mirror of
https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm.git
synced 2025-02-15 00:16:42 +00:00
d3a38ccfbb
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. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@145413 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Analysis Opportunities:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:
{1,+,3,+,2}<loop>
Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as
(-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))
In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,
ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:
((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))
This could be folded to
(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//