forked from llvm-mirror/llvm
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
README.txt
2279 lines (1709 loc) · 69.6 KB
/
README.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Target Independent Opportunities:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We should recognized various "overflow detection" idioms and translate them into
llvm.uadd.with.overflow and similar intrinsics. Here is a multiply idiom:
unsigned int mul(unsigned int a,unsigned int b) {
if ((unsigned long long)a*b>0xffffffff)
exit(0);
return a*b;
}
The legalization code for mul-with-overflow needs to be made more robust before
this can be implemented though.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Get the C front-end to expand hypot(x,y) -> llvm.sqrt(x*x+y*y) when errno and
precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :) This isn't
safe in general, even on darwin. See the libm implementation of hypot for
examples (which special case when x/y are exactly zero to get signed zeros etc
right).
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
for (i = ...; ++i) {
x = 1ULL << i;
into:
long long tmp = 1;
for (i = ...; ++i, tmp+=tmp)
x = tmp;
This would be a win on ppc32, but not x86 or ppc64.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Shrink: (setlt (loadi32 P), 0) -> (setlt (loadi8 Phi), 0)
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Reassociate should turn things like:
int factorial(int X) {
return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
}
into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
multiplication trees.
First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Interesting? testcase for add/shift/mul reassoc:
int bar(int x, int y) {
return x*x*x+y+x*x*x*x*x*y*y*y*y;
}
int foo(int z, int n) {
return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
}
This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
%B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
%C = mul i32 %B, %B
ret i32 %C
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
b1 = a1 + a0;
}
This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
int g(int *j,int *l) { return memcmp(j,l,4); }
int h(int *j, int *l) { return *j - *l; }
this could be done in SelectionDAGISel.cpp, along with other special cases,
for 1,2,4,8 bytes.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
It would be nice to revert this patch:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
stuff too.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
For vector types, DataLayout.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
specific vector types are target dependent.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We should produce an unaligned load from code like this:
v4sf example(float *P) {
return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
of:
movl 136(%esp), %eax
cmpl $0, %eax
je LBB16_2 #cond_next
LBB16_1: #cond_true
incl _foo
LBB16_2: #cond_next
emit:
movl _foo, %eax
cmpl $1, %edi
sbbl $-1, %eax
movl %eax, _foo
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
This is now easily doable with MRVs. We could even make an intrinsic for this
if anyone cared enough about sincos.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
{
/* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
}
Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
so cool to turn it into something like:
long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
if (target < 32) {
for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
} else {
for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
}
... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
this requires TBAA.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
unsigned t;
t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
t &= ~0xff0000;
v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
return v ^ (t >> 8);
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[LOOP DELETION]
We don't delete this output free loop, because trip count analysis doesn't
realize that it is finite (if it were infinite, it would be undefined). Not
having this blocks Loop Idiom from matching strlen and friends.
void foo(char *C) {
int x = 0;
while (*C)
++x,++C;
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[LOOP RECOGNITION]
These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
unsigned c;
for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
c += v & 1;
return c;
}
unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
unsigned int count = 0;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
count += (input >> i) & i;
return count;
}
This should be recognized as CLZ: rdar://8459039
unsigned clz_a(unsigned a) {
int i;
for (i=0;i<32;i++)
if (a & (1<<(31-i)))
return i;
return 32;
}
This sort of thing should be added to the loop idiom pass.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
processors.
unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
}
unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-instcombine should handle this transform:
icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
this construct.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
addl $8, %edx #
cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
do.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Consider:
typedef unsigned U32;
typedef unsigned long long U64;
int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
U64 effective_addr2;
U32 temp = *inst;
int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
return 1;
return 0;
}
Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
when it is declared U32.
PHI Slicing could be extended to do this.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
entry:
%tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
%tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
then.0: ; preds = %entry
%tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
%tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
br label %return
else.0: ; preds = %entry
%tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
then.1: ; preds = %else.0
%tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
%tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
br label %return
return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
%result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
[ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
ret i32 %result.0
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Tail recursion elimination should handle:
int pow2m1(int n) {
if (n == 0)
return 0;
return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
}
Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
this:
; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
entry:
%tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
%tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
ret i32 %tmp.foo
}
define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
entry:
%tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
ret i32 %tmp3
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
example in pic mode:
#include <assert.h>
void foo(int x) {
assert(x);
//...
}
we compile this to:
_foo:
subl $28, %esp
call "L1$pb"
"L1$pb":
popl %eax
cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
je LBB1_2 # cond_true
LBB1_1: # return
# ...
addl $28, %esp
ret
LBB1_2: # cond_true
...
The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
code with early outs.
Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
double a[256];
void foo() {
int i, b;
for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
a[i] = -a[i];
}
is twice as slow as this loop:
long long a[256];
void foo() {
int i, b;
for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
}
and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
instructions.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
extern THotKey m_HotKey;
THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
into (-m64 -O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
__Z9GetHotKeyv: ## @_Z9GetHotKeyv
movq _m_HotKey@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rax
movzwl (%rax), %ecx
movzbl 2(%rax), %edx
shlq $16, %rdx
orq %rcx, %rdx
movzbl 3(%rax), %ecx
shlq $24, %rcx
orq %rdx, %rcx
movzbl 4(%rax), %eax
shlq $32, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
ret
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Consider:
int test() {
long long input[8] = {1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0};
foo(input);
}
Clang compiles this into:
call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp, i8 0, i64 64, i32 16, i1 false)
%0 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 0
store i64 1, i64* %0, align 16
%1 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 2
store i64 1, i64* %1, align 16
%2 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 4
store i64 1, i64* %2, align 16
%3 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 6
store i64 1, i64* %3, align 16
Which gets codegen'd into:
pxor %xmm0, %xmm0
movaps %xmm0, -16(%rbp)
movaps %xmm0, -32(%rbp)
movaps %xmm0, -48(%rbp)
movaps %xmm0, -64(%rbp)
movq $1, -64(%rbp)
movq $1, -48(%rbp)
movq $1, -32(%rbp)
movq $1, -16(%rbp)
It would be better to have 4 movq's of 0 instead of the movaps's.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
http://llvm.org/PR717:
The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
produces "ret int 0":
int f() {
int x = 4;
int y;
if (x == 3) y = 0;
return y;
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int nRet = 17;
int nLoop;
for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
if ( nLoop & 1 )
nRet += 2;
else
nRet -= 1;
}
return nRet;
}
Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
exit value computation.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
}
unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
switch(z) {
case 1:
return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
case 2:
return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
case 3:
return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
case 4:
return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
default:
return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
}
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
This (and similar related idioms):
unsigned int foo(unsigned char i) {
return i | (i<<8) | (i<<16) | (i<<24);
}
compiles into:
define i32 @foo(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
entry:
%conv = zext i8 %i to i32
%shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
%shl5 = shl i32 %conv, 16
%shl9 = shl i32 %conv, 24
%or = or i32 %shl9, %conv
%or6 = or i32 %or, %shl5
%or10 = or i32 %or6, %shl
ret i32 %or10
}
it would be better as:
unsigned int bar(unsigned char i) {
unsigned int j=i | (i << 8);
return j | (j<<16);
}
aka:
define i32 @bar(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
entry:
%conv = zext i8 %i to i32
%shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
%or = or i32 %shl, %conv
%shl5 = shl i32 %or, 16
%or6 = or i32 %shl5, %or
ret i32 %or6
}
or even i*0x01010101, depending on the speed of the multiplier. The best way to
handle this is to canonicalize it to a multiply in IR and have codegen handle
lowering multiplies to shifts on cpus where shifts are faster.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
$ time ./a.out fast
1.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
$ time ./a.out fast
0.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
void bar(unsigned n) {
if (n % 3 == 0)
true();
}
This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
void bar(unsigned n) {
if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
true();
}
The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
#include <cstdio>
struct test {
int val;
virtual ~test() {}
};
int main() {
test t;
std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
%A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
%B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
ret i8 %B
}
define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
%A = zext i8 %x to i9
%B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
%C = lshr i9 %B, 8
%D = trunc i9 %C to i8
ret i8 %D
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From gcc bug 24696:
int
f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
{
return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
}
int
f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
{
return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
}
Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 20192:
#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
f();
}
The expression should optimize to something like
"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
i;}
unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
produces better code on X86.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 15784:
#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
int f(int x, int y)
{
return (abs(x)) >= 0;
}
This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 14753:
void
rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
{
a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
if (a == 123)
bar ();
}
void
minus_cst (unsigned int a)
{
unsigned int tem;
tem = 20 - a;
if (tem == 5)
bar ();
}
void
mask_gt (unsigned int a)
{
/* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
if ((a & ~7) > 8)
bar ();
}
void
rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
{
/* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
if ((a >> 2) > 5)
bar ();
}
All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
-O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 32605:
int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3" (although llc can optimize it).
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
| opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int g(int x) { return (x - 10) < 0; }
Should combine to "x <= 9" (the sub has nsw). Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int g(int x) { return (x + 10) < 0; }
Should combine to "x < -10" (the add has nsw). Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int f(int i, int j) { return i < j + 1; }
int g(int i, int j) { return j > i - 1; }
Should combine to "i <= j" (the add/sub has nsw). Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned f(unsigned x) { return ((x & 7) + 1) & 15; }
The & 15 part should be optimized away, it doesn't change the result. Currently
not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
%tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
%decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
%tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
%decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
(!tmp || decl_context == 1)
This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
the function, e.g. by:
%tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
%tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
%or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
later.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[STORE SINKING]
Store sinking: This code:
void f (int n, int *cond, int *res) {
int i;
*res = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (*cond)
*res ^= 234; /* (*) */
}
On this function GVN hoists the fully redundant value of *res, but nothing
moves the store out. This gives us this code:
bb: ; preds = %bb2, %entry
%.rle = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %.rle6, %bb2 ]
%i.05 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %bb2 ]
%1 = load i32* %cond, align 4
%2 = icmp eq i32 %1, 0
br i1 %2, label %bb2, label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb
%3 = xor i32 %.rle, 234
store i32 %3, i32* %res, align 4
br label %bb2
bb2: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
%.rle6 = phi i32 [ %3, %bb1 ], [ %.rle, %bb ]
%indvar.next = add i32 %i.05, 1
%exitcond = icmp eq i32 %indvar.next, %n
br i1 %exitcond, label %return, label %bb
DSE should sink partially dead stores to get the store out of the loop.
Here's another partial dead case:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Scalar PRE hoists the mul in the common block up to the else:
int test (int a, int b, int c, int g) {
int d, e;
if (a)
d = b * c;
else
d = b - c;
e = b * c + g;
return d + e;
}
It would be better to do the mul once to reduce codesize above the if.
This is GCC PR38204.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
This simple function from 179.art:
int winner, numf2s;