
