blob: f4f767aa4d5f00ae8a762c18d3bc06038297aebe [file] [log] [blame]
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +00001Target Independent Opportunities:
2
3//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
4
Chris Lattner15aec332009-11-27 17:12:30 +00005Dead argument elimination should be enhanced to handle cases when an argument is
6dead to an externally visible function. Though the argument can't be removed
7from the externally visible function, the caller doesn't need to pass it in.
8For example in this testcase:
9
10 void foo(int X) __attribute__((noinline));
11 void foo(int X) { sideeffect(); }
12 void bar(int A) { foo(A+1); }
13
14We compile bar to:
15
16define void @bar(i32 %A) nounwind ssp {
17 %0 = add nsw i32 %A, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
18 tail call void @foo(i32 %0) nounwind noinline ssp
19 ret void
20}
21
22The add is dead, we could pass in 'i32 undef' instead. This occurs for C++
23templates etc, which usually have linkonce_odr/weak_odr linkage, not internal
24linkage.
25
26//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
27
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +000028With the recent changes to make the implicit def/use set explicit in
29machineinstrs, we should change the target descriptions for 'call' instructions
30so that the .td files don't list all the call-clobbered registers as implicit
31defs. Instead, these should be added by the code generator (e.g. on the dag).
32
33This has a number of uses:
34
351. PPC32/64 and X86 32/64 can avoid having multiple copies of call instructions
36 for their different impdef sets.
372. Targets with multiple calling convs (e.g. x86) which have different clobber
38 sets don't need copies of call instructions.
393. 'Interprocedural register allocation' can be done to reduce the clobber sets
40 of calls.
41
42//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
43
44Make the PPC branch selector target independant
45
46//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
47
48Get the C front-end to expand hypot(x,y) -> llvm.sqrt(x*x+y*y) when errno and
Chris Lattner5ae3f3d2008-12-10 01:30:48 +000049precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :) This isn't
50safe in general, even on darwin. See the libm implementation of hypot for
51examples (which special case when x/y are exactly zero to get signed zeros etc
52right).
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +000053
54//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
55
56Solve this DAG isel folding deficiency:
57
58int X, Y;
59
60void fn1(void)
61{
62 X = X | (Y << 3);
63}
64
65compiles to
66
67fn1:
68 movl Y, %eax
69 shll $3, %eax
70 orl X, %eax
71 movl %eax, X
72 ret
73
74The problem is the store's chain operand is not the load X but rather
75a TokenFactor of the load X and load Y, which prevents the folding.
76
77There are two ways to fix this:
78
791. The dag combiner can start using alias analysis to realize that y/x
80 don't alias, making the store to X not dependent on the load from Y.
812. The generated isel could be made smarter in the case it can't
82 disambiguate the pointers.
83
84Number 1 is the preferred solution.
85
86This has been "fixed" by a TableGen hack. But that is a short term workaround
87which will be removed once the proper fix is made.
88
89//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
90
91On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
92
93for (i = ...; ++i) {
94 x = 1ULL << i;
95
96into:
97 long long tmp = 1;
98 for (i = ...; ++i, tmp+=tmp)
99 x = tmp;
100
101This would be a win on ppc32, but not x86 or ppc64.
102
103//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
104
105Shrink: (setlt (loadi32 P), 0) -> (setlt (loadi8 Phi), 0)
106
107//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
108
Chris Lattner197c9f32010-01-01 01:29:26 +0000109Reassociate should turn things like:
110
111int factorial(int X) {
112 return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
113}
114
115into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
116multiplication trees.
117
118First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
119code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000120
121//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
122
123Interesting? testcase for add/shift/mul reassoc:
124
125int bar(int x, int y) {
126 return x*x*x+y+x*x*x*x*x*y*y*y*y;
127}
128int foo(int z, int n) {
129 return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
130}
131
Chris Lattner197c9f32010-01-01 01:29:26 +0000132This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
133is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
134which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
135multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
136
137define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
138 %B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
139 %C = mul i32 %B, %B
140 ret i32 %C
141}
142
143
144//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
145
146Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
147
148extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
149void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
150 b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
151 b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
152 b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
153 b1 = a1 + a0;
154}
155
156This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
157something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000158
Chris Lattner3554f542010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000159
160//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
161
162This function: (derived from GCC PR19988)
163double foo(double x, double y) {
164 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x + -0.1234 * y));
165}
166
167compiles to:
168_foo:
169 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
170 mulsd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm1
171 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2
172 addsd %xmm0, %xmm1
173 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
174 movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
175 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
176 ret
177
Chris Lattnerc5f05ae2010-01-24 20:17:09 +0000178Reassociate should be able to turn it into:
Chris Lattner3554f542010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000179
180double foo(double x, double y) {
181 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x - 0.1234 * y));
182}
183
184Which allows the multiply by constant to be CSE'd, producing:
185
186_foo:
187 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm1
188 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
189 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
190 subsd %xmm1, %xmm0
191 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
192 ret
193
194This doesn't need -ffast-math support at all. This is particularly bad because
195the llvm-gcc frontend is canonicalizing the later into the former, but clang
196doesn't have this problem.
197
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000198//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
199
200These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
201
202int g(int *j,int *l) { return memcmp(j,l,4); }
203int h(int *j, int *l) { return *j - *l; }
204
205this could be done in SelectionDAGISel.cpp, along with other special cases,
206for 1,2,4,8 bytes.
207
208//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
209
210It would be nice to revert this patch:
211http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
212
213And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
214legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
215stuff too.
216
217//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
218
219For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
220to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
221specific vector types are target dependent.
222
223//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
224
Dan Gohman71e4f772009-05-11 18:51:16 +0000225We should produce an unaligned load from code like this:
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000226
227v4sf example(float *P) {
228 return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
229}
230
231//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
232
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000233Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
234of:
235
236 movl 136(%esp), %eax
237 cmpl $0, %eax
238 je LBB16_2 #cond_next
239LBB16_1: #cond_true
240 incl _foo
241LBB16_2: #cond_next
242
243emit:
244 movl _foo, %eax
245 cmpl $1, %edi
246 sbbl $-1, %eax
247 movl %eax, _foo
248
249//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
250
251Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
252
253Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
254 double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
255 float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
256 long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
257
258Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
259http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
260
Chris Lattner5ae3f3d2008-12-10 01:30:48 +0000261This is now easily doable with MRVs. We could even make an intrinsic for this
262if anyone cared enough about sincos.
