blob: 836e74e6bc5ebd44b6334254f954ebd28cfbabff [file] [log] [blame]
Chris Lattner086c0142006-02-03 06:21:43 +00001Target Independent Opportunities:
2
Chris Lattnerf308ea02006-09-28 06:01:17 +00003//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
4
Chris Lattner313a94c2010-09-19 00:37:34 +00005We should recognize idioms for add-with-carry and turn it into the appropriate
6intrinsics. This example:
7
8unsigned add32carry(unsigned sum, unsigned x) {
9 unsigned z = sum + x;
10 if (sum + x < x)
11 z++;
12 return z;
13}
14
15Compiles to: clang t.c -S -o - -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -m64 -mkernel
16
17_add32carry: ## @add32carry
18 addl %esi, %edi
19 cmpl %esi, %edi
20 sbbl %eax, %eax
21 andl $1, %eax
22 addl %edi, %eax
23 ret
24
25with clang, but to:
26
27_add32carry:
28 leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
29 cmpl %esi, %eax
30 adcl $0, %eax
31 ret
32
33with gcc.
34
35//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
36
Chris Lattner1d159832009-11-27 17:12:30 +000037Dead argument elimination should be enhanced to handle cases when an argument is
38dead to an externally visible function. Though the argument can't be removed
39from the externally visible function, the caller doesn't need to pass it in.
40For example in this testcase:
41
42 void foo(int X) __attribute__((noinline));
43 void foo(int X) { sideeffect(); }
44 void bar(int A) { foo(A+1); }
45
46We compile bar to:
47
48define void @bar(i32 %A) nounwind ssp {
49 %0 = add nsw i32 %A, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
50 tail call void @foo(i32 %0) nounwind noinline ssp
51 ret void
52}
53
54The add is dead, we could pass in 'i32 undef' instead. This occurs for C++
55templates etc, which usually have linkonce_odr/weak_odr linkage, not internal
56linkage.
57
58//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
59
Chris Lattner9b62b452006-11-14 01:57:53 +000060With the recent changes to make the implicit def/use set explicit in
61machineinstrs, we should change the target descriptions for 'call' instructions
62so that the .td files don't list all the call-clobbered registers as implicit
63defs. Instead, these should be added by the code generator (e.g. on the dag).
64
65This has a number of uses:
66
671. PPC32/64 and X86 32/64 can avoid having multiple copies of call instructions
68 for their different impdef sets.
692. Targets with multiple calling convs (e.g. x86) which have different clobber
70 sets don't need copies of call instructions.
713. 'Interprocedural register allocation' can be done to reduce the clobber sets
72 of calls.
73
74//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
75
Nate Begeman81e80972006-03-17 01:40:33 +000076Make the PPC branch selector target independant
77
78//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner086c0142006-02-03 06:21:43 +000079
80Get the C front-end to expand hypot(x,y) -> llvm.sqrt(x*x+y*y) when errno and
Chris Lattner2dae65d2008-12-10 01:30:48 +000081precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :) This isn't
82safe in general, even on darwin. See the libm implementation of hypot for
83examples (which special case when x/y are exactly zero to get signed zeros etc
84right).
Chris Lattner086c0142006-02-03 06:21:43 +000085
Chris Lattner086c0142006-02-03 06:21:43 +000086//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
87
88Solve this DAG isel folding deficiency:
89
90int X, Y;
91
92void fn1(void)
93{
94 X = X | (Y << 3);
95}
96
97compiles to
98
99fn1:
100 movl Y, %eax
101 shll $3, %eax
102 orl X, %eax
103 movl %eax, X
104 ret
105
106The problem is the store's chain operand is not the load X but rather
107a TokenFactor of the load X and load Y, which prevents the folding.
108
109There are two ways to fix this:
110
1111. The dag combiner can start using alias analysis to realize that y/x
112 don't alias, making the store to X not dependent on the load from Y.
1132. The generated isel could be made smarter in the case it can't
114 disambiguate the pointers.
115
116Number 1 is the preferred solution.
117
Evan Chenge617b082006-03-13 23:19:10 +0000118This has been "fixed" by a TableGen hack. But that is a short term workaround
119which will be removed once the proper fix is made.
120
Chris Lattner086c0142006-02-03 06:21:43 +0000121//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
122
Chris Lattnerb27b69f2006-03-04 01:19:34 +0000123On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
124
125for (i = ...; ++i) {
126 x = 1ULL << i;
127
128into:
129 long long tmp = 1;
130 for (i = ...; ++i, tmp+=tmp)
131 x = tmp;
132
133This would be a win on ppc32, but not x86 or ppc64.
134
Chris Lattnerad019932006-03-04 08:44:51 +0000135//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner5b0fe7d2006-03-05 20:00:08 +0000136
137Shrink: (setlt (loadi32 P), 0) -> (setlt (loadi8 Phi), 0)
138
139//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner549f27d22006-03-07 02:46:26 +0000140
Chris Lattner398ffba2010-01-01 01:29:26 +0000141Reassociate should turn things like:
142
143int factorial(int X) {
144 return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
145}
146
147into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
148multiplication trees.
149
150First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
151code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
Chris Lattnerc20995e2006-03-11 20:17:08 +0000152
153//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
154
Chris Lattner74cfb7d2006-03-11 20:20:40 +0000155Interesting? testcase for add/shift/mul reassoc:
156
157int bar(int x, int y) {
158 return x*x*x+y+x*x*x*x*x*y*y*y*y;
159}
160int foo(int z, int n) {
161 return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
162}
163
Chris Lattner398ffba2010-01-01 01:29:26 +0000164This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
165is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
166which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
167multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
168
169define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
170 %B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
171 %C = mul i32 %B, %B
172 ret i32 %C
173}
174
175
176//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
177
178Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
179
180extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
181void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
182 b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
183 b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
184 b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
185 b1 = a1 + a0;
186}
187
188This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
189something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000190
Chris Lattner10c42452010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000191
192//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
193
194This function: (derived from GCC PR19988)
195double foo(double x, double y) {
196 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x + -0.1234 * y));
197}
198
199compiles to:
200_foo:
201 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
202 mulsd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm1
203 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2
204 addsd %xmm0, %xmm1
205 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
206 movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
207 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
208 ret
209
Chris Lattner43dc2e62010-01-24 20:17:09 +0000210Reassociate should be able to turn it into:
Chris Lattner10c42452010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000211
212double foo(double x, double y) {
213 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x - 0.1234 * y));
214}
215
216Which allows the multiply by constant to be CSE'd, producing:
217
218_foo:
219 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm1
220 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
221 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
222 subsd %xmm1, %xmm0
223 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
224 ret
225
226This doesn't need -ffast-math support at all. This is particularly bad because
227the llvm-gcc frontend is canonicalizing the later into the former, but clang
228doesn't have this problem.
