blob: 932893eae1b58fed7cde7345ee91d2bb263b3ef9 [file] [log] [blame]
Chris Lattnerb86bd2c2006-03-27 07:04:16 +00001//===- README.txt - Notes for improving PowerPC-specific code gen ---------===//
2
Nate Begemanb64af912004-08-10 20:42:36 +00003TODO:
Nate Begemanef9531e2005-04-11 20:48:57 +00004* gpr0 allocation
Nate Begeman4a0de072004-10-26 04:10:53 +00005* implement do-loop -> bdnz transform
Nate Begeman50fb3c42005-12-24 01:00:15 +00006
Nate Begemana63fee82006-02-03 05:17:06 +00007===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Nate Begeman50fb3c42005-12-24 01:00:15 +00008
Nate Begemana63fee82006-02-03 05:17:06 +00009Support 'update' load/store instructions. These are cracked on the G5, but are
10still a codesize win.
11
Chris Lattner26ddb502006-11-10 01:33:53 +000012With preinc enabled, this:
13
14long *%test4(long *%X, long *%dest) {
15 %Y = getelementptr long* %X, int 4
16 %A = load long* %Y
17 store long %A, long* %dest
18 ret long* %Y
19}
20
21compiles to:
22
23_test4:
24 mr r2, r3
25 lwzu r5, 32(r2)
26 lwz r3, 36(r3)
27 stw r5, 0(r4)
28 stw r3, 4(r4)
29 mr r3, r2
30 blr
31
32with -sched=list-burr, I get:
33
34_test4:
35 lwz r2, 36(r3)
36 lwzu r5, 32(r3)
37 stw r2, 4(r4)
38 stw r5, 0(r4)
39 blr
40
Nate Begemana63fee82006-02-03 05:17:06 +000041===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
42
Chris Lattner6e112952006-11-07 18:30:21 +000043We compile the hottest inner loop of viterbi to:
44
45 li r6, 0
46 b LBB1_84 ;bb432.i
47LBB1_83: ;bb420.i
48 lbzx r8, r5, r7
49 addi r6, r7, 1
50 stbx r8, r4, r7
51LBB1_84: ;bb432.i
52 mr r7, r6
53 cmplwi cr0, r7, 143
54 bne cr0, LBB1_83 ;bb420.i
55
56The CBE manages to produce:
57
58 li r0, 143
59 mtctr r0
60loop:
61 lbzx r2, r2, r11
62 stbx r0, r2, r9
63 addi r2, r2, 1
64 bdz later
65 b loop
66
67This could be much better (bdnz instead of bdz) but it still beats us. If we
68produced this with bdnz, the loop would be a single dispatch group.
69
70===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
71
Chris Lattner6a250ec2006-10-13 20:20:58 +000072Compile:
73
74void foo(int *P) {
75 if (P) *P = 0;
76}
77
78into:
79
80_foo:
81 cmpwi cr0,r3,0
82 beqlr cr0
83 li r0,0
84 stw r0,0(r3)
85 blr
86
87This is effectively a simple form of predication.
88
89===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
90
Chris Lattnera3c44542005-08-24 18:15:24 +000091Lump the constant pool for each function into ONE pic object, and reference
92pieces of it as offsets from the start. For functions like this (contrived
93to have lots of constants obviously):
94
95double X(double Y) { return (Y*1.23 + 4.512)*2.34 + 14.38; }
96
97We generate:
98
99_X:
100 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_0)
101 lfd f0, lo16(.CPI_X_0)(r2)
102 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_1)
103 lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_1)(r2)
104 fmadd f0, f1, f0, f2
105 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_2)
106 lfd f1, lo16(.CPI_X_2)(r2)
107 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_3)
108 lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_3)(r2)
109 fmadd f1, f0, f1, f2
110 blr
111
112It would be better to materialize .CPI_X into a register, then use immediates
113off of the register to avoid the lis's. This is even more important in PIC
114mode.
115
Chris Lattner39b248b2006-02-02 23:50:22 +0000116Note that this (and the static variable version) is discussed here for GCC:
117http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
118
Chris Lattnera3c44542005-08-24 18:15:24 +0000119===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Nate Begeman92cce902005-09-06 15:30:48 +0000120
Chris Lattner33c1dab2006-02-03 06:22:11 +0000121PIC Code Gen IPO optimization:
122
123Squish small scalar globals together into a single global struct, allowing the
124address of the struct to be CSE'd, avoiding PIC accesses (also reduces the size
125of the GOT on targets with one).
