Refactor target hook for tail duplication as requested by Chris.
Make tail duplication of indirect branches much more aggressive (for targets
that indicate that it is profitable), based on further experience with
this transformation. I compiled 3 large applications with and without
this more aggressive tail duplication and measured minimal changes in code
size. ("size" on Darwin seems to round the text size up to the nearest
page boundary, so I can only say that any code size increase was less than
one 4k page.) Radar 7421267.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@89814 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
index f807e8f..0fd3c23 100644
--- a/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
+++ b/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
@@ -1043,9 +1043,18 @@
// of one less than the tail-merge threshold. When optimizing for size,
// duplicate only one, because one branch instruction can be eliminated to
// compensate for the duplication.
- unsigned MaxDuplicateCount =
- MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttr(Attribute::OptimizeForSize) ?
- 1 : TII->TailDuplicationLimit(*TailBB, TailMergeSize - 1);
+ unsigned MaxDuplicateCount;
+ if (MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttr(Attribute::OptimizeForSize))
+ MaxDuplicateCount = 1;
+ else if (TII->isProfitableToDuplicateIndirectBranch() &&
+ !TailBB->empty() && TailBB->back().getDesc().isIndirectBranch())
+ // If the target has hardware branch prediction that can handle indirect
+ // branches, duplicating them can often make them predictable when there
+ // are common paths through the code. The limit needs to be high enough
+ // to allow undoing the effects of tail merging.
+ MaxDuplicateCount = 20;
+ else
+ MaxDuplicateCount = TailMergeSize - 1;
// Check the instructions in the block to determine whether tail-duplication
// is invalid or unlikely to be profitable.