229
Chris Lattner74cfb7d2006-03-11 20:20:40 +0000230//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
231
Chris Lattner82c78b22006-03-09 20:13:21 +0000232These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
233
234int g(int *j,int *l) { return memcmp(j,l,4); }
235int h(int *j, int *l) { return *j - *l; }
236
237this could be done in SelectionDAGISel.cpp, along with other special cases,
238for 1,2,4,8 bytes.
239
240//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
241
Chris Lattnerc04b4232006-03-22 07:33:46 +0000242It would be nice to revert this patch:
243http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
244
245And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
246legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
247stuff too.
248
Chris Lattnere6cd96d2006-03-24 19:59:17 +0000249//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
250
Reid Spencerac9dcb92007-02-15 03:39:18 +0000251For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
Evan Cheng67d3d4c2006-03-31 22:35:14 +0000252to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
Reid Spencerac9dcb92007-02-15 03:39:18 +0000253specific vector types are target dependent.
Chris Lattnereaa7c062006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000254
255//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
256
Dan Gohman1f3be1a2009-05-11 18:51:16 +0000257We should produce an unaligned load from code like this:
Chris Lattnereaa7c062006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000258
259v4sf example(float *P) {
260 return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
261}
262
263//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
264
Chris Lattner16abfdf2006-05-18 18:26:13 +0000265Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
266of:
267
268 movl 136(%esp), %eax
269 cmpl $0, %eax
270 je LBB16_2 #cond_next
271LBB16_1: #cond_true
272 incl _foo
273LBB16_2: #cond_next
274
275emit:
276 movl _foo, %eax
277 cmpl $1, %edi
278 sbbl $-1, %eax
279 movl %eax, _foo
280
281//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner870cf1b2006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000282
283Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
284
285Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
286 double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
287 float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
288 long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
289
290Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
291http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
292
Chris Lattner2dae65d2008-12-10 01:30:48 +0000293This is now easily doable with MRVs. We could even make an intrinsic for this
294if anyone cared enough about sincos.
295
Chris Lattner870cf1b2006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000296//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerf00f68a2006-05-19 21:01:38 +0000297
Chris Lattner7ed96ab2006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000298quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
299
300 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
301 {
302 /* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
303 reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
304 }
305
306Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
307so cool to turn it into something like:
308
Chris Lattnerb33a42a2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000309 long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
Chris Lattner7ed96ab2006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000310 if (target < 32) {
311 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattnerb33a42a2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000312 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
Chris Lattner7ed96ab2006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000313 } else {
314 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattnerb33a42a2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000315 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
Chris Lattner7ed96ab2006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000316 }
317
318... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
319
320It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
Chris Lattner9c6a0dc2009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000321this requires TBAA.
Chris Lattnerfaa6adf2009-09-21 06:04:07 +0000322
323//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
324
Chris Lattnerb1ac7692008-10-05 02:16:12 +0000325This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
Chris Lattnerf9bae432006-12-08 02:01:32 +0000326
327unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
328 unsigned t;
329 t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
330 t &= ~0xff0000;
331 v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
332 return v ^ (t >> 8);
333}
334
Eric Christopher33634d02010-06-29 22:22:22 +0000335Neither is this (very standard idiom):
336
337int f(int n)
338{
339 return (((n) << 24) | (((n) & 0xff00) << 8)
340 | (((n) >> 8) & 0xff00) | ((n) >> 24));
341}
342
Chris Lattnerfb981f32006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000343//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
344
Chris Lattner818ff342010-01-23 18:49:30 +0000345[LOOP RECOGNITION]
346
Chris Lattnerf4fee2a2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000347These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
348
349unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
350 unsigned c;
351 for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
352 c += v & 1;
353 return c;
354}
355unsigned countbits_fast(unsigned v){
356 unsigned c;
357 for (c = 0; v; c++)
358 v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set
359 return c;
360}
361
362BITBOARD = unsigned long long
363int PopCnt(register BITBOARD a) {
364 register int c=0;
365 while(a) {
366 c++;
367 a &= a - 1;
368 }
369 return c;
370}
371unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
372 unsigned int count = 0;
373 for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
374 count += (input >> i) & i;
375 return count;
376}
377
Chris Lattner9c6a0dc2009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000378This is a form of idiom recognition for loops, the same thing that could be
379useful for recognizing memset/memcpy.
380
Chris Lattnerf4fee2a2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000381//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
382
Chris Lattnerfb981f32006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000383These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
384processors.
385
386unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
387 return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
388}
389unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
390 return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
391}
392
393//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnercf103912006-10-24 16:12:47 +0000394
Reid Spencer1628cec2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000395-instcombine should handle this transform:
Reid Spencere4d87aa2006-12-23 06:05:41 +0000396 icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
Reid Spencer1628cec2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000397when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
398
399Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
400the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
401InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
402for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
403
404The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
405this construct.
Chris Lattnerd7c628d2006-11-03 22:27:39 +0000406
407//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
408
Chris Lattneraa306c22010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000409[LOOP RECOGNITION]
410
Chris Lattner578d2df2006-11-10 00:23:26 +0000411viterbi speeds up *significantly* if the various "history" related copy loops
412are turned into memcpy calls at the source level. We need a "loops to memcpy"
413pass.
414
415//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewyckybf637342006-11-13 00:23:28 +0000416
Chris Lattneraa306c22010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000417[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
418
419SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
420opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
421interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
422variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
423apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
424
425..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
426 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
427 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
428 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
429 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
430 addl $8, %edx #
431 cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
432 jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
433
434It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
435do.
436
437//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
438
Chris Lattner03a6d962007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000439Consider:
440
441typedef unsigned U32;
442typedef unsigned long long U64;
443int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
444 U64 effective_addr2;
445 U32 temp = *inst;
446 int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
447 int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
448 effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
449 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
450 b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
451 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
452 effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
453 if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
454 return 1;
455 return 0;
456}
457
458Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
459we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
460we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
461extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
462when it is declared U32.
463
Chris Lattner17424982009-11-10 23:47:45 +0000464PHI Slicing could be extended to do this.
465
Chris Lattner03a6d962007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000466//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
467
Chris Lattner9c6a0dc2009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000468LSR should know what GPR types a target has from TargetData. This code:
Chris Lattner1a77a552007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000469
470volatile short X, Y; // globals
471
472void foo(int N) {
473 int i;
474 for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { X = i; Y = i*4; }
475}
476
Chris Lattnerc1491f32009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000477produces two near identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM:
Chris Lattner1a77a552007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000478
Chris Lattnerc1491f32009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000479LBB1_2:
480 ldr r3, LCPI1_0
481 ldr r3, [r3]
482 strh r2, [r3]
483 ldr r3, LCPI1_1
484 ldr r3, [r3]
485 strh r1, [r3]
486 add r1, r1, #4
487 add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1]
488 sub r0, r0, #1 <- [0,-,1]
489 cmp r0, #0
490 bne LBB1_2
491
492LSR should reuse the "+" IV for the exit test.