263
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000264//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
265
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000266quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
267
268 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
269 {
270 /* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
271 reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
272 }
273
274Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
275so cool to turn it into something like:
276
277 long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
278 if (target < 32) {
279 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
280 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
281 } else {
282 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
283 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
284 }
285
286... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
287
288It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
Chris Lattner41ec6252009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000289this requires TBAA.
Chris Lattnerc62f2aa2009-09-21 06:04:07 +0000290
291//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
292
Chris Lattner909c72c2008-10-05 02:16:12 +0000293This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000294
295unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
296 unsigned t;
297 t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
298 t &= ~0xff0000;
299 v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
300 return v ^ (t >> 8);
301}
302
303//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
304
Chris Lattner2cde6e22010-01-23 18:49:30 +0000305[LOOP RECOGNITION]
306
Chris Lattner200ca612008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000307These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
308
309unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
310 unsigned c;
311 for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
312 c += v & 1;
313 return c;
314}
315unsigned countbits_fast(unsigned v){
316 unsigned c;
317 for (c = 0; v; c++)
318 v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set
319 return c;
320}
321
322BITBOARD = unsigned long long
323int PopCnt(register BITBOARD a) {
324 register int c=0;
325 while(a) {
326 c++;
327 a &= a - 1;
328 }
329 return c;
330}
331unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
332 unsigned int count = 0;
333 for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
334 count += (input >> i) & i;
335 return count;
336}
337
Chris Lattner41ec6252009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000338This is a form of idiom recognition for loops, the same thing that could be
339useful for recognizing memset/memcpy.
340
Chris Lattner200ca612008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000341//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
342
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000343These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
344processors.
345
346unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
347 return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
348}
349unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
350 return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
351}
352
353//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
354
355-instcombine should handle this transform:
356 icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
357when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
358
359Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
360the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
361InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
362for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
363
364The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
365this construct.
366
367//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
368
Chris Lattnerf886c502010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000369[LOOP RECOGNITION]
370
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000371viterbi speeds up *significantly* if the various "history" related copy loops
372are turned into memcpy calls at the source level. We need a "loops to memcpy"
373pass.
374
375//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
376
Chris Lattnerf886c502010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000377[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
378
379SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
380opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
381interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
382variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
383apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
384
385..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
386 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
387 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
388 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
389 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
390 addl $8, %edx #
391 cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
392 jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
393
394It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
395do.
396
397//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
398
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000399Consider:
400
401typedef unsigned U32;
402typedef unsigned long long U64;
403int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
404 U64 effective_addr2;
405 U32 temp = *inst;
406 int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
407 int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
408 effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
409 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
410 b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
411 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
412 effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
413 if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
414 return 1;
415 return 0;
416}
417
418Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
419we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
420we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
421extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
422when it is declared U32.
423
Chris Lattner81060012009-11-10 23:47:45 +0000424PHI Slicing could be extended to do this.
425
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000426//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
427
Chris Lattner41ec6252009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000428LSR should know what GPR types a target has from TargetData. This code:
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000429
430volatile short X, Y; // globals
431
432void foo(int N) {
433 int i;
434 for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { X = i; Y = i*4; }
435}
436
Chris Lattner7acce942009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000437produces two near identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM:
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000438
Chris Lattner7acce942009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000439LBB1_2:
440 ldr r3, LCPI1_0
441 ldr r3, [r3]
442 strh r2, [r3]
443 ldr r3, LCPI1_1
444 ldr r3, [r3]
445 strh r1, [r3]
446 add r1, r1, #4
447 add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1]
448 sub r0, r0, #1 <- [0,-,1]
449 cmp r0, #0
450 bne LBB1_2
451
452LSR should reuse the "+" IV for the exit test.
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000453
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000454//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
455
456Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
457followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
458
459; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
460; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
461; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000462; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000463
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000464define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000465entry:
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000466 %tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
467 %tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
468 br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000469
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000470then.0: ; preds = %entry
471 %tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
472 %tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
473 br label %return
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000474
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000475else.0: ; preds = %entry
476 %tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
477 br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000478
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000479then.1: ; preds = %else.0
480 %tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
481 %tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
482 br label %return
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000483
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000484return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
485 %result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000486 [ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000487 ret i32 %result.0
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000488}
489
490//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
491
Chris Lattner7be8ac22008-08-10 00:47:21 +0000492Tail recursion elimination should handle:
493
494int pow2m1(int n) {
495 if (n == 0)
496 return 0;
497 return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
498}
499
500Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
501they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
502
503//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
504
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000505Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
506this:
507
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000508; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000509
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000510define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000511entry:
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000512 %tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
513 %tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
514 ret i32 %tmp.foo
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000515}
516
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000517define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000518entry:
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000519 %tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
520 ret i32 %tmp3
Dan Gohmanf17a25c2007-07-18 16:29:46 +0000521}
522
Chris Lattner421a7332007-12-05 23:05:06 +0000523//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner072ab752007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000524
Chris Lattnerfe7fe912007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000525We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
526example in pic mode:
527
528#include <assert.h>
529void foo(int x) {
530 assert(x);
531 //...
532}
533
534we compile this to:
535_foo:
536 subl $28, %esp
537 call "L1$pb"
538"L1$pb":
539 popl %eax
540 cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
541 je LBB1_2 # cond_true
542LBB1_1: # return
543 # ...
544 addl $28, %esp
545 ret
546LBB1_2: # cond_true
547...
548
549The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
550code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
551better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
552assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
553code with early outs.
554
Chris Lattnerbe9fe9d2007-12-29 01:05:01 +0000555Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
556entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
557function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
558
Chris Lattnerfe7fe912007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000559In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
Chris Lattner072ab752007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000560
561//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner8551f192008-01-07 21:38:14 +0000562
563Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
564http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
565
566//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerdc089f02008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000567
568We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
569corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
570
571double a[256];
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000572void foo() {
573 int i, b;
574 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
575 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
576 a[i] = -a[i];
577}
Chris Lattnerdc089f02008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000578
579is twice as slow as this loop:
580
581long long a[256];
Chris Lattnerd78823e2008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000582void foo() {
583 int i, b;
584 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
585 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
586 a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
587}
Chris Lattnerdc089f02008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000588
589and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
590big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
591instructions.
