This prevents the outlined functions from pulling in a lot of unnecessary code
in our downstream libraries/linker. Which stops outlining making codesize
worse in c++ code with no-exceptions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57254
This patch adds a new option to enable/disable register renaming in the
load-store optimizer. Defaults to disabled, as there is a potential
mis-compile caused by this.
In some cases, we can rename a store operand, in order to enable pairing
of stores. For store pairs, that cannot be merged because the first
tored register is defined in between the second store, we try to find
suitable rename register.
First, we check if we can rename the given register:
1. The first store register must be killed at the store, which means we
do not have to rename instructions after the first store.
2. We scan backwards from the first store, to find the definition of the
stored register and check all uses in between are renamable. Along
they way, we collect the minimal register classes of the uses for
overlapping (sub/super)registers.
Second, we try to find an available register from the minimal physical
register class of the original register. A suitable register must not be
1. defined before FirstMI
2. between the previous definition of the register to rename
3. a callee saved register.
We use KILL flags to clear defined registers while scanning from the
beginning to the end of the block.
This triggers quite often, here are the top changes for MultiSource,
SPEC2000, SPEC2006 compiled with -O3 for iOS:
Metric: aarch64-ldst-opt.NumPairCreated
Program base patch diff
test-suite...nch/fourinarow/fourinarow.test 2.00 39.00 1850.0%
test-suite...s/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk.test 46.00 80.00 73.9%
test-suite...chmarks/Olden/power/power.test 70.00 96.00 37.1%
test-suite...cations/hexxagon/hexxagon.test 29.00 39.00 34.5%
test-suite...nchmarks/McCat/05-eks/eks.test 100.00 132.00 32.0%
test-suite.../Trimaran/enc-rc4/enc-rc4.test 46.00 59.00 28.3%
test-suite...T2006/473.astar/473.astar.test 160.00 200.00 25.0%
test-suite.../Trimaran/enc-md5/enc-md5.test 8.00 10.00 25.0%
test-suite...telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm.test 113.00 139.00 23.0%
test-suite...ediabench/gsm/toast/toast.test 113.00 139.00 23.0%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 91.00 111.00 22.0%
test-suite...C/CFP2000/179.art/179.art.test 41.00 49.00 19.5%
test-suite...peg2/mpeg2dec/mpeg2decode.test 245.00 279.00 13.9%
test-suite...marks/Olden/health/health.test 16.00 18.00 12.5%
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/cdecl/cdecl.test 90.00 101.00 12.2%
test-suite...fice-ispell/office-ispell.test 91.00 100.00 9.9%
test-suite...oxyApps-C/miniGMG/miniGMG.test 430.00 465.00 8.1%
test-suite...lowfish/security-blowfish.test 39.00 42.00 7.7%
test-suite.../Applications/spiff/spiff.test 42.00 45.00 7.1%
test-suite...arks/mafft/pairlocalalign.test 2473.00 2646.00 7.0%
test-suite.../VersaBench/ecbdes/ecbdes.test 29.00 31.00 6.9%
test-suite...nch/beamformer/beamformer.test 220.00 235.00 6.8%
test-suite...CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa.test 2110.00 2252.00 6.7%
test-suite...ve-susan/automotive-susan.test 109.00 116.00 6.4%
test-suite...s-C/unix-smail/unix-smail.test 65.00 69.00 6.2%
test-suite...CI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000.test 1194.00 1265.00 5.9%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/nbench/nbench.test 472.00 500.00 5.9%
test-suite...oxyApps-C/miniAMR/miniAMR.test 248.00 262.00 5.6%
test-suite...quoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk.test 18.00 19.00 5.6%
test-suite...rks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4.test 7331.00 7710.00 5.2%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 5651.00 5938.00 5.1%
test-suite...ternal/HMMER/hmmcalibrate.test 750.00 788.00 5.1%
test-suite...T2006/456.hmmer/456.hmmer.test 764.00 802.00 5.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/ldecod/ldecod.test 1028.00 1079.00 5.0%
test-suite...CFP2006/444.namd/444.namd.test 1368.00 1434.00 4.8%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 4471.00 4685.00 4.8%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 3122.00 3271.00 4.8%
test-suite...pplications/oggenc/oggenc.test 1497.00 1565.00 4.5%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 742.00 774.00 4.3%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C/loader/loader.test 24.00 25.00 4.2%
test-suite...0.perlbench/400.perlbench.test 1983.00 2058.00 3.8%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 4612.00 4785.00 3.8%
test-suite...yApps-C++/PENNANT/PENNANT.test 995.00 1032.00 3.7%
test-suite...arks/VersaBench/dbms/dbms.test 54.00 56.00 3.7%
Reviewers: efriedma, thegameg, samparker, dmgreen, paquette, evandro
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70450
This is generally more readable due to the way the assembler aliases
work.