Chris Lattner1a77a552007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000493
Chris Lattner1a77a552007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000494//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
495
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000496Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
497followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
498
499; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
500; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
501; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000502; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000503
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000504define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000505entry:
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000506 %tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
507 %tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
508 br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000509
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000510then.0: ; preds = %entry
511 %tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
512 %tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
513 br label %return
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000514
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000515else.0: ; preds = %entry
516 %tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
517 br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000518
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000519then.1: ; preds = %else.0
520 %tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
521 %tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
522 br label %return
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000523
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000524return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
525 %result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000526 [ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000527 ret i32 %result.0
Chris Lattner5e14b0d2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000528}
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000529
530//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
531
Chris Lattnerc90b8662008-08-10 00:47:21 +0000532Tail recursion elimination should handle:
533
534int pow2m1(int n) {
535 if (n == 0)
536 return 0;
537 return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
538}
539
540Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
541they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
542
543//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
544
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000545Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
546this:
547
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000548; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000549
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000550define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000551entry:
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000552 %tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
553 %tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
554 ret i32 %tmp.foo
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000555}
556
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000557define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000558entry:
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000559 %tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
560 ret i32 %tmp3
Chris Lattnerf110a2b2007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000561}
562
Chris Lattner81f2d712007-12-05 23:05:06 +0000563//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner166a2682007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000564
Chris Lattnera1643ba2007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000565We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
566example in pic mode:
567
568#include <assert.h>
569void foo(int x) {
570 assert(x);
571 //...
572}
573
574we compile this to:
575_foo:
576 subl $28, %esp
577 call "L1$pb"
578"L1$pb":
579 popl %eax
580 cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
581 je LBB1_2 # cond_true
582LBB1_1: # return
583 # ...
584 addl $28, %esp
585 ret
586LBB1_2: # cond_true
587...
588
589The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
590code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
591better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
592assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
593code with early outs.
594
Chris Lattner92c06a02007-12-29 01:05:01 +0000595Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
596entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
597function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
598
Chris Lattnera1643ba2007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000599In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
Chris Lattner166a2682007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000600
601//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerb3041942008-01-07 21:38:14 +0000602
603Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
604http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
605
606//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerf61b63e2008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000607
608We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
609corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
610
611double a[256];
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000612void foo() {
613 int i, b;
614 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
615 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
616 a[i] = -a[i];
617}
Chris Lattnerf61b63e2008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000618
619is twice as slow as this loop:
620
621long long a[256];
Chris Lattner7c4e9a42008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000622void foo() {
623 int i, b;
624 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
625 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
626 a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
627}
Chris Lattnerf61b63e2008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000628
629and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
630big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
631instructions.
632
633//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner83726012008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000634
635DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
636profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
637
638struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
639extern THotKey m_HotKey;
640THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
641
642into (-O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
643
644__Z9GetHotKeyv:
645 pushl %esi
646 movl 8(%esp), %eax
647 movb _m_HotKey+3, %cl
648 movb _m_HotKey+4, %dl
649 movb _m_HotKey+2, %ch
650 movw _m_HotKey, %si
651 movw %si, (%eax)
652 movb %ch, 2(%eax)
653 movb %cl, 3(%eax)
654 movb %dl, 4(%eax)
655 popl %esi
656 ret $4
657
658GCC produces:
659
660__Z9GetHotKeyv:
661 movl _m_HotKey, %edx
662 movl 4(%esp), %eax
663 movl %edx, (%eax)
664 movzwl _m_HotKey+4, %edx
665 movw %dx, 4(%eax)
666 ret $4
667
668The LLVM IR contains the needed alignment info, so we should be able to
669merge the loads and stores into 4-byte loads:
670
671 %struct.THotKey = type { i16, i8, i8, i8 }
672define void @_Z9GetHotKeyv(%struct.THotKey* sret %agg.result) nounwind {
673...
674 %tmp2 = load i16* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 0), align 8
675 %tmp5 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 1), align 2
676 %tmp8 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 2), align 1
677 %tmp11 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 3), align 2
678
679Alternatively, we should use a small amount of base-offset alias analysis
680to make it so the scheduler doesn't need to hold all the loads in regs at
681once.
682
683//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner497b7e92008-01-11 06:17:47 +0000684
Nate Begemane9fe65c2008-02-18 18:39:23 +0000685We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
686implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
Chris Lattner48840f82008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000687
688//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
689
690Consider:
691
692int test() {
693 long long input[8] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
694 foo(input);
695}
696
697We currently compile this into a memcpy from a global array since the
698initializer is fairly large and not memset'able. This is good, but the memcpy
699gets lowered to load/stores in the code generator. This is also ok, except
700that the codegen lowering for memcpy doesn't handle the case when the source
701is a constant global. This gives us atrocious code like this:
702
703 call "L1$pb"
704"L1$pb":
705 popl %eax
706 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+32(%eax), %ecx
707 movl %ecx, 40(%esp)
708 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+20(%eax), %ecx
709 movl %ecx, 28(%esp)
710 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+36(%eax), %ecx
711 movl %ecx, 44(%esp)
712 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+44(%eax), %ecx
713 movl %ecx, 52(%esp)
714 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+40(%eax), %ecx
715 movl %ecx, 48(%esp)
716 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+12(%eax), %ecx
717 movl %ecx, 20(%esp)
718 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+4(%eax), %ecx
719...
720
721instead of:
722 movl $1, 16(%esp)
723 movl $0, 20(%esp)
724 movl $1, 24(%esp)
725 movl $0, 28(%esp)
726 movl $1, 32(%esp)
727 movl $0, 36(%esp)
728 ...
729
730//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera11deb02008-03-02 02:51:40 +0000731
732http://llvm.org/PR717:
733
734The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
735produces "ret int 0":
736
737int f() {
738 int x = 4;
739 int y;
740 if (x == 3) y = 0;
741 return y;
742}
743
744//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner53b72772008-03-02 19:29:42 +0000745
746The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
747when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
748of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
749
750#include <stdio.h>
751int main() {
752 int nRet = 17;
753 int nLoop;
754 for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
755 if ( nLoop & 1 )
756 nRet += 2;
757 else
758 nRet -= 1;
759 }
760 return nRet;
761}
762
763Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
764reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
765exit value computation.
766
767//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner349155b2008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000768
769We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
770etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
771matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
772enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
773
774unsigned long long f(unsigned long long x, int y) {
775 return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
776}
777unsigned f2(unsigned x, int y){
778 return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
779}
780unsigned long long f3(unsigned long long x){
781 int y = 9;
782 return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
783}
784unsigned f4(unsigned x){
785 int y = 10;
786 return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
787}
788unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
789 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
790}
791unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
792 switch(z) {
793 case 1:
794 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
795 case 2:
796 return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
797 case 3:
798 return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
799 case 4:
800 return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
801 default:
802 return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
803 }
804}
805
Dan Gohmancb747c52008-10-17 21:39:27 +0000806On X86-64, we only handle f2/f3/f4 right. On x86-32, a few of these
Chris Lattner349155b2008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000807generate truly horrible code, instead of using shld and friends. On
808ARM, we end up with calls to L___lshrdi3/L___ashldi3 in f, which is
809badness. PPC64 misses f, f5 and f6. CellSPU aborts in isel.