592
593//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera909d312008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000594
595DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
596profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
597
598struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
599extern THotKey m_HotKey;
600THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
601
602into (-O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
603
604__Z9GetHotKeyv:
605 pushl %esi
606 movl 8(%esp), %eax
607 movb _m_HotKey+3, %cl
608 movb _m_HotKey+4, %dl
609 movb _m_HotKey+2, %ch
610 movw _m_HotKey, %si
611 movw %si, (%eax)
612 movb %ch, 2(%eax)
613 movb %cl, 3(%eax)
614 movb %dl, 4(%eax)
615 popl %esi
616 ret $4
617
618GCC produces:
619
620__Z9GetHotKeyv:
621 movl _m_HotKey, %edx
622 movl 4(%esp), %eax
623 movl %edx, (%eax)
624 movzwl _m_HotKey+4, %edx
625 movw %dx, 4(%eax)
626 ret $4
627
628The LLVM IR contains the needed alignment info, so we should be able to
629merge the loads and stores into 4-byte loads:
630
631 %struct.THotKey = type { i16, i8, i8, i8 }
632define void @_Z9GetHotKeyv(%struct.THotKey* sret %agg.result) nounwind {
633...
634 %tmp2 = load i16* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 0), align 8
635 %tmp5 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 1), align 2
636 %tmp8 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 2), align 1
637 %tmp11 = load i8* getelementptr (@m_HotKey, i32 0, i32 3), align 2
638
639Alternatively, we should use a small amount of base-offset alias analysis
640to make it so the scheduler doesn't need to hold all the loads in regs at
641once.
642
643//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner71538b52008-01-11 06:17:47 +0000644
Nate Begemana3c7ba32008-02-18 18:39:23 +0000645We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
646implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
Chris Lattnera672d3d2008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000647
648//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
649
650Consider:
651
652int test() {
653 long long input[8] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
654 foo(input);
655}
656
657We currently compile this into a memcpy from a global array since the
658initializer is fairly large and not memset'able. This is good, but the memcpy
659gets lowered to load/stores in the code generator. This is also ok, except
660that the codegen lowering for memcpy doesn't handle the case when the source
661is a constant global. This gives us atrocious code like this:
662
663 call "L1$pb"
664"L1$pb":
665 popl %eax
666 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+32(%eax), %ecx
667 movl %ecx, 40(%esp)
668 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+20(%eax), %ecx
669 movl %ecx, 28(%esp)
670 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+36(%eax), %ecx
671 movl %ecx, 44(%esp)
672 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+44(%eax), %ecx
673 movl %ecx, 52(%esp)
674 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+40(%eax), %ecx
675 movl %ecx, 48(%esp)
676 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+12(%eax), %ecx
677 movl %ecx, 20(%esp)
678 movl _C.0.1444-"L1$pb"+4(%eax), %ecx
679...
680
681instead of:
682 movl $1, 16(%esp)
683 movl $0, 20(%esp)
684 movl $1, 24(%esp)
685 movl $0, 28(%esp)
686 movl $1, 32(%esp)
687 movl $0, 36(%esp)
688 ...
689
690//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera709d332008-03-02 02:51:40 +0000691
692http://llvm.org/PR717:
693
694The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
695produces "ret int 0":
696
697int f() {
698 int x = 4;
699 int y;
700 if (x == 3) y = 0;
701 return y;
702}
703
704//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnere9c68442008-03-02 19:29:42 +0000705
706The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
707when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
708of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
709
710#include <stdio.h>
711int main() {
712 int nRet = 17;
713 int nLoop;
714 for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
715 if ( nLoop & 1 )
716 nRet += 2;
717 else
718 nRet -= 1;
719 }
720 return nRet;
721}
722
723Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
724reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
725exit value computation.
726
727//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner962a7d52008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000728
729We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
730etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
731matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
732enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
733
734unsigned long long f(unsigned long long x, int y) {
735 return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
736}
737unsigned f2(unsigned x, int y){
738 return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
739}
740unsigned long long f3(unsigned long long x){
741 int y = 9;
742 return (x << y) | (x >> 64-y);
743}
744unsigned f4(unsigned x){
745 int y = 10;
746 return (x << y) | (x >> 32-y);
747}
748unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
749 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
750}
751unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
752 switch(z) {
753 case 1:
754 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
755 case 2:
756 return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
757 case 3:
758 return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
759 case 4:
760 return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
761 default:
762 return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
763 }
764}
765
Dan Gohman2896a4e2008-10-17 21:39:27 +0000766On X86-64, we only handle f2/f3/f4 right. On x86-32, a few of these
Chris Lattner962a7d52008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000767generate truly horrible code, instead of using shld and friends. On
768ARM, we end up with calls to L___lshrdi3/L___ashldi3 in f, which is
769badness. PPC64 misses f, f5 and f6. CellSPU aborts in isel.
770
771//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner38c4a152008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000772
773We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
774standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
775example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
776be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
777
778//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
779
Chris Lattner16e192f2008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000780We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
781http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
782
783Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
784slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
785
786$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
787$ time ./a.out fast
7881.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
789
790$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
791$ time ./a.out fast
7920.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
793
794It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
795codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
796
797//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
798
799We miss some instcombines for stuff like this:
800void bar (void);
801void foo (unsigned int a) {
802 /* This one is equivalent to a >= (3 << 2). */
803 if ((a >> 2) >= 3)
804 bar ();
805}
806
807A few other related ones are in GCC PR14753.