(This causes a lot of test changes, but it's not really as scary as it
looks at first glance; it's just mechanically changing a bunch of checks
for orr to check for mov instead.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59720
llvm-svn: 356954
If we know that we'll definitely save LR to a register, there's no reason to
pre-check whether or not a stack instruction is unsafe to fix up.
This makes it so that we check for that condition before mapping instructions.
This allows us to outline more, since we don't pessimise as many instructions.
Also update some tests, since we outline more.
llvm-svn: 348081
If a function has target features, it may contain instructions that aren't
represented in the default set of instructions. If the outliner pulls out one
of these instructions, and the function doesn't have the right attributes
attached, we'll run into an LLVM error explaining that the target doesn't
support the necessary feature for the instruction.
This makes outlined functions inherit target features from their parents.
It also updates the machine-outliner.ll test to check that we're properly
inheriting target features.
llvm-svn: 345535
This teaches the outliner to save LR to a register rather than the stack when
possible. This allows us to avoid bumping the stack in outlined functions in
some cases. By doing this, in a later patch, we can teach the outliner to do
something like this:
f1:
...
bl OUTLINED_FUNCTION
...
f2:
...
move LR's contents to a register
bl OUTLINED_FUNCTION
move the register's contents back
instead of falling back to saving LR in both cases.
llvm-svn: 338278
This breaks the code which saves and restores LR, so we can't outline
without doing something more complicated for stack adjustment.
Found by inspection; we get lucky in most cases because getMemOpInfo
only handles STRWpost, not any other pre/post-increment forms. But it
hits a couple of artificial testcases in the tree.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46920
llvm-svn: 332529
It doesn't matter much this late in the pipeline, but one place that
does check for it is the function alignment code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46373
llvm-svn: 332415
The program might have unusual expectations for functions; for example,
the Linux kernel's build system warns if it finds references from .text
to .init.data.
I'm not sure this is something we actually want to make any guarantees
about (there isn't any explicit rule that would disallow outlining
in this case), but we might want to be conservative anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46091
llvm-svn: 331007
First off, this is more correct than having the B. Second off, this was making
a bot upset. This fixes that.
Update the test to include -verify-machineinstrs as well to prevent stuff like
this slipping by non debug/assert builds in the future.
llvm-svn: 330459
The linkage type on outlined functions was private before. This meant that if
you set a breakpoint in an outlined function, the debugger wouldn't be able to
give a sane name to the outlined function.
This commit changes the linkage type to internal and updates any tests that
relied on the prefixes on the names of outlined functions.
llvm-svn: 329116
Say you have two identical linkonceodr functions, one in M1 and one in M2.
Say that the outliner outlines A,B,C from one function, and D,E,F from another
function (where letters are instructions). Now those functions are not
identical, and cannot be deduped. Locally to M1 and M2, these outlining
choices would be good-- to the whole program, however, this might not be true!
To mitigate this, this commit makes it so that the outliner sees linkonceodr
functions as unsafe to outline from. It also adds a flag,
-enable-linkonceodr-outlining, which allows the user to specify that they
want to outline from such functions when they know what they're doing.
Changing this handles most code size regressions in the test suite caused by
competing with linker dedupe. It also doesn't have a huge impact on the code
size improvements from the outliner. There are 6 tests that regress > 5% from
outlining WITH linkonceodrs to outlining WITHOUT linkonceodrs. Overall, most
tests either improve or are not impacted.
Not outlined vs outlined without linkonceodrs:
https://hastebin.com/raw/qeguxavuda
Not outlined vs outlined with linkonceodrs:
https://hastebin.com/raw/edepoqoqic
Outlined with linkonceodrs vs outlined without linkonceodrs:
https://hastebin.com/raw/awiqifiheb
Numbers generated using compare.py with -m size.__text. Tests run for AArch64
with -Oz -mllvm -enable-machine-outliner -mno-red-zone.
llvm-svn: 315136
This commit adds the necessary target hooks for outlining in AArch64. It also
refactors the switch statement used in `getMemOpBaseRegImmOfsWidth` into a
more general function, `getMemOpInfo`. This allows the outliner to share that
code without copying and pasting it.
The AArch64 outliner can be run using -mllvm -enable-machine-outliner, as with
the X86-64 outliner.
The test for this pass verifies that the outliner does, in fact outline
functions, fixes up the stack accesses properly, and can correctly generate a
tail call. In the future, this test should be replaced with a MIR test, so that
we can properly test immediate offset overflows in fixed-up instructions.
llvm-svn: 298162
