blob: a02863c6a4797748d47ab5daa8c7dd0fd593be0b [file] [log] [blame]
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +00001Target Independent Opportunities:
2
Chris Lattner3cbd1602006-09-28 06:01:17 +00003//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
4
Chris Lattner83a4a982009-11-27 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
Chris Lattner6dc22332006-11-14 01:57:53 +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
Chris Lattner2e339852010-12-15 07:25:55 +000044We should recognized various "overflow detection" idioms and translate them into
Chris Lattner5e0c0c72010-12-19 19:37:52 +000045llvm.uadd.with.overflow and similar intrinsics. Here is a multiply idiom:
Chris Lattner51749212010-12-15 07:28:58 +000046
47unsigned int mul(unsigned int a,unsigned int b) {
48 if ((unsigned long long)a*b>0xffffffff)
49 exit(0);
50 return a*b;
51}
52
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +000053The legalization code for mul-with-overflow needs to be made more robust before
54this can be implemented though.
55
Nate Begemanbb01d4f2006-03-17 01:40:33 +000056//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000057
58Get the C front-end to expand hypot(x,y) -> llvm.sqrt(x*x+y*y) when errno and
Chris Lattner56fe52e2008-12-10 01:30:48 +000059precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :) This isn't
60safe in general, even on darwin. See the libm implementation of hypot for
61examples (which special case when x/y are exactly zero to get signed zeros etc
62right).
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000063
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000064//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
65
Chris Lattnere43e5c02006-03-04 01:19:34 +000066On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
67
68for (i = ...; ++i) {
69 x = 1ULL << i;
70
71into:
72 long long tmp = 1;
73 for (i = ...; ++i, tmp+=tmp)
74 x = tmp;
75
76This would be a win on ppc32, but not x86 or ppc64.
77
Chris Lattnerc9a318d2006-03-04 08:44:51 +000078//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner5032c322006-03-05 20:00:08 +000079
80Shrink: (setlt (loadi32 P), 0) -> (setlt (loadi8 Phi), 0)
81
82//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerbccb0e02006-03-07 02:46:26 +000083
Chris Lattner71cf7c22010-01-01 01:29:26 +000084Reassociate should turn things like:
85
86int factorial(int X) {
87 return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
88}
89
90into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
91multiplication trees.
92
93First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
94code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
Chris Lattner003f6332006-03-11 20:17:08 +000095
96//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
97
Chris Lattner4e56b682006-03-11 20:20:40 +000098Interesting? testcase for add/shift/mul reassoc:
99
100int bar(int x, int y) {
101 return x*x*x+y+x*x*x*x*x*y*y*y*y;
102}
103int foo(int z, int n) {
104 return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
105}
106
Chris Lattner71cf7c22010-01-01 01:29:26 +0000107This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
108is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
109which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
110multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
111
112define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
113 %B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
114 %C = mul i32 %B, %B
115 ret i32 %C
116}
117
118
119//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
120
121Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
122
123extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
124void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
125 b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
126 b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
127 b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
128 b1 = a1 + a0;
129}
130
131This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
132something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000133
Chris Lattner7e3f8b62010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000134
135//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
136
137This function: (derived from GCC PR19988)
138double foo(double x, double y) {
139 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x + -0.1234 * y));
140}
141
142compiles to:
143_foo:
144 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
145 mulsd LCPI1_1(%rip), %xmm1
146 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm2
147 addsd %xmm0, %xmm1
148 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
149 movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
150 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
151 ret
152
Chris Lattnere3a68d12010-01-24 20:17:09 +0000153Reassociate should be able to turn it into:
Chris Lattner7e3f8b62010-01-24 20:01:41 +0000154
155double foo(double x, double y) {
156 return ((x + 0.1234 * y) * (x - 0.1234 * y));
157}
158
159Which allows the multiply by constant to be CSE'd, producing:
160
161_foo:
162 mulsd LCPI1_0(%rip), %xmm1
163 movapd %xmm1, %xmm2
164 addsd %xmm0, %xmm2
165 subsd %xmm1, %xmm0
166 mulsd %xmm2, %xmm0
167 ret
168
169This doesn't need -ffast-math support at all. This is particularly bad because
170the llvm-gcc frontend is canonicalizing the later into the former, but clang
171doesn't have this problem.
