when the set bits aren't the same for both args of the xor.
This transformation is in the function TargetLowering::SimplifyDemandedBits
in the file lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp.
I have tested this test using a previous version of llc which the defect and
the a version of llc which does not. I got the expected fail and pass,
respectively.
This test goes with rdar://11195364 and the check in with the fix: svn r154955
llvm-svn: 155156
also fix SimplifyLibCalls to use TLI rather than compile-time conditionals to enable optimizations on floor, ceil, round, rint, and nearbyint
llvm-svn: 154960
both fallthrough and a conditional branch target the same successor.
Gracefully delete the conditional branch and introduce any unconditional
branch needed to reach the actual successor. This fixes memory
corruption in 2009-06-15-RegScavengerAssert.ll and possibly other tests.
Also, while I'm here fix a latent bug I spotted by inspection. I never
applied the same fundamental fix to this fallthrough successor finding
logic that I did to the logic used when there are no conditional
branches. As a consequence it would have selected landing pads had they
be aligned in just the right way here. I don't have a test case as
I spotted this by inspection, and the previous time I found this
required have of TableGen's source code to produce it. =/ I hate backend
bugs. ;]
Thanks to Jim Grosbach for helping me reason through this and reviewing
the fix.
llvm-svn: 154867
This is mostly to test the waters. I'd like to get results from FNT
build bots and other bots running on non-x86 platforms.
This feature has been pretty heavily tested over the last few months by
me, and it fixes several of the execution time regressions caused by the
inlining work by preventing inlining decisions from radically impacting
block layout.
I've seen very large improvements in yacr2 and ackermann benchmarks,
along with the expected noise across all of the benchmark suite whenever
code layout changes. I've analyzed all of the regressions and fixed
them, or found them to be impossible to fix. See my email to llvmdev for
more details.
I'd like for this to be in 3.1 as it complements the inliner changes,
but if any failures are showing up or anyone has concerns, it is just
a flag flip and so can be easily turned off.
I'm switching it on tonight to try and get at least one run through
various folks' performance suites in case SPEC or something else has
serious issues with it. I'll watch bots and revert if anything shows up.
llvm-svn: 154816
once we start changing the block layout, so just nuke it. If anyone has
ideas about how to craft a code layout agnostic form of the test please
let me know.
llvm-svn: 154815
rotation. When there is a loop backedge which is an unconditional
branch, we will end up with a branch somewhere no matter what. Try
placing this backedge in a fallthrough position above the loop header as
that will definitely remove at least one branch from the loop iteration,
where whole loop rotation may not.
I haven't seen any benchmarks where this is important but loop-blocks.ll
tests for it, and so this will be covered when I flip the default.
llvm-svn: 154812
laid out in a form with a fallthrough into the header and a fallthrough
out of the bottom. In that case, leave the loop alone because any
rotation will introduce unnecessary branches. If either side looks like
it will require an explicit branch, then the rotation won't add any, do
it to ensure the branch occurs outside of the loop (if possible) and
maximize the benefit of the fallthrough in the bottom.
llvm-svn: 154806
This is a complex change that resulted from a great deal of
experimentation with several different benchmarks. The one which proved
the most useful is included as a test case, but I don't know that it
captures all of the relevant changes, as I didn't have specific
regression tests for each, they were more the result of reasoning about
what the old algorithm would possibly do wrong. I'm also failing at the
moment to craft more targeted regression tests for these changes, if
anyone has ideas, it would be welcome.
The first big thing broken with the old algorithm is the idea that we
can take a basic block which has a loop-exiting successor and a looping
successor and use the looping successor as the layout top in order to
get that particular block to be the bottom of the loop after layout.
This happens to work in many cases, but not in all.
The second big thing broken was that we didn't try to select the exit
which fell into the nearest enclosing loop (to which we exit at all). As
a consequence, even if the rotation worked perfectly, it would result in
one of two bad layouts. Either the bottom of the loop would get
fallthrough, skipping across a nearer enclosing loop and thereby making
it discontiguous, or it would be forced to take an explicit jump over
the nearest enclosing loop to earch its successor. The point of the
rotation is to get fallthrough, so we need it to fallthrough to the
nearest loop it can.
The fix to the first issue is to actually layout the loop from the loop
header, and then rotate the loop such that the correct exiting edge can
be a fallthrough edge. This is actually much easier than I anticipated
because we can handle all the hard parts of finding a viable rotation
before we do the layout. We just store that, and then rotate after
layout is finished. No inner loops get split across the post-rotation
backedge because we check for them when selecting the rotation.
That fix exposed a latent problem with our exitting block selection --
we should allow the backedge to point into the middle of some inner-loop
chain as there is no real penalty to it, the whole point is that it
*won't* be a fallthrough edge. This may have blocked the rotation at all
in some cases, I have no idea and no test case as I've never seen it in
practice, it was just noticed by inspection.
Finally, all of these fixes, and studying the loops they produce,
highlighted another problem: in rotating loops like this, we sometimes
fail to align the destination of these backwards jumping edges. Fix this
by actually walking the backwards edges rather than relying on loopinfo.
This fixes regressions on heapsort if block placement is enabled as well
as lots of other cases where the previous logic would introduce an
abundance of unnecessary branches into the execution.
llvm-svn: 154783
There is an assert at line 558 in ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph(AliasAnalysis *AA).
This assert needs to addressed for post RA scheduler. Until that assert is addressed,
any passes that uses post ra scheduler will fail. So, I am temporarily disabling the
hexagon tests until that fix is in.
The assert is as follows:
assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() &&
"Cannot schedule terminators or labels!");
llvm-svn: 154617
- FCOPYSIGN nodes that have operands of different types were not handled.
- Different code was generated depending on the endianness of the target.
Additionally, code is added that emits INS and EXT instructions, if they are
supported by target (they are R2 instructions).
llvm-svn: 154540
Original message:
Modify the code that lowers shuffles to blends from using blendvXX to vblendXX.
blendV uses a register for the selection while Vblend uses an immediate.
On sandybridge they still have the same latency and execute on the same execution ports.
llvm-svn: 154483
blendv uses a register for the selection while vblend uses an immediate.
On sandybridge they still have the same latency and execute on the same execution ports.
llvm-svn: 154396
legalizer always use the DAG entry node. This is wrong when the libcall is
emitted as a tail call since it effectively folds the return node. If
the return node's input chain is not the entry (i.e. call, load, or store)
use that as the tail call input chain.
PR12419
rdar://9770785
rdar://11195178
llvm-svn: 154370