808
809//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
810
811Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
812being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
813
814void bar(unsigned n) {
815 if (n % 3 == 0)
816 true();
817}
818
Eli Friedman993eb832009-12-12 23:23:43 +0000819This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
820inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
821void bar(unsigned n) {
822 if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
823 true();
824}
825
826The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
827rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
828which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
829by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
830transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
831
832The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
833comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
Chris Lattner16e192f2008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000834
835//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerc10e07a2008-08-19 06:22:16 +0000836
Chris Lattner92f97832008-10-15 16:06:03 +0000837Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
838bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
839
840#include <cstdio>
841struct test {
842 int val;
843 virtual ~test() {}
844};
845
846int main() {
847 test t;
848 std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
849 std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
850}
851
852//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
853
Nick Lewycky728f8742008-11-27 22:41:45 +0000854These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
Nick Lewycky8ef52e22008-11-27 22:12:22 +0000855
856define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
857 %A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
858 %B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
859 ret i8 %B
860}
861
862define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
863 %A = zext i8 %x to i9
864 %B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
865 %C = lshr i9 %B, 8
866 %D = trunc i9 %C to i8
867 ret i8 %D
868}
869
870//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000871
872From gcc bug 24696:
873int
874f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
875{
876 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
877}
878int
879f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
880{
881 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
882}
883Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
884"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
885
886//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
887
888From GCC Bug 20192:
889#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
890void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
891{
892 if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
893 f();
894}
895The expression should optimize to something like
896"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
897-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
898
899//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
900
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000901From GCC Bug 3756:
902int
903pn (int n)
904{
905 return (n >= 0 ? 1 : -1);
906}
907Should combine to (n >> 31) | 1. Currently not optimized with "clang
908-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
909
910//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
911
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000912void a(int variable)
913{
914 if (variable == 4 || variable == 6)
915 bar();
916}
917This should optimize to "if ((variable | 2) == 6)". Currently not
918optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
919
920//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
921
922unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
923i;}
924unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
925These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
926produces better code on X86.
927
928//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
929
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000930From GCC Bug 15784:
931#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
932int f(int x, int y)
933{
934 return (abs(x)) >= 0;
935}
936This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
937optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
938
939//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
940
941From GCC Bug 14753:
942void
943rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
944{
945 a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
946 if (a == 123)
947 bar ();
948}
949void
950minus_cst (unsigned int a)
951{
952 unsigned int tem;
953
954 tem = 20 - a;
955 if (tem == 5)
956 bar ();
957}
958void
959mask_gt (unsigned int a)
960{
961 /* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
962 if ((a & ~7) > 8)
963 bar ();
964}
965void
966rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
967{
968 /* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
969 if ((a >> 2) > 5)
970 bar ();
971}
972All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
973currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
974-std-compile-opts".
975
976//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
977
978From GCC Bug 32605:
979int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
980Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
981-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it).
982
983//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
984
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000985int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
986Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
987with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
988
989//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
990
991unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
992Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
993-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
994
995//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
996
Eli Friedman8e59f062008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000997int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
998Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
999"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1000
1001//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1002
1003int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
1004Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
1005-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1006
1007//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1008
1009int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
1010Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
1011| opt -std-compile-opts".
1012
1013//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1014
1015int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
1016Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
1017optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1018
1019//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1020
1021int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
1022Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
1023-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1024
1025//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1026
1027int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
1028Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
1029-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1030
1031//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1032
1033int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
1034Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
1035-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1036
1037//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1038
1039int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -1 : -9;}
1040Should combine to (x | -9) ^ 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
1041-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1042
1043//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1044
1045int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -9 : -1;}
1046Should combine to x | -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
1047-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1048
1049//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1050
1051int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
1052Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
1053-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1054
1055//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1056
1057unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
1058Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
1059with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1060
1061//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1062
1063unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
1064There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
1065-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1066
1067//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1068
1069unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
1070Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
1071optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
1072
1073//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendlingd0a76ee2008-12-02 05:12:47 +00001074
Chris Lattner8cbcc3a2008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001075This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
1076
1077 %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
1078 %decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
1079 %tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
1080 %decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
1081
1082tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
1083 (!tmp || decl_context == 1)
1084
1085This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
1086the function, e.g. by:
1087
1088 %tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1089 %tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1090 %or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1091
1092later.
1093
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001094//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1095
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001096[STORE SINKING]
1097
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001098Store sinking: This code:
1099
1100void f (int n, int *cond, int *res) {
1101 int i;
1102 *res = 0;
1103 for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
1104 if (*cond)
1105 *res ^= 234; /* (*) */
1106}
1107
1108On this function GVN hoists the fully redundant value of *res, but nothing
1109moves the store out. This gives us this code:
1110
1111bb: ; preds = %bb2, %entry
1112 %.rle = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %.rle6, %bb2 ]
1113 %i.05 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %bb2 ]
1114 %1 = load i32* %cond, align 4
1115 %2 = icmp eq i32 %1, 0
1116 br i1 %2, label %bb2, label %bb1
1117
1118bb1: ; preds = %bb
1119 %3 = xor i32 %.rle, 234
1120 store i32 %3, i32* %res, align 4
1121 br label %bb2
1122
1123bb2: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
1124 %.rle6 = phi i32 [ %3, %bb1 ], [ %.rle, %bb ]
1125 %indvar.next = add i32 %i.05, 1
1126 %exitcond = icmp eq i32 %indvar.next, %n
1127 br i1 %exitcond, label %return, label %bb
1128
1129DSE should sink partially dead stores to get the store out of the loop.
1130
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001131Here's another partial dead case:
1132http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
1133
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001134//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1135
1136Scalar PRE hoists the mul in the common block up to the else:
1137
1138int test (int a, int b, int c, int g) {
1139 int d, e;
1140 if (a)
1141 d = b * c;
1142 else
1143 d = b - c;
1144 e = b * c + g;
1145 return d + e;
1146}
1147
1148It would be better to do the mul once to reduce codesize above the if.
1149This is GCC PR38204.
1150
1151//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1152
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001153[STORE SINKING]
1154
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001155GCC PR37810 is an interesting case where we should sink load/store reload
1156into the if block and outside the loop, so we don't reload/store it on the
1157non-call path.
1158
1159for () {
1160 *P += 1;
1161 if ()
1162 call();
1163 else
1164 ...
1165->
1166tmp = *P
1167for () {
1168 tmp += 1;
1169 if () {
1170 *P = tmp;
1171 call();
1172 tmp = *P;
1173 } else ...
1174}
1175*P = tmp;
1176
Chris Lattnera8ff4242008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001177We now hoist the reload after the call (Transforms/GVN/lpre-call-wrap.ll), but
1178we don't sink the store. We need partially dead store sinking.