810
811//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerf70107f2008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000812
813We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
814standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
815example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
816be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
817
818//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
819
Chris Lattner26e150f2008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000820We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
821http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
822
823Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
824slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
825
826$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
827$ time ./a.out fast
8281.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
829
830$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
831$ time ./a.out fast
8320.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
833
834It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
835codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
836
837//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
838
839We miss some instcombines for stuff like this:
840void bar (void);
841void foo (unsigned int a) {
842 /* This one is equivalent to a >= (3 << 2). */
843 if ((a >> 2) >= 3)
844 bar ();
845}
846
847A few other related ones are in GCC PR14753.
848
849//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
850
851Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
852being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
853
854void bar(unsigned n) {
855 if (n % 3 == 0)
856 true();
857}
858
Eli Friedmanbcae2052009-12-12 23:23:43 +0000859This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
860inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
861void bar(unsigned n) {
862 if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
863 true();
864}
865
866The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
867rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
868which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
869by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
870transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
871
872The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
873comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
Chris Lattner26e150f2008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000874
875//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner23f35bc2008-08-19 06:22:16 +0000876
Chris Lattnerdb039832008-10-15 16:06:03 +0000877Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
878bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
879
880#include <cstdio>
881struct test {
882 int val;
883 virtual ~test() {}
884};
885
886int main() {
887 test t;
888 std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
889 std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
890}
891
892//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
893
Nick Lewyckyd2f0db12008-11-27 22:41:45 +0000894These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
Nick Lewyckydf563ca2008-11-27 22:12:22 +0000895
896define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
897 %A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
898 %B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
899 ret i8 %B
900}
901
902define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
903 %A = zext i8 %x to i9
904 %B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
905 %C = lshr i9 %B, 8
906 %D = trunc i9 %C to i8
907 ret i8 %D
908}
909
910//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000911
912From gcc bug 24696:
913int
914f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
915{
916 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
917}
918int
919f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
920{
921 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
922}
923Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
924"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
925
926//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
927
928From GCC Bug 20192:
929#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
930void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
931{
932 if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
933 f();
934}
935The expression should optimize to something like
936"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
937-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
938
939//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
940
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000941unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
942i;}
943unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
944These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
945produces better code on X86.
946
947//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
948
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000949From GCC Bug 15784:
950#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
951int f(int x, int y)
952{
953 return (abs(x)) >= 0;
954}
955This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
956optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
957
958//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
959
960From GCC Bug 14753:
961void
962rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
963{
964 a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
965 if (a == 123)
966 bar ();
967}
968void
969minus_cst (unsigned int a)
970{
971 unsigned int tem;
972
973 tem = 20 - a;
974 if (tem == 5)
975 bar ();
976}
977void
978mask_gt (unsigned int a)
979{
980 /* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
981 if ((a & ~7) > 8)
982 bar ();
983}
984void
985rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
986{
987 /* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
988 if ((a >> 2) > 5)
989 bar ();
990}
991All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
992currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
993-std-compile-opts".
994
995//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
996
997From GCC Bug 32605:
998int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
999Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
1000-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it).
1001
1002//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1003
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +00001004int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
1005Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
1006with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1007
1008//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1009
1010unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
1011Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
1012-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1013
1014//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1015
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +00001016int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
1017Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
1018"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1019
1020//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1021
1022int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
1023Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
1024-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1025
1026//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1027
1028int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
1029Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
1030| opt -std-compile-opts".
1031
1032//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1033
1034int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
1035Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
1036optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1037
1038//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1039
1040int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
1041Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
1042-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1043
1044//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1045
1046int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
1047Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
1048-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1049
1050//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1051
1052int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
1053Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
1054-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1055
1056//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1057
Eli Friedman4e16b292008-11-30 07:36:04 +00001058int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
1059Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
1060-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1061
1062//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1063
1064unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
1065Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
1066with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1067
1068//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1069
1070unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
1071There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
1072-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1073
1074//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1075
1076unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
1077Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
1078optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1079
1080//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendling3bdcda82008-12-02 05:12:47 +00001081
Chris Lattner88d84b22008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001082This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
1083
1084 %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
1085 %decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
1086 %tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
1087 %decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
1088
1089tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
1090 (!tmp || decl_context == 1)
1091
1092This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
1093the function, e.g. by:
1094
1095 %tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1096 %tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1097 %or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1098
1099later.
1100
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001101//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1102
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001103[STORE SINKING]
1104
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001105Store sinking: This code:
1106
1107void f (int n, int *cond, int *res) {
1108 int i;
1109 *res = 0;
1110 for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
1111 if (*cond)
1112 *res ^= 234; /* (*) */
1113}
1114
1115On this function GVN hoists the fully redundant value of *res, but nothing
1116moves the store out. This gives us this code:
1117
1118bb: ; preds = %bb2, %entry
1119 %.rle = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %.rle6, %bb2 ]
1120 %i.05 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %bb2 ]
1121 %1 = load i32* %cond, align 4
1122 %2 = icmp eq i32 %1, 0
1123 br i1 %2, label %bb2, label %bb1
1124
1125bb1: ; preds = %bb
1126 %3 = xor i32 %.rle, 234
1127 store i32 %3, i32* %res, align 4
1128 br label %bb2
1129
1130bb2: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
1131 %.rle6 = phi i32 [ %3, %bb1 ], [ %.rle, %bb ]
1132 %indvar.next = add i32 %i.05, 1
1133 %exitcond = icmp eq i32 %indvar.next, %n
1134 br i1 %exitcond, label %return, label %bb
1135
1136DSE should sink partially dead stores to get the store out of the loop.
1137
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001138Here's another partial dead case:
1139http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
1140
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001141//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1142
1143Scalar PRE hoists the mul in the common block up to the else:
1144
1145int test (int a, int b, int c, int g) {
1146 int d, e;
1147 if (a)
1148 d = b * c;
1149 else
1150 d = b - c;
1151 e = b * c + g;
1152 return d + e;
1153}
1154
1155It would be better to do the mul once to reduce codesize above the if.
1156This is GCC PR38204.
1157
1158//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1159
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001160[STORE SINKING]
1161
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001162GCC PR37810 is an interesting case where we should sink load/store reload
1163into the if block and outside the loop, so we don't reload/store it on the
1164non-call path.
1165
1166for () {
1167 *P += 1;
1168 if ()
1169 call();
1170 else
1171 ...
1172->
1173tmp = *P
1174for () {
1175 tmp += 1;
1176 if () {
1177 *P = tmp;
1178 call();
1179 tmp = *P;
1180 } else ...
1181}
1182*P = tmp;
1183
Chris Lattner8f416f32008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001184We now hoist the reload after the call (Transforms/GVN/lpre-call-wrap.ll), but
1185we don't sink the store. We need partially dead store sinking.