126
127Note that this is discussed here for GCC:
128http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
129
130===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
131
Nate Begeman92cce902005-09-06 15:30:48 +0000132Implement Newton-Rhapson method for improving estimate instructions to the
133correct accuracy, and implementing divide as multiply by reciprocal when it has
134more than one use. Itanium will want this too.
Nate Begeman21e463b2005-10-16 05:39:50 +0000135
136===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
137
Chris Lattnerae4664a2005-11-05 08:57:56 +0000138Compile this:
139
140int %f1(int %a, int %b) {
141 %tmp.1 = and int %a, 15 ; <int> [#uses=1]
142 %tmp.3 = and int %b, 240 ; <int> [#uses=1]
143 %tmp.4 = or int %tmp.3, %tmp.1 ; <int> [#uses=1]
144 ret int %tmp.4
145}
146
147without a copy. We make this currently:
148
149_f1:
150 rlwinm r2, r4, 0, 24, 27
151 rlwimi r2, r3, 0, 28, 31
152 or r3, r2, r2
153 blr
154
155The two-addr pass or RA needs to learn when it is profitable to commute an
156instruction to avoid a copy AFTER the 2-addr instruction. The 2-addr pass
157currently only commutes to avoid inserting a copy BEFORE the two addr instr.
158
Chris Lattner62c08dd2005-12-08 07:13:28 +0000159===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
160
161Compile offsets from allocas:
162
163int *%test() {
164 %X = alloca { int, int }
165 %Y = getelementptr {int,int}* %X, int 0, uint 1
166 ret int* %Y
167}
168
169into a single add, not two:
170
171_test:
172 addi r2, r1, -8
173 addi r3, r2, 4
174 blr
175
176--> important for C++.
177
Chris Lattner39706e62005-12-22 17:19:28 +0000178===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
179
Chris Lattner39706e62005-12-22 17:19:28 +0000180No loads or stores of the constants should be needed:
181
182struct foo { double X, Y; };
183void xxx(struct foo F);
184void bar() { struct foo R = { 1.0, 2.0 }; xxx(R); }
185
Chris Lattner1db4b4f2006-01-16 17:53:00 +0000186===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
187
Chris Lattner98fbc2f2006-01-16 17:58:54 +0000188Darwin Stub LICM optimization:
189
190Loops like this:
191
192 for (...) bar();
193
194Have to go through an indirect stub if bar is external or linkonce. It would
195be better to compile it as:
196
197 fp = &bar;
198 for (...) fp();
199
200which only computes the address of bar once (instead of each time through the
201stub). This is Darwin specific and would have to be done in the code generator.
202Probably not a win on x86.
203
204===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
205
Chris Lattner98fbc2f2006-01-16 17:58:54 +0000206Simple IPO for argument passing, change:
207 void foo(int X, double Y, int Z) -> void foo(int X, int Z, double Y)
208
209the Darwin ABI specifies that any integer arguments in the first 32 bytes worth
210of arguments get assigned to r3 through r10. That is, if you have a function
211foo(int, double, int) you get r3, f1, r6, since the 64 bit double ate up the
212argument bytes for r4 and r5. The trick then would be to shuffle the argument
213order for functions we can internalize so that the maximum number of
214integers/pointers get passed in regs before you see any of the fp arguments.
215
216Instead of implementing this, it would actually probably be easier to just
217implement a PPC fastcc, where we could do whatever we wanted to the CC,
218including having this work sanely.
219
220===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
221
222Fix Darwin FP-In-Integer Registers ABI
223
224Darwin passes doubles in structures in integer registers, which is very very
225bad. Add something like a BIT_CONVERT to LLVM, then do an i-p transformation
226that percolates these things out of functions.
227
228Check out how horrible this is:
229http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01036.html
230
231This is an extension of "interprocedural CC unmunging" that can't be done with
232just fastcc.
233
234===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
235
Chris Lattner56b69642006-01-31 02:55:28 +0000236Compile this:
237
Chris Lattner83e64ba2006-01-31 07:16:34 +0000238int foo(int a) {
239 int b = (a < 8);
240 if (b) {
241 return b * 3; // ignore the fact that this is always 3.