1179
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001180//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1181
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001182[LOAD PRE CRIT EDGE SPLITTING]
Chris Lattnera8ff4242008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001183
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001184GCC PR37166: Sinking of loads prevents SROA'ing the "g" struct on the stack
1185leading to excess stack traffic. This could be handled by GVN with some crazy
1186symbolic phi translation. The code we get looks like (g is on the stack):
1187
1188bb2: ; preds = %bb1
1189..
1190 %9 = getelementptr %struct.f* %g, i32 0, i32 0
1191 store i32 %8, i32* %9, align bel %bb3
1192
1193bb3: ; preds = %bb1, %bb2, %bb
1194 %c_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %g, %bb2 ], [ %c, %bb ], [ %c, %bb1 ]
1195 %b_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %b, %bb2 ], [ %g, %bb ], [ %b, %bb1 ]
1196 %10 = getelementptr %struct.f* %c_addr.0, i32 0, i32 0
1197 %11 = load i32* %10, align 4
1198
Chris Lattner7d147912009-11-27 16:53:57 +00001199%11 is partially redundant, an in BB2 it should have the value %8.
Chris Lattnerb37c3a42008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001200
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001201GCC PR33344 and PR35287 are similar cases.
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001202
Chris Lattner586101f2009-11-05 18:19:19 +00001203
1204//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1205
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001206[LOAD PRE]
1207
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001208There are many load PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre* in the
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001209GCC testsuite, ones we don't get yet are (checked through loadpre25):
1210
1211[CRIT EDGE BREAKING]
1212loadpre3.c predcom-4.c
1213
1214[PRE OF READONLY CALL]
1215loadpre5.c
1216
1217[TURN SELECT INTO BRANCH]
1218loadpre14.c loadpre15.c
1219
1220actually a conditional increment: loadpre18.c loadpre19.c
1221
1222
1223//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1224
1225[SCALAR PRE]
1226There are many PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-*.c in the
1227GCC testsuite.
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001228
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001229//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1230
1231There are some interesting cases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pred-comm* in the
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001232GCC testsuite. For example, we get the first example in predcom-1.c, but
1233miss the second one:
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001234
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001235unsigned fib[1000];
1236unsigned avg[1000];
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001237
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001238__attribute__ ((noinline))
1239void count_averages(int n) {
1240 int i;
1241 for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
1242 avg[i] = (((unsigned long) fib[i - 1] + fib[i] + fib[i + 1]) / 3) & 0xffff;
1243}
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001244
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001245which compiles into two loads instead of one in the loop.
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001246
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001247predcom-2.c is the same as predcom-1.c
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001248
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001249predcom-3.c is very similar but needs loads feeding each other instead of
1250store->load.
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001251
1252
1253//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1254
Chris Lattnerf886c502010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001255[ALIAS ANALYSIS]
1256
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001257Type based alias analysis:
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001258http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14705
1259
Chris Lattnerf886c502010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001260We should do better analysis of posix_memalign. At the least it should
1261no-capture its pointer argument, at best, we should know that the out-value
1262result doesn't point to anything (like malloc). One example of this is in
1263SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c
1264
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001265//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1266
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001267A/B get pinned to the stack because we turn an if/then into a select instead
1268of PRE'ing the load/store. This may be fixable in instcombine:
1269http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37892
1270
Chris Lattner51481992009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001271struct X { int i; };
1272int foo (int x) {
1273 struct X a;
1274 struct X b;
1275 struct X *p;
1276 a.i = 1;
1277 b.i = 2;
1278 if (x)
1279 p = &a;
1280 else
1281 p = &b;
1282 return p->i;
1283}
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001284
Chris Lattner51481992009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001285//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001286
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001287Interesting missed case because of control flow flattening (should be 2 loads):
1288http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26629
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001289With: llvm-gcc t2.c -S -o - -O0 -emit-llvm | llvm-as |
1290 opt -mem2reg -gvn -instcombine | llvm-dis
Chris Lattner8aa4c012009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001291we miss it because we need 1) CRIT EDGE 2) MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
Chris Lattnerfaf145c2008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001292VALS PRODUCED BY ONE BLOCK OVER DIFFERENT PATHS
Chris Lattner7d675ed2008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001293
1294//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1295
1296http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19633
1297We could eliminate the branch condition here, loading from null is undefined:
1298
1299struct S { int w, x, y, z; };
1300struct T { int r; struct S s; };
1301void bar (struct S, int);
1302void foo (int a, struct T b)
1303{
1304 struct S *c = 0;
1305 if (a)
1306 c = &b.s;
1307 bar (*c, a);
1308}
1309
1310//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner8cbcc3a2008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001311
Chris Lattnerb36ace92008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001312simplifylibcalls should do several optimizations for strspn/strcspn:
1313
1314strcspn(x, "") -> strlen(x)
1315strcspn("", x) -> 0
1316strspn("", x) -> 0
1317strspn(x, "") -> strlen(x)
1318strspn(x, "a") -> strchr(x, 'a')-x
1319
1320strcspn(x, "a") -> inlined loop for up to 3 letters (similarly for strspn):
1321
1322size_t __strcspn_c3 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2,
1323 int __reject3) {
1324 register size_t __result = 0;
1325 while (__s[__result] != '\0' && __s[__result] != __reject1 &&
1326 __s[__result] != __reject2 && __s[__result] != __reject3)
1327 ++__result;
1328 return __result;
1329}
1330
1331This should turn into a switch on the character. See PR3253 for some notes on
1332codegen.
1333
1334456.hmmer apparently uses strcspn and strspn a lot. 471.omnetpp uses strspn.
1335
1336//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner107d30a2008-12-31 00:54:13 +00001337
1338"gas" uses this idiom:
1339 else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string))
1340..
1341 else if (strchr ("<>", *intel_parser.op_string)
1342
1343Those should be turned into a switch.