1186
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001187//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1188
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001189[LOAD PRE CRIT EDGE SPLITTING]
Chris Lattner8f416f32008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001190
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001191GCC PR37166: Sinking of loads prevents SROA'ing the "g" struct on the stack
1192leading to excess stack traffic. This could be handled by GVN with some crazy
1193symbolic phi translation. The code we get looks like (g is on the stack):
1194
1195bb2: ; preds = %bb1
1196..
1197 %9 = getelementptr %struct.f* %g, i32 0, i32 0
1198 store i32 %8, i32* %9, align bel %bb3
1199
1200bb3: ; preds = %bb1, %bb2, %bb
1201 %c_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %g, %bb2 ], [ %c, %bb ], [ %c, %bb1 ]
1202 %b_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %b, %bb2 ], [ %g, %bb ], [ %b, %bb1 ]
1203 %10 = getelementptr %struct.f* %c_addr.0, i32 0, i32 0
1204 %11 = load i32* %10, align 4
1205
Chris Lattner6d949262009-11-27 16:53:57 +00001206%11 is partially redundant, an in BB2 it should have the value %8.
Chris Lattner78a7e7c2008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001207
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001208GCC PR33344 and PR35287 are similar cases.
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001209
Chris Lattner6c9fab72009-11-05 18:19:19 +00001210
1211//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1212
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001213[LOAD PRE]
1214
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001215There are many load PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre* in the
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001216GCC testsuite, ones we don't get yet are (checked through loadpre25):
1217
1218[CRIT EDGE BREAKING]
1219loadpre3.c predcom-4.c
1220
1221[PRE OF READONLY CALL]
1222loadpre5.c
1223
1224[TURN SELECT INTO BRANCH]
1225loadpre14.c loadpre15.c
1226
1227actually a conditional increment: loadpre18.c loadpre19.c
1228
1229
1230//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1231
1232[SCALAR PRE]
1233There are many PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-*.c in the
1234GCC testsuite.
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001235
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001236//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1237
1238There are some interesting cases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pred-comm* in the
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001239GCC testsuite. For example, we get the first example in predcom-1.c, but
1240miss the second one:
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001241
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001242unsigned fib[1000];
1243unsigned avg[1000];
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001244
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001245__attribute__ ((noinline))
1246void count_averages(int n) {
1247 int i;
1248 for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
1249 avg[i] = (((unsigned long) fib[i - 1] + fib[i] + fib[i + 1]) / 3) & 0xffff;
1250}
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001251
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001252which compiles into two loads instead of one in the loop.
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001253
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001254predcom-2.c is the same as predcom-1.c
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001255
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001256predcom-3.c is very similar but needs loads feeding each other instead of
1257store->load.
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001258
1259
1260//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1261
Chris Lattneraa306c22010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001262[ALIAS ANALYSIS]
1263
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001264Type based alias analysis:
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001265http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14705
1266
Chris Lattneraa306c22010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001267We should do better analysis of posix_memalign. At the least it should
1268no-capture its pointer argument, at best, we should know that the out-value
1269result doesn't point to anything (like malloc). One example of this is in
1270SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c
1271
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001272//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1273
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001274A/B get pinned to the stack because we turn an if/then into a select instead
1275of PRE'ing the load/store. This may be fixable in instcombine:
1276http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37892
1277
Chris Lattner93c6c772009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001278struct X { int i; };
1279int foo (int x) {
1280 struct X a;
1281 struct X b;
1282 struct X *p;
1283 a.i = 1;
1284 b.i = 2;
1285 if (x)
1286 p = &a;
1287 else
1288 p = &b;
1289 return p->i;
1290}
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001291
Chris Lattner93c6c772009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001292//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001293
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001294Interesting missed case because of control flow flattening (should be 2 loads):
1295http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26629
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001296With: llvm-gcc t2.c -S -o - -O0 -emit-llvm | llvm-as |
1297 opt -mem2reg -gvn -instcombine | llvm-dis
Chris Lattnerd4137f42009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001298we miss it because we need 1) CRIT EDGE 2) MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
Chris Lattner582048d2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001299VALS PRODUCED BY ONE BLOCK OVER DIFFERENT PATHS
Chris Lattner6a09a742008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001300
1301//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1302
1303http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19633
1304We could eliminate the branch condition here, loading from null is undefined:
1305
1306struct S { int w, x, y, z; };
1307struct T { int r; struct S s; };
1308void bar (struct S, int);
1309void foo (int a, struct T b)
1310{
1311 struct S *c = 0;
1312 if (a)
1313 c = &b.s;
1314 bar (*c, a);
1315}
1316
1317//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner88d84b22008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001318
Chris Lattner9cf8ef62008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001319simplifylibcalls should do several optimizations for strspn/strcspn:
1320
Chris Lattner9cf8ef62008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001321strcspn(x, "a") -> inlined loop for up to 3 letters (similarly for strspn):
1322
1323size_t __strcspn_c3 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2,
1324 int __reject3) {
1325 register size_t __result = 0;
1326 while (__s[__result] != '\0' && __s[__result] != __reject1 &&
1327 __s[__result] != __reject2 && __s[__result] != __reject3)
1328 ++__result;
1329 return __result;
1330}
1331
1332This should turn into a switch on the character. See PR3253 for some notes on
1333codegen.
1334
1335456.hmmer apparently uses strcspn and strspn a lot. 471.omnetpp uses strspn.
1336
1337//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd23b7992008-12-31 00:54:13 +00001338
1339"gas" uses this idiom:
1340 else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string))
1341..
1342 else if (strchr ("<>", *intel_parser.op_string)
1343
1344Those should be turned into a switch.
1345
1346//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerffb08f52009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001347
1348252.eon contains this interesting code:
1349
1350 %3072 = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 0
1351 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1352 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072) ; uses = 1
1353 %endptr = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 %strlen
1354 call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %endptr,
1355 i8* getelementptr ([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42", i32 0, i32 0), i32 5, i32 1)
1356 %3074 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr) nounwind readonly
1357
1358This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, in this:
1359
1360 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1361 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072)
1362
1363The strlen could be replaced with: %strlen = sub %3072, %3073, because the
1364strcpy call returns a pointer to the end of the string. Based on that, the
1365endptr GEP just becomes equal to 3073, which eliminates a strlen call and GEP.
1366
1367Second, the memcpy+strlen strlen can be replaced with:
1368
1369 %3074 = call i32 @strlen([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42") nounwind readonly
1370
1371Because the destination was just copied into the specified memory buffer. This,
1372in turn, can be constant folded to "4".
1373
1374In other code, it contains:
1375
1376 %endptr6978 = bitcast i8* %endptr69 to i32*
1377 store i32 7107374, i32* %endptr6978, align 1
1378 %3167 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr69) nounwind readonly
1379
1380Which could also be constant folded. Whatever is producing this should probably
1381be fixed to leave this as a memcpy from a string.