242 } else {
243 return 2;
244 }
245}
246
247into something not this:
248
249_foo:
2501) cmpwi cr7, r3, 8
251 mfcr r2, 1
252 rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
2531) cmpwi cr0, r3, 7
254 bgt cr0, LBB1_2 ; UnifiedReturnBlock
255LBB1_1: ; then
256 rlwinm r2, r2, 0, 31, 31
257 mulli r3, r2, 3
258 blr
259LBB1_2: ; UnifiedReturnBlock
260 li r3, 2
261 blr
262
263In particular, the two compares (marked 1) could be shared by reversing one.
264This could be done in the dag combiner, by swapping a BR_CC when a SETCC of the
265same operands (but backwards) exists. In this case, this wouldn't save us
266anything though, because the compares still wouldn't be shared.
Chris Lattner0ddc1802006-02-01 00:28:12 +0000267
Chris Lattner5a7efc92006-02-01 17:54:23 +0000268===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
269
Chris Lattner275b8842006-02-02 07:37:11 +0000270We should custom expand setcc instead of pretending that we have it. That
271would allow us to expose the access of the crbit after the mfcr, allowing
272that access to be trivially folded into other ops. A simple example:
273
274int foo(int a, int b) { return (a < b) << 4; }
275
276compiles into:
277
278_foo:
279 cmpw cr7, r3, r4
280 mfcr r2, 1
281 rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
282 slwi r3, r2, 4
283 blr
284
Chris Lattnerd463f7f2006-02-03 01:49:49 +0000285===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
286
Nate Begemana63fee82006-02-03 05:17:06 +0000287Fold add and sub with constant into non-extern, non-weak addresses so this:
288
289static int a;
290void bar(int b) { a = b; }
291void foo(unsigned char *c) {
292 *c = a;
293}
294
295So that
296
297_foo:
298 lis r2, ha16(_a)
299 la r2, lo16(_a)(r2)
300 lbz r2, 3(r2)
301 stb r2, 0(r3)
302 blr
303
304Becomes
305
306_foo:
307 lis r2, ha16(_a+3)
308 lbz r2, lo16(_a+3)(r2)
309 stb r2, 0(r3)
310 blr
Chris Lattner21384532006-02-05 05:27:35 +0000311
312===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
313
314We generate really bad code for this:
315
316int f(signed char *a, _Bool b, _Bool c) {
317 signed char t = 0;
318 if (b) t = *a;
319 if (c) *a = t;
320}
321
Chris Lattner00d18f02006-03-01 06:36:20 +0000322===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
323
324This:
325int test(unsigned *P) { return *P >> 24; }
326
327Should compile to:
328
329_test:
330 lbz r3,0(r3)
331 blr
332
333not:
334
335_test:
336 lwz r2, 0(r3)
337 srwi r3, r2, 24
338 blr
339
Chris Lattner5a63c472006-03-07 04:42:59 +0000340===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
341
342On the G5, logical CR operations are more expensive in their three
343address form: ops that read/write the same register are half as expensive as
344those that read from two registers that are different from their destination.
345
346We should model this with two separate instructions. The isel should generate
347the "two address" form of the instructions. When the register allocator
348detects that it needs to insert a copy due to the two-addresness of the CR
349logical op, it will invoke PPCInstrInfo::convertToThreeAddress. At this point
350we can convert to the "three address" instruction, to save code space.
351
352This only matters when we start generating cr logical ops.
353
Chris Lattner49f398b2006-03-08 00:25:47 +0000354===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
355
356We should compile these two functions to the same thing:
357
358#include <stdlib.h>
359void f(int a, int b, int *P) {
360 *P = (a-b)>=0?(a-b):(b-a);
361}
362void g(int a, int b, int *P) {
363 *P = abs(a-b);
364}
365
366Further, they should compile to something better than:
367
368_g:
369 subf r2, r4, r3
370 subfic r3, r2, 0
371 cmpwi cr0, r2, -1
372 bgt cr0, LBB2_2 ; entry
373LBB2_1: ; entry
374 mr r2, r3
375LBB2_2: ; entry
376 stw r2, 0(r5)
377 blr
378
379GCC produces:
380
381_g:
382 subf r4,r4,r3
383 srawi r2,r4,31
384 xor r0,r2,r4
385 subf r0,r2,r0
386 stw r0,0(r5)
387 blr
388
389... which is much nicer.
390
391This theoretically may help improve twolf slightly (used in dimbox.c:142?).