1344
1345//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera146bc52009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001346
1347252.eon contains this interesting code:
1348
1349 %3072 = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 0
1350 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1351 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072) ; uses = 1
1352 %endptr = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 %strlen
1353 call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %endptr,
1354 i8* getelementptr ([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42", i32 0, i32 0), i32 5, i32 1)
1355 %3074 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr) nounwind readonly
1356
1357This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, in this:
1358
1359 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1360 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072)
1361
1362The strlen could be replaced with: %strlen = sub %3072, %3073, because the
1363strcpy call returns a pointer to the end of the string. Based on that, the
1364endptr GEP just becomes equal to 3073, which eliminates a strlen call and GEP.
1365
1366Second, the memcpy+strlen strlen can be replaced with:
1367
1368 %3074 = call i32 @strlen([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42") nounwind readonly
1369
1370Because the destination was just copied into the specified memory buffer. This,
1371in turn, can be constant folded to "4".
1372
1373In other code, it contains:
1374
1375 %endptr6978 = bitcast i8* %endptr69 to i32*
1376 store i32 7107374, i32* %endptr6978, align 1
1377 %3167 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr69) nounwind readonly
1378
1379Which could also be constant folded. Whatever is producing this should probably
1380be fixed to leave this as a memcpy from a string.
1381
1382Further, eon also has an interesting partially redundant strlen call:
1383
1384bb8: ; preds = %_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.exit
1385 %682 = getelementptr i8** %argv, i32 6 ; <i8**> [#uses=2]
1386 %683 = load i8** %682, align 4 ; <i8*> [#uses=4]
1387 %684 = load i8* %683, align 1 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1388 %685 = icmp eq i8 %684, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1389 br i1 %685, label %bb10, label %bb9
1390
1391bb9: ; preds = %bb8
1392 %686 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1393 %687 = icmp ugt i32 %686, 254 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1394 br i1 %687, label %bb10, label %bb11
1395
1396bb10: ; preds = %bb9, %bb8
1397 %688 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1398
1399This could be eliminated by doing the strlen once in bb8, saving code size and
1400improving perf on the bb8->9->10 path.
1401
1402//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner9c044632009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001403
1404I see an interesting fully redundant call to strlen left in 186.crafty:InputMove
1405which looks like:
1406 %movetext11 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 0
1407
1408
1409bb62: ; preds = %bb55, %bb53
1410 %promote.0 = phi i32 [ %169, %bb55 ], [ 0, %bb53 ]
1411 %171 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1412 %172 = add i32 %171, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1413 %173 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 %172
1414
1415... no stores ...
1416 br i1 %or.cond, label %bb65, label %bb72
1417
1418bb65: ; preds = %bb62
1419 store i8 0, i8* %173, align 1
1420 br label %bb72
1421
1422bb72: ; preds = %bb65, %bb62
1423 %trank.1 = phi i32 [ %176, %bb65 ], [ -1, %bb62 ]
1424 %177 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1425
1426Note that on the bb62->bb72 path, that the %177 strlen call is partially
1427redundant with the %171 call. At worst, we could shove the %177 strlen call
1428up into the bb65 block moving it out of the bb62->bb72 path. However, note
1429that bb65 stores to the string, zeroing out the last byte. This means that on
1430that path the value of %177 is actually just %171-1. A sub is cheaper than a
1431strlen!
1432
1433This pattern repeats several times, basically doing:
1434
1435 A = strlen(P);
1436 P[A-1] = 0;
1437 B = strlen(P);
1438 where it is "obvious" that B = A-1.
1439
1440//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1441
1442186.crafty contains this interesting pattern:
1443
1444%77 = call i8* @strstr(i8* getelementptr ([6 x i8]* @"\01LC5", i32 0, i32 0),
1445 i8* %30)
1446%phitmp648 = icmp eq i8* %77, getelementptr ([6 x i8]* @"\01LC5", i32 0, i32 0)
1447br i1 %phitmp648, label %bb70, label %bb76
1448
1449bb70: ; preds = %OptionMatch.exit91, %bb69
1450 %78 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %30) nounwind readonly align 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1451
1452This is basically:
1453 cststr = "abcdef";
1454 if (strstr(cststr, P) == cststr) {
1455 x = strlen(P);
1456 ...
1457
1458The strstr call would be significantly cheaper written as:
1459
1460cststr = "abcdef";
1461if (memcmp(P, str, strlen(P)))
1462 x = strlen(P);
1463
1464This is memcmp+strlen instead of strstr. This also makes the strlen fully
1465redundant.
1466
1467//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1468
1469186.crafty also contains this code:
1470
1471%1906 = call i32 @strlen(i8* getelementptr ([32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0,i32 0))
1472%1907 = getelementptr [32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0, i32 %1906
1473%1908 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %1907, i8* %1905) nounwind align 1
1474%1909 = call i32 @strlen(i8* getelementptr ([32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0,i32 0))
1475%1910 = getelementptr [32 x i8]* @pgn_event, i32 0, i32 %1909
1476
1477The last strlen is computable as 1908-@pgn_event, which means 1910=1908.
1478
1479//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1480
1481186.crafty has this interesting pattern with the "out.4543" variable:
1482
1483call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(
1484 i8* getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0),
1485 i8* getelementptr ([7 x i8]* @"\01LC28700", i32 0, i32 0), i32 7, i32 1)
1486%101 = call@printf(i8* ... @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0)) nounwind
1487
1488It is basically doing:
1489
1490 memcpy(globalarray, "string");
1491 printf(..., globalarray);
1492
1493Anyway, by knowing that printf just reads the memory and forward substituting
1494the string directly into the printf, this eliminates reads from globalarray.
1495Since this pattern occurs frequently in crafty (due to the "DisplayTime" and
1496other similar functions) there are many stores to "out". Once all the printfs
1497stop using "out", all that is left is the memcpy's into it. This should allow
1498globalopt to remove the "stored only" global.
1499
1500//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1501
Dan Gohmana3401022009-01-20 01:07:33 +00001502This code:
1503
1504define inreg i32 @foo(i8* inreg %p) nounwind {
1505 %tmp0 = load i8* %p
1506 %tmp1 = ashr i8 %tmp0, 5
1507 %tmp2 = sext i8 %tmp1 to i32
1508 ret i32 %tmp2
1509}
1510
1511could be dagcombine'd to a sign-extending load with a shift.