1382
1383Further, eon also has an interesting partially redundant strlen call:
1384
1385bb8: ; preds = %_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.exit
1386 %682 = getelementptr i8** %argv, i32 6 ; <i8**> [#uses=2]
1387 %683 = load i8** %682, align 4 ; <i8*> [#uses=4]
1388 %684 = load i8* %683, align 1 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1389 %685 = icmp eq i8 %684, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1390 br i1 %685, label %bb10, label %bb9
1391
1392bb9: ; preds = %bb8
1393 %686 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1394 %687 = icmp ugt i32 %686, 254 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1395 br i1 %687, label %bb10, label %bb11
1396
1397bb10: ; preds = %bb9, %bb8
1398 %688 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1399
1400This could be eliminated by doing the strlen once in bb8, saving code size and
1401improving perf on the bb8->9->10 path.
1402
1403//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner9fee08f2009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001404
1405I see an interesting fully redundant call to strlen left in 186.crafty:InputMove
1406which looks like:
1407 %movetext11 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 0
1408
1409
1410bb62: ; preds = %bb55, %bb53
1411 %promote.0 = phi i32 [ %169, %bb55 ], [ 0, %bb53 ]
1412 %171 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1413 %172 = add i32 %171, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1414 %173 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 %172
1415
1416... no stores ...
1417 br i1 %or.cond, label %bb65, label %bb72
1418
1419bb65: ; preds = %bb62
1420 store i8 0, i8* %173, align 1
1421 br label %bb72
1422
1423bb72: ; preds = %bb65, %bb62
1424 %trank.1 = phi i32 [ %176, %bb65 ], [ -1, %bb62 ]
1425 %177 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1426
1427Note that on the bb62->bb72 path, that the %177 strlen call is partially
1428redundant with the %171 call. At worst, we could shove the %177 strlen call
1429up into the bb65 block moving it out of the bb62->bb72 path. However, note
1430that bb65 stores to the string, zeroing out the last byte. This means that on
1431that path the value of %177 is actually just %171-1. A sub is cheaper than a
1432strlen!
1433
1434This pattern repeats several times, basically doing:
1435
1436 A = strlen(P);
1437 P[A-1] = 0;
1438 B = strlen(P);
1439 where it is "obvious" that B = A-1.
1440
1441//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1442
Chris Lattner9fee08f2009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001443186.crafty also contains this code:
1444
1445%1906 = call i32 @strlen(i8* getelementptr ([32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0,i32 0))
1446%1907 = getelementptr [32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0, i32 %1906
1447%1908 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %1907, i8* %1905) nounwind align 1
1448%1909 = call i32 @strlen(i8* getelementptr ([32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0,i32 0))
1449%1910 = getelementptr [32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0, i32 %1909
1450
1451The last strlen is computable as 1908-@pgn_event, which means 1910=1908.
1452
1453//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1454
1455186.crafty has this interesting pattern with the "out.4543" variable:
1456
1457call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(
1458 i8* getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0),
1459 i8* getelementptr ([7 x i8]* @"\01LC28700", i32 0, i32 0), i32 7, i32 1)
1460%101 = call@printf(i8* ... @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0)) nounwind
1461
1462It is basically doing:
1463
1464 memcpy(globalarray, "string");
1465 printf(..., globalarray);
1466
1467Anyway, by knowing that printf just reads the memory and forward substituting
1468the string directly into the printf, this eliminates reads from globalarray.
1469Since this pattern occurs frequently in crafty (due to the "DisplayTime" and
1470other similar functions) there are many stores to "out". Once all the printfs
1471stop using "out", all that is left is the memcpy's into it. This should allow
1472globalopt to remove the "stored only" global.
1473
1474//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1475
Dan Gohman8289b052009-01-20 01:07:33 +00001476This code:
1477
1478define inreg i32 @foo(i8* inreg %p) nounwind {
1479 %tmp0 = load i8* %p
1480 %tmp1 = ashr i8 %tmp0, 5
1481 %tmp2 = sext i8 %tmp1 to i32
1482 ret i32 %tmp2
1483}
1484
1485could be dagcombine'd to a sign-extending load with a shift.
1486For example, on x86 this currently gets this:
1487
1488 movb (%eax), %al
1489 sarb $5, %al
1490 movsbl %al, %eax
1491
1492while it could get this:
1493
1494 movsbl (%eax), %eax
1495 sarl $5, %eax
1496
1497//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner256baa42009-01-22 07:16:03 +00001498
1499GCC PR31029:
1500
1501int test(int x) { return 1-x == x; } // --> return false
1502int test2(int x) { return 2-x == x; } // --> return x == 1 ?
1503
1504Always foldable for odd constants, what is the rule for even?
1505
1506//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1507
Torok Edwine46a6862009-01-24 19:30:25 +00001508PR 3381: GEP to field of size 0 inside a struct could be turned into GEP
1509for next field in struct (which is at same address).
1510
1511For example: store of float into { {{}}, float } could be turned into a store to
1512the float directly.
1513
Torok Edwin474479f2009-02-20 18:42:06 +00001514//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky20babb12009-02-25 06:52:48 +00001515
Chris Lattner32c5f172009-05-11 17:41:40 +00001516The arg promotion pass should make use of nocapture to make its alias analysis
1517stuff much more precise.
1518
1519//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1520
1521The following functions should be optimized to use a select instead of a
1522branch (from gcc PR40072):
1523
1524char char_int(int m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1525int int_char(char m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1526
1527//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1528
Bill Wendling5a569272009-10-27 22:48:31 +00001529int func(int a, int b) { if (a & 0x80) b |= 0x80; else b &= ~0x80; return b; }
1530
1531Generates this:
1532
1533define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1534entry:
1535 %0 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1536 %1 = icmp eq i32 %0, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1537 %2 = or i32 %b, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1538 %3 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1539 %b_addr.0 = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 %2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1540 ret i32 %b_addr.0
1541}
1542
1543However, it's functionally equivalent to:
1544
1545 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1546
1547Which generates this:
1548
1549define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1550entry:
1551 %0 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1552 %1 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1553 %2 = or i32 %0, %1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1554 ret i32 %2
1555}
1556
1557This can be generalized for other forms:
1558
1559 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x40) << 1;
1560
1561//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendlingc872e9c2009-10-27 23:30:07 +00001562
1563These two functions produce different code. They shouldn't:
1564
1565#include <stdint.h>
1566
1567uint8_t p1(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1568 b = (b & ~0xc0) | (a & 0xc0);
1569 return (b);
1570}
1571
1572uint8_t p2(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1573 b = (b & ~0x40) | (a & 0x40);
1574 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1575 return (b);
1576}
1577
1578define zeroext i8 @p1(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1579entry:
1580 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1581 %1 = and i8 %a, -64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1582 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1583 ret i8 %2
1584}
1585
1586define zeroext i8 @p2(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1587entry:
1588 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1589 %.masked = and i8 %a, 64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1590 %1 = and i8 %a, -128 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1591 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1592 %3 = or i8 %2, %.masked ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1593 ret i8 %3
1594}
1595
1596//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6fdfc9c2009-11-11 17:51:27 +00001597
1598IPSCCP does not currently propagate argument dependent constants through
1599functions where it does not not all of the callers. This includes functions
1600with normal external linkage as well as templates, C99 inline functions etc.