392
393===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
394
Nate Begeman2df99282006-03-16 18:50:44 +0000395int foo(int N, int ***W, int **TK, int X) {
396 int t, i;
397
398 for (t = 0; t < N; ++t)
399 for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
400 W[t / X][i][t % X] = TK[i][t];
401
402 return 5;
403}
404
Chris Lattnered511692006-03-16 22:25:55 +0000405We generate relatively atrocious code for this loop compared to gcc.
406
Chris Lattneref040dd2006-03-21 00:47:09 +0000407We could also strength reduce the rem and the div:
408http://www.lcs.mit.edu/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-600.pdf
409
Chris Lattner28b1a0b2006-03-19 05:33:30 +0000410===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattnered511692006-03-16 22:25:55 +0000411
Nate Begemanc0a8b6d2006-03-21 18:58:20 +0000412float foo(float X) { return (int)(X); }
413
Chris Lattner9d86a9d2006-03-22 05:33:23 +0000414Currently produces:
Nate Begemanc0a8b6d2006-03-21 18:58:20 +0000415
416_foo:
Nate Begemanc0a8b6d2006-03-21 18:58:20 +0000417 fctiwz f0, f1
418 stfd f0, -8(r1)
Chris Lattner9d86a9d2006-03-22 05:33:23 +0000419 lwz r2, -4(r1)
420 extsw r2, r2
421 std r2, -16(r1)
422 lfd f0, -16(r1)
423 fcfid f0, f0
Nate Begemanc0a8b6d2006-03-21 18:58:20 +0000424 frsp f1, f0
425 blr
426
Chris Lattner9d86a9d2006-03-22 05:33:23 +0000427We could use a target dag combine to turn the lwz/extsw into an lwa when the
428lwz has a single use. Since LWA is cracked anyway, this would be a codesize
429win only.
Nate Begemanc0a8b6d2006-03-21 18:58:20 +0000430
Chris Lattner716aefc2006-03-23 21:28:44 +0000431===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
432
Chris Lattner057f09b2006-03-24 20:04:27 +0000433We generate ugly code for this:
434
435void func(unsigned int *ret, float dx, float dy, float dz, float dw) {
436 unsigned code = 0;
437 if(dx < -dw) code |= 1;
438 if(dx > dw) code |= 2;
439 if(dy < -dw) code |= 4;
440 if(dy > dw) code |= 8;
441 if(dz < -dw) code |= 16;
442 if(dz > dw) code |= 32;
443 *ret = code;
444}
445
Chris Lattner420736d2006-03-25 06:47:10 +0000446===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
447
Chris Lattnered937902006-04-13 16:48:00 +0000448Complete the signed i32 to FP conversion code using 64-bit registers
449transformation, good for PI. See PPCISelLowering.cpp, this comment:
Chris Lattner220d2b82006-04-02 07:20:00 +0000450
Chris Lattnered937902006-04-13 16:48:00 +0000451 // FIXME: disable this lowered code. This generates 64-bit register values,
452 // and we don't model the fact that the top part is clobbered by calls. We
453 // need to flag these together so that the value isn't live across a call.
454 //setOperationAction(ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::i32, Custom);
Chris Lattner220d2b82006-04-02 07:20:00 +0000455
Chris Lattner9d62fa42006-05-17 19:02:25 +0000456Also, if the registers are spilled to the stack, we have to ensure that all
45764-bits of them are save/restored, otherwise we will miscompile the code. It
458sounds like we need to get the 64-bit register classes going.