1512For example, on x86 this currently gets this:
1513
1514 movb (%eax), %al
1515 sarb $5, %al
1516 movsbl %al, %eax
1517
1518while it could get this:
1519
1520 movsbl (%eax), %eax
1521 sarl $5, %eax
1522
1523//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnered047e92009-01-22 07:16:03 +00001524
1525GCC PR31029:
1526
1527int test(int x) { return 1-x == x; } // --> return false
1528int test2(int x) { return 2-x == x; } // --> return x == 1 ?
1529
1530Always foldable for odd constants, what is the rule for even?
1531
1532//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1533
edwin331eef22009-01-24 19:30:25 +00001534PR 3381: GEP to field of size 0 inside a struct could be turned into GEP
1535for next field in struct (which is at same address).
1536
1537For example: store of float into { {{}}, float } could be turned into a store to
1538the float directly.
1539
Edwin Török13ede9c2009-02-20 18:42:06 +00001540//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky7ff62412009-02-25 06:52:48 +00001541
Edwin Török13ede9c2009-02-20 18:42:06 +00001542#include <math.h>
1543double foo(double a) { return sin(a); }
1544
1545This compiles into this on x86-64 Linux:
1546foo:
1547 subq $8, %rsp
1548 call sin
1549 addq $8, %rsp
1550 ret
1551vs:
1552
1553foo:
1554 jmp sin
1555
Nick Lewycky7ff62412009-02-25 06:52:48 +00001556//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1557
Chris Lattnerb1f817f2009-05-11 17:41:40 +00001558The arg promotion pass should make use of nocapture to make its alias analysis
1559stuff much more precise.
1560
1561//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1562
1563The following functions should be optimized to use a select instead of a
1564branch (from gcc PR40072):
1565
1566char char_int(int m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1567int int_char(char m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1568
1569//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1570
Bill Wendling53353c42009-10-27 22:48:31 +00001571int func(int a, int b) { if (a & 0x80) b |= 0x80; else b &= ~0x80; return b; }
1572
1573Generates this:
1574
1575define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1576entry:
1577 %0 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1578 %1 = icmp eq i32 %0, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1579 %2 = or i32 %b, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1580 %3 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1581 %b_addr.0 = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 %2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1582 ret i32 %b_addr.0
1583}
1584
1585However, it's functionally equivalent to:
1586
1587 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1588
1589Which generates this:
1590
1591define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1592entry:
1593 %0 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1594 %1 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1595 %2 = or i32 %0, %1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1596 ret i32 %2
1597}
1598
1599This can be generalized for other forms:
1600
1601 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x40) << 1;
1602
1603//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendlingf9e22262009-10-27 23:30:07 +00001604
1605These two functions produce different code. They shouldn't:
1606
1607#include <stdint.h>
1608
1609uint8_t p1(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1610 b = (b & ~0xc0) | (a & 0xc0);
1611 return (b);
1612}
1613
1614uint8_t p2(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1615 b = (b & ~0x40) | (a & 0x40);
1616 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1617 return (b);
1618}
1619
1620define zeroext i8 @p1(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1621entry:
1622 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1623 %1 = and i8 %a, -64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1624 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1625 ret i8 %2
1626}
1627
1628define zeroext i8 @p2(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1629entry:
1630 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1631 %.masked = and i8 %a, 64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1632 %1 = and i8 %a, -128 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1633 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1634 %3 = or i8 %2, %.masked ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1635 ret i8 %3
1636}
1637
1638//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd6b0ee12009-11-11 17:51:27 +00001639
1640IPSCCP does not currently propagate argument dependent constants through
1641functions where it does not not all of the callers. This includes functions
1642with normal external linkage as well as templates, C99 inline functions etc.
1643Specifically, it does nothing to:
1644
1645define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) nounwind {
1646entry:
1647 %0 = add nsw i32 %y, %z
1648 %1 = mul i32 %0, %x
1649 %2 = mul i32 %y, %z
1650 %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2
1651 ret i32 %3
1652}
1653
1654define i32 @test2() nounwind {
1655entry:
1656 %0 = call i32 @test(i32 1, i32 2, i32 4) nounwind
1657 ret i32 %0
1658}
1659
1660It would be interesting extend IPSCCP to be able to handle simple cases like
1661this, where all of the arguments to a call are constant. Because IPSCCP runs
1662before inlining, trivial templates and inline functions are not yet inlined.
1663The results for a function + set of constant arguments should be memoized in a
1664map.
1665
1666//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner4adaab12009-11-11 17:54:02 +00001667
1668The libcall constant folding stuff should be moved out of SimplifyLibcalls into
1669libanalysis' constantfolding logic. This would allow IPSCCP to be able to
1670handle simple things like this:
1671
1672static int foo(const char *X) { return strlen(X); }
1673int bar() { return foo("abcd"); }
1674
1675//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky78799102009-11-15 17:51:23 +00001676
1677InstCombine should use SimplifyDemandedBits to remove the or instruction:
1678
1679define i1 @test(i8 %x, i8 %y) {
1680 %A = or i8 %x, 1
1681 %B = icmp ugt i8 %A, 3
1682 ret i1 %B
1683}
1684
1685Currently instcombine calls SimplifyDemandedBits with either all bits or just
1686the sign bit, if the comparison is obviously a sign test. In this case, we only
1687need all but the bottom two bits from %A, and if we gave that mask to SDB it
1688would delete the or instruction for us.
1689
1690//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerdddb3a32009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001691
Duncan Sands78242ae2010-01-06 15:37:47 +00001692functionattrs doesn't know much about memcpy/memset. This function should be
Duncan Sandsf68032c2010-01-06 08:45:52 +00001693marked readnone rather than readonly, since it only twiddles local memory, but
1694functionattrs doesn't handle memset/memcpy/memmove aggressively:
Chris Lattner112929e2009-12-03 07:43:46 +00001695
1696struct X { int *p; int *q; };
1697int foo() {
1698 int i = 0, j = 1;
1699 struct X x, y;
1700 int **p;
1701 y.p = &i;
1702 x.q = &j;
1703 p = __builtin_memcpy (&x, &y, sizeof (int *));
1704 return **p;
1705}
1706
Chris Lattnerdddb3a32009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001707//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1708
Eli Friedman19ef4d02010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001709Missed instcombine transformation:
1710define i1 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
1711entry:
1712 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 30
1713 %sub = add i32 %x, -30
1714 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i32 %sub, 9
1715 %or = or i1 %cmp, %cmp2
1716 ret i1 %or
1717}
1718This should be optimized to a single compare. Testcase derived from gcc.