1601Specifically, it does nothing to:
1602
1603define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) nounwind {
1604entry:
1605 %0 = add nsw i32 %y, %z
1606 %1 = mul i32 %0, %x
1607 %2 = mul i32 %y, %z
1608 %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2
1609 ret i32 %3
1610}
1611
1612define i32 @test2() nounwind {
1613entry:
1614 %0 = call i32 @test(i32 1, i32 2, i32 4) nounwind
1615 ret i32 %0
1616}
1617
1618It would be interesting extend IPSCCP to be able to handle simple cases like
1619this, where all of the arguments to a call are constant. Because IPSCCP runs
1620before inlining, trivial templates and inline functions are not yet inlined.
1621The results for a function + set of constant arguments should be memoized in a
1622map.
1623
1624//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerfc926c22009-11-11 17:54:02 +00001625
1626The libcall constant folding stuff should be moved out of SimplifyLibcalls into
1627libanalysis' constantfolding logic. This would allow IPSCCP to be able to
1628handle simple things like this:
1629
1630static int foo(const char *X) { return strlen(X); }
1631int bar() { return foo("abcd"); }
1632
1633//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky93f9f7a2009-11-15 17:51:23 +00001634
1635InstCombine should use SimplifyDemandedBits to remove the or instruction:
1636
1637define i1 @test(i8 %x, i8 %y) {
1638 %A = or i8 %x, 1
1639 %B = icmp ugt i8 %A, 3
1640 ret i1 %B
1641}
1642
1643Currently instcombine calls SimplifyDemandedBits with either all bits or just
1644the sign bit, if the comparison is obviously a sign test. In this case, we only
1645need all but the bottom two bits from %A, and if we gave that mask to SDB it
1646would delete the or instruction for us.
1647
1648//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner05332172009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001649
Duncan Sandse10920d2010-01-06 15:37:47 +00001650functionattrs doesn't know much about memcpy/memset. This function should be
Duncan Sands7c422ac2010-01-06 08:45:52 +00001651marked readnone rather than readonly, since it only twiddles local memory, but
1652functionattrs doesn't handle memset/memcpy/memmove aggressively:
Chris Lattner89742c22009-12-03 07:43:46 +00001653
1654struct X { int *p; int *q; };
1655int foo() {
1656 int i = 0, j = 1;
1657 struct X x, y;
1658 int **p;
1659 y.p = &i;
1660 x.q = &j;
1661 p = __builtin_memcpy (&x, &y, sizeof (int *));
1662 return **p;
1663}
1664
Chris Lattner05332172009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001665//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1666
Eli Friedman9cfb3ad2010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001667Missed instcombine transformation:
1668define i1 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
1669entry:
1670 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 30
1671 %sub = add i32 %x, -30
1672 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i32 %sub, 9
1673 %or = or i1 %cmp, %cmp2
1674 ret i1 %or
1675}
1676This should be optimized to a single compare. Testcase derived from gcc.
1677
1678//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1679
Eli Friedman9cfb3ad2010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001680Missed instcombine or reassociate transformation:
1681int a(int a, int b) { return (a==12)&(b>47)&(b<58); }
1682
1683The sgt and slt should be combined into a single comparison. Testcase derived
1684from gcc.
1685
1686//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1687
1688Missed instcombine transformation:
Chris Lattner3e411062010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001689
1690 %382 = srem i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1691 %383 = zext i32 %382 to i64 ; [#uses=1]
1692 %384 = shl i64 %381, %383 ; [#uses=1]
1693 %385 = icmp slt i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1694
Benjamin Kramerc21a8212010-11-23 20:33:57 +00001695The srem can be transformed to an and because if %tmp14.i is negative, the
1696shift is undefined. Testcase derived from 403.gcc.
Chris Lattner3e411062010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001697
1698//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1699
1700This is a range comparison on a divided result (from 403.gcc):
1701
1702 %1337 = sdiv i32 %1336, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1703 %.off.i208 = add i32 %1336, 7 ; [#uses=1]
1704 %1338 = icmp ult i32 %.off.i208, 15 ; [#uses=1]
1705
1706We already catch this (removing the sdiv) if there isn't an add, we should
1707handle the 'add' as well. This is a common idiom with it's builtin_alloca code.
1708C testcase:
1709
1710int a(int x) { return (unsigned)(x/16+7) < 15; }
1711
1712Another similar case involves truncations on 64-bit targets:
1713
1714 %361 = sdiv i64 %.046, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1715 %362 = trunc i64 %361 to i32 ; [#uses=2]
1716...
1717 %367 = icmp eq i32 %362, 0 ; [#uses=1]
1718
Eli Friedman1144d7e2010-01-31 04:55:32 +00001719//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1720
1721Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
1722define void @lshift_lt(i8 zeroext %a) nounwind {
1723entry:
1724 %conv = zext i8 %a to i32
1725 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 3
1726 %cmp = icmp ult i32 %shl, 33
1727 br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end
1728
1729if.then:
1730 tail call void @bar() nounwind
1731 ret void
1732
1733if.end:
1734 ret void
1735}
1736declare void @bar() nounwind
1737
1738The shift should be eliminated. Testcase derived from gcc.
Eli Friedman9cfb3ad2010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001739
1740//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnercf031f62010-02-09 00:11:10 +00001741
1742These compile into different code, one gets recognized as a switch and the
1743other doesn't due to phase ordering issues (PR6212):
1744
1745int test1(int mainType, int subType) {
1746 if (mainType == 7)
1747 subType = 4;
1748 else if (mainType == 9)
1749 subType = 6;
1750 else if (mainType == 11)
1751 subType = 9;
1752 return subType;
1753}
1754
1755int test2(int mainType, int subType) {
1756 if (mainType == 7)
1757 subType = 4;
1758 if (mainType == 9)
1759 subType = 6;
1760 if (mainType == 11)
1761 subType = 9;
1762 return subType;
1763}
1764
1765//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner66636702010-03-10 21:42:42 +00001766
1767The following test case (from PR6576):
1768
1769define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1770entry:
1771 %cond1 = icmp eq i32 %b, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1772 br i1 %cond1, label %exit, label %bb.nph
1773bb.nph: ; preds = %entry
1774 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1775 ret i32 %tmp
1776exit: ; preds = %entry
1777 ret i32 0
1778}
1779
1780could be reduced to:
1781
1782define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1783entry:
1784 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a
1785 ret i32 %tmp
1786}
1787
1788//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1789
Chris Lattner94846892010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001790We should use DSE + llvm.lifetime.end to delete dead vtable pointer updates.