459
Chris Lattner55c63252006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000460===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
461
Nate Begeman908049b2007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000462%struct.B = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
Nate Begeman75146202006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000463
Nate Begeman908049b2007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000464define void @bar(%struct.B* %b) {
Nate Begeman75146202006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000465entry:
Nate Begeman908049b2007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000466 %tmp = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
467 %tmp = load i32* %tmp ; <uint> [#uses=1]
468 %tmp3 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
469 %tmp4 = load i32* %tmp3 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
470 %tmp8 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
471 %tmp9 = load i32* %tmp8 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
472 %tmp4.mask17 = shl i32 %tmp4, i8 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
473 %tmp1415 = and i32 %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
474 %tmp.masked = and i32 %tmp, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
475 %tmp11 = or i32 %tmp1415, %tmp.masked ; <uint> [#uses=1]
476 %tmp12 = and i32 %tmp9, 2147483647 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
477 %tmp13 = or i32 %tmp12, %tmp11 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
478 store i32 %tmp13, i32* %tmp8
Chris Lattner55c63252006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000479 ret void
480}
481
482We emit:
483
484_foo:
485 lwz r2, 0(r3)
Nate Begeman75146202006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000486 slwi r4, r2, 1
487 or r4, r4, r2
488 rlwimi r2, r4, 0, 0, 0
Nate Begeman4667f2c2006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000489 stw r2, 0(r3)
Chris Lattner55c63252006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000490 blr
491
Nate Begeman75146202006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000492We could collapse a bunch of those ORs and ANDs and generate the following
493equivalent code:
Chris Lattner55c63252006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000494
Nate Begeman4667f2c2006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000495_foo:
496 lwz r2, 0(r3)
Nate Begemand8624ed2006-05-08 19:09:24 +0000497 rlwinm r4, r2, 1, 0, 0
Nate Begeman4667f2c2006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000498 or r2, r2, r4
499 stw r2, 0(r3)
500 blr
Chris Lattner1eeedae2006-07-14 04:07:29 +0000501
502===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
503
Chris Lattnerf0613e12006-09-14 20:56:30 +0000504We compile:
505
506unsigned test6(unsigned x) {
507 return ((x & 0x00FF0000) >> 16) | ((x & 0x000000FF) << 16);
508}
509
510into:
511
512_test6:
513 lis r2, 255
514 rlwinm r3, r3, 16, 0, 31
515 ori r2, r2, 255
516 and r3, r3, r2
517 blr
518
519GCC gets it down to:
520
521_test6:
522 rlwinm r0,r3,16,8,15
523 rlwinm r3,r3,16,24,31
524 or r3,r3,r0
525 blr
526
Chris Lattnerafd7a082007-01-18 07:34:57 +0000527
528===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
529
530Consider a function like this:
531
532float foo(float X) { return X + 1234.4123f; }
533
534The FP constant ends up in the constant pool, so we need to get the LR register.
535 This ends up producing code like this:
536
537_foo:
538.LBB_foo_0: ; entry
539 mflr r11
540*** stw r11, 8(r1)
541 bl "L00000$pb"
542"L00000$pb":
543 mflr r2
544 addis r2, r2, ha16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")
545 lfs f0, lo16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")(r2)
546 fadds f1, f1, f0
547*** lwz r11, 8(r1)
548 mtlr r11
549 blr
550
551This is functional, but there is no reason to spill the LR register all the way
552to the stack (the two marked instrs): spilling it to a GPR is quite enough.
553
554Implementing this will require some codegen improvements. Nate writes:
555
556"So basically what we need to support the "no stack frame save and restore" is a
557generalization of the LR optimization to "callee-save regs".
558
559Currently, we have LR marked as a callee-save reg. The register allocator sees
560that it's callee save, and spills it directly to the stack.
561
562Ideally, something like this would happen:
563
564LR would be in a separate register class from the GPRs. The class of LR would be
565marked "unspillable". When the register allocator came across an unspillable
566reg, it would ask "what is the best class to copy this into that I *can* spill"
567If it gets a class back, which it will in this case (the gprs), it grabs a free
568register of that class. If it is then later necessary to spill that reg, so be
569it.
570
571===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattner95b9d6e2007-01-31 19:49:20 +0000572
573We compile this:
574int test(_Bool X) {
575 return X ? 524288 : 0;
576}
577
578to:
579_test:
580 cmplwi cr0, r3, 0
581 lis r2, 8
582 li r3, 0
583 beq cr0, LBB1_2 ;entry
584LBB1_1: ;entry
585 mr r3, r2
586LBB1_2: ;entry
587 blr
588
589instead of:
590_test:
591 addic r2,r3,-1
592 subfe r0,r2,r3
593 slwi r3,r0,19
594 blr
595
596This sort of thing occurs a lot due to globalopt.
597
598===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattner8abcfe12007-02-09 17:38:01 +0000599
600We currently compile 32-bit bswap:
601
602declare i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
603define i32 @test(i32 %A) {
604 %B = call i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
605 ret i32 %B
606}
607
608to:
609
610_test:
611 rlwinm r2, r3, 24, 16, 23
612 slwi r4, r3, 24
613 rlwimi r2, r3, 8, 24, 31
614 rlwimi r4, r3, 8, 8, 15
615 rlwimi r4, r2, 0, 16, 31
616 mr r3, r4
617 blr
618
619it would be more efficient to produce:
620
621_foo: mr r0,r3
622 rlwinm r3,r3,8,0xffffffff
623 rlwimi r3,r0,24,0,7
624 rlwimi r3,r0,24,16,23
625 blr
626
627===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===