1719
1720//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1721
1722Missed instcombine transformation:
1723void b();
1724void a(int x) { if (((1<<x)&8)==0) b(); }
1725
1726The shift should be optimized out. Testcase derived from gcc.
1727
1728//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1729
1730Missed instcombine or reassociate transformation:
1731int a(int a, int b) { return (a==12)&(b>47)&(b<58); }
1732
1733The sgt and slt should be combined into a single comparison. Testcase derived
1734from gcc.
1735
1736//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1737
1738Missed instcombine transformation:
1739define i32 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
1740entry:
Eli Friedman6901f9d2010-01-31 04:55:32 +00001741 %rem = srem i32 %x, 32
1742 %shl = shl i32 1, %rem
1743 ret i32 %shl
1744}
1745
1746The srem can be transformed to an and because if x is negative, the shift is
1747undefined. Testcase derived from gcc.
1748
1749//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1750
1751Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
1752define i32 @a(i32 %x, i32 %y) nounwind readnone {
1753entry:
1754 %mul = mul i32 %y, -8
1755 %sub = sub i32 %x, %mul
Eli Friedman19ef4d02010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001756 ret i32 %sub
1757}
1758
Eli Friedman6901f9d2010-01-31 04:55:32 +00001759Should compile to something like x+y*8, but currently compiles to an
1760inefficient result. Testcase derived from gcc.
1761
1762//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1763
1764Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
1765define void @lshift_lt(i8 zeroext %a) nounwind {
1766entry:
1767 %conv = zext i8 %a to i32
1768 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 3
1769 %cmp = icmp ult i32 %shl, 33
1770 br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end
1771
1772if.then:
1773 tail call void @bar() nounwind
1774 ret void
1775
1776if.end:
1777 ret void
1778}
1779declare void @bar() nounwind
1780
1781The shift should be eliminated. Testcase derived from gcc.
Eli Friedman19ef4d02010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001782
1783//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerbbb8c2a2010-02-09 00:11:10 +00001784
1785These compile into different code, one gets recognized as a switch and the
1786other doesn't due to phase ordering issues (PR6212):
1787
1788int test1(int mainType, int subType) {
1789 if (mainType == 7)
1790 subType = 4;
1791 else if (mainType == 9)
1792 subType = 6;
1793 else if (mainType == 11)
1794 subType = 9;
1795 return subType;
1796}
1797
1798int test2(int mainType, int subType) {
1799 if (mainType == 7)
1800 subType = 4;
1801 if (mainType == 9)
1802 subType = 6;
1803 if (mainType == 11)
1804 subType = 9;
1805 return subType;
1806}
1807
1808//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner4d9047a2010-03-10 21:42:42 +00001809
1810The following test case (from PR6576):
1811
1812define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1813entry:
1814 %cond1 = icmp eq i32 %b, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1815 br i1 %cond1, label %exit, label %bb.nph
1816bb.nph: ; preds = %entry
1817 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1818 ret i32 %tmp
1819exit: ; preds = %entry
1820 ret i32 0
1821}
1822
1823could be reduced to:
1824
1825define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1826entry:
1827 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a
1828 ret i32 %tmp
1829}
1830
1831//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1832
Chris Lattnerd5f673f2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001833We should use DSE + llvm.lifetime.end to delete dead vtable pointer updates.
1834See GCC PR34949
1835
Chris Lattner81908332010-05-21 23:16:21 +00001836Another interesting case is that something related could be used for variables
1837that go const after their ctor has finished. In these cases, globalopt (which
1838can statically run the constructor) could mark the global const (so it gets put
1839in the readonly section). A testcase would be:
1840
1841#include <complex>
1842using namespace std;
1843const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
1844complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
1845complex<char> should_be_in_bss;
1846
1847Where we currently evaluate the ctors but the globals don't become const because
1848the optimizer doesn't know they "become const" after the ctor is done. See
1849GCC PR4131 for more examples.
1850
Chris Lattnerd5f673f2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001851//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1852
Dan Gohman655fd602010-05-03 14:31:00 +00001853In this code:
1854
1855long foo(long x) {
1856 return x > 1 ? x : 1;
1857}
1858
1859LLVM emits a comparison with 1 instead of 0. 0 would be equivalent
1860and cheaper on most targets.
1861
1862LLVM prefers comparisons with zero over non-zero in general, but in this
1863case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious.
1864
1865//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmance817ea2010-06-12 05:54:27 +00001866
1867Take the following testcase on x86-64 (similar testcases exist for all targets
1868with addc/adde):
1869
1870define void @a(i64* nocapture %s, i64* nocapture %t, i64 %a, i64 %b,
1871i64 %c) nounwind {
1872entry:
1873 %0 = zext i64 %a to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1874 %1 = zext i64 %b to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1875 %2 = add i128 %1, %0 ; <i128> [#uses=2]
1876 %3 = zext i64 %c to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1877 %4 = shl i128 %3, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1878 %5 = add i128 %4, %2 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1879 %6 = lshr i128 %5, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1880 %7 = trunc i128 %6 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1881 store i64 %7, i64* %s, align 8
1882 %8 = trunc i128 %2 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1883 store i64 %8, i64* %t, align 8
1884 ret void
1885}
1886
1887Generated code:
1888 addq %rcx, %rdx
1889 movl $0, %eax
1890 adcq $0, %rax
1891 addq %r8, %rax
1892 movq %rax, (%rdi)
1893 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1894 ret
1895
1896Expected code:
1897 addq %rcx, %rdx
1898 adcq $0, %r8
1899 movq %r8, (%rdi)
1900 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1901 ret
1902
1903The generated SelectionDAG has an ADD of an ADDE, where both operands of the
1904ADDE are zero. Replacing one of the operands of the ADDE with the other operand
1905of the ADD, and replacing the ADD with the ADDE, should give the desired result.
1906
1907(That said, we are doing a lot better than gcc on this testcase. :) )
1908
1909//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//