1791See GCC PR34949
1792
Chris Lattnerc2685a92010-05-21 23:16:21 +00001793Another interesting case is that something related could be used for variables
1794that go const after their ctor has finished. In these cases, globalopt (which
1795can statically run the constructor) could mark the global const (so it gets put
1796in the readonly section). A testcase would be:
1797
1798#include <complex>
1799using namespace std;
1800const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
1801complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
1802complex<char> should_be_in_bss;
1803
1804Where we currently evaluate the ctors but the globals don't become const because
1805the optimizer doesn't know they "become const" after the ctor is done. See
1806GCC PR4131 for more examples.
1807
Chris Lattner94846892010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001808//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1809
Dan Gohman3a2a4842010-05-03 14:31:00 +00001810In this code:
1811
1812long foo(long x) {
1813 return x > 1 ? x : 1;
1814}
1815
1816LLVM emits a comparison with 1 instead of 0. 0 would be equivalent
1817and cheaper on most targets.
1818
1819LLVM prefers comparisons with zero over non-zero in general, but in this
1820case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious.
1821
1822//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedman8c47d3b2010-06-12 05:54:27 +00001823
1824Take the following testcase on x86-64 (similar testcases exist for all targets
1825with addc/adde):
1826
1827define void @a(i64* nocapture %s, i64* nocapture %t, i64 %a, i64 %b,
1828i64 %c) nounwind {
1829entry:
1830 %0 = zext i64 %a to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1831 %1 = zext i64 %b to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1832 %2 = add i128 %1, %0 ; <i128> [#uses=2]
1833 %3 = zext i64 %c to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1834 %4 = shl i128 %3, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1835 %5 = add i128 %4, %2 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1836 %6 = lshr i128 %5, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1837 %7 = trunc i128 %6 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1838 store i64 %7, i64* %s, align 8
1839 %8 = trunc i128 %2 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1840 store i64 %8, i64* %t, align 8
1841 ret void
1842}
1843
1844Generated code:
1845 addq %rcx, %rdx
1846 movl $0, %eax
1847 adcq $0, %rax
1848 addq %r8, %rax
1849 movq %rax, (%rdi)
1850 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1851 ret
1852
1853Expected code:
1854 addq %rcx, %rdx
1855 adcq $0, %r8
1856 movq %r8, (%rdi)
1857 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1858 ret
1859
1860The generated SelectionDAG has an ADD of an ADDE, where both operands of the
1861ADDE are zero. Replacing one of the operands of the ADDE with the other operand
1862of the ADD, and replacing the ADD with the ADDE, should give the desired result.
1863
1864(That said, we are doing a lot better than gcc on this testcase. :) )
1865
1866//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmanb4a74c12010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001867
1868Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch:
1869define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind {
1870entry:
1871 switch i32 %x, label %if.end [
1872 i32 0, label %if.then
1873 i32 1, label %if.then
1874 i32 2, label %if.then
1875 i32 3, label %if.then
1876 i32 5, label %if.then
1877 ]
1878if.then:
1879 tail call void @foo() nounwind
1880 ret void
1881if.end:
1882 ret void
1883}
1884declare void @foo()
1885
1886Generated code on x86-64 (other platforms give similar results):
1887a:
1888 cmpl $5, %edi
1889 ja .LBB0_2
1890 movl %edi, %eax
1891 movl $47, %ecx
1892 btq %rax, %rcx
1893 jb .LBB0_3
1894.LBB0_2:
1895 ret
1896.LBB0_3:
Eli Friedmanb4828292010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001897 jmp foo # TAILCALL
Eli Friedmanb4a74c12010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001898
1899The movl+movl+btq+jb could be simplified to a cmpl+jne.
1900
Eli Friedmanb4828292010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001901Or, if we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to
1902something like the following, which eliminates a branch:
1903 xorl $1, %edi
1904 cmpl $4, %edi
1905 ja .LBB0_2
1906 ret
1907.LBB0_2:
1908 jmp foo # TAILCALL
Nick Lewyckyb1e4eeb2010-08-08 07:04:25 +00001909//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1910Given a branch where the two target blocks are identical ("ret i32 %b" in
1911both), simplifycfg will simplify them away. But not so for a switch statement:
Eli Friedmanb4828292010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001912
Nick Lewyckyb1e4eeb2010-08-08 07:04:25 +00001913define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1914entry:
1915 switch i32 %a, label %bb3 [
1916 i32 4, label %bb
1917 i32 6, label %bb
1918 ]
1919
1920bb: ; preds = %entry, %entry
1921 ret i32 %b
1922
1923bb3: ; preds = %entry
1924 ret i32 %b
1925}
Eli Friedmanb4a74c12010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001926//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner274191f2010-11-09 19:37:28 +00001927
1928clang -O3 fails to devirtualize this virtual inheritance case: (GCC PR45875)
Chris Lattner1e68fdb2010-11-11 17:17:56 +00001929Looks related to PR3100
Chris Lattner274191f2010-11-09 19:37:28 +00001930
1931struct c1 {};
1932struct c10 : c1{
1933 virtual void foo ();
1934};
1935struct c11 : c10, c1{
1936 virtual void f6 ();
1937};
1938struct c28 : virtual c11{
1939 void f6 ();
1940};
1941void check_c28 () {
1942 c28 obj;
1943 c11 *ptr = &obj;
1944 ptr->f6 ();
1945}
1946
1947//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattneraf510f12010-11-11 18:23:57 +00001948
1949We compile this:
1950
1951int foo(int a) { return (a & (~15)) / 16; }
1952
1953Into:
1954
1955define i32 @foo(i32 %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1956entry:
1957 %and = and i32 %a, -16
1958 %div = sdiv i32 %and, 16
1959 ret i32 %div
1960}
1961
1962but this code (X & -A)/A is X >> log2(A) when A is a power of 2, so this case
1963should be instcombined into just "a >> 4".
1964
1965We do get this at the codegen level, so something knows about it, but
1966instcombine should catch it earlier:
1967
1968_foo: ## @foo
1969## BB#0: ## %entry
1970 movl %edi, %eax
1971 sarl $4, %eax
1972 ret
1973
1974//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1975
Chris Lattnera97c91f2010-12-13 00:15:25 +00001976This code (from GCC PR28685):
1977
1978int test(int a, int b) {
1979 int lt = a < b;
1980 int eq = a == b;
1981 if (lt)
1982 return 1;
1983 return eq;
1984}
1985
1986Is compiled to:
1987
1988define i32 @test(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1989entry:
1990 %cmp = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
1991 br i1 %cmp, label %return, label %if.end
1992
1993if.end: ; preds = %entry
1994 %cmp5 = icmp eq i32 %a, %b
1995 %conv6 = zext i1 %cmp5 to i32
1996 ret i32 %conv6
1997
1998return: ; preds = %entry
1999 ret i32 1
2000}
2001
2002it could be:
2003
2004define i32 @test__(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
2005entry:
2006 %0 = icmp sle i32 %a, %b
2007 %retval = zext i1 %0 to i32
2008 ret i32 %retval
2009}
2010
2011//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//