172
Chris Lattner4e56b682006-03-11 20:20:40 +0000173//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
174
Chris Lattnerf1362992006-03-09 20:13:21 +0000175These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
176
177int g(int *j,int *l) { return memcmp(j,l,4); }
178int h(int *j, int *l) { return *j - *l; }
179
180this could be done in SelectionDAGISel.cpp, along with other special cases,
181for 1,2,4,8 bytes.
182
183//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
184
Chris Lattnere24cf9d2006-03-22 07:33:46 +0000185It would be nice to revert this patch:
186http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
187
188And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
189legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
190stuff too.
191
Chris Lattner0affd762006-03-24 19:59:17 +0000192//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
193
Reid Spencer09575ba2007-02-15 03:39:18 +0000194For vector types, TargetData.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
Evan Chengdc1161c2006-03-31 22:35:14 +0000195to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
Reid Spencer09575ba2007-02-15 03:39:18 +0000196specific vector types are target dependent.
Chris Lattner0baebb12006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000197
198//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
199
Dan Gohman1dbb40f2009-05-11 18:51:16 +0000200We should produce an unaligned load from code like this:
Chris Lattner0baebb12006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000201
202v4sf example(float *P) {
203 return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
204}
205
206//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
207
Chris Lattner4cda95b2006-05-18 18:26:13 +0000208Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
209of:
210
211 movl 136(%esp), %eax
212 cmpl $0, %eax
213 je LBB16_2 #cond_next
214LBB16_1: #cond_true
215 incl _foo
216LBB16_2: #cond_next
217
218emit:
219 movl _foo, %eax
220 cmpl $1, %edi
221 sbbl $-1, %eax
222 movl %eax, _foo
223
224//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner240f8462006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000225
226Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
227
228Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
229 double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
230 float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
231 long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
232
233Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
234http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
235
Chris Lattner56fe52e2008-12-10 01:30:48 +0000236This is now easily doable with MRVs. We could even make an intrinsic for this
237if anyone cared enough about sincos.
238
Chris Lattner240f8462006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000239//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner29d7bde2006-05-19 21:01:38 +0000240
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000241quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
242
243 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
244 {
245 /* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
246 reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
247 }
248
249Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
250so cool to turn it into something like:
251
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000252 long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000253 if (target < 32) {
254 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000255 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000256 } else {
257 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000258 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000259 }
260
261... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
262
263It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
Chris Lattner8e09ad62009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000264this requires TBAA.
Chris Lattner61858782009-09-21 06:04:07 +0000265
266//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
267
Chris Lattnerf9325e52008-10-05 02:16:12 +0000268This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
Chris Lattner4d475f62006-12-08 02:01:32 +0000269
270unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
271 unsigned t;
272 t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
273 t &= ~0xff0000;
274 v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
275 return v ^ (t >> 8);
276}
277
Chris Lattnerf11327d2006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000278//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
279
Chris Lattner249da5c2010-01-23 18:49:30 +0000280[LOOP RECOGNITION]
281
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000282These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
283
284unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
285 unsigned c;
286 for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
287 c += v & 1;
288 return c;
289}
290unsigned countbits_fast(unsigned v){
291 unsigned c;
292 for (c = 0; v; c++)
293 v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set
294 return c;
295}
296
297BITBOARD = unsigned long long
298int PopCnt(register BITBOARD a) {
299 register int c=0;
300 while(a) {
301 c++;
302 a &= a - 1;
303 }
304 return c;
305}
306unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
307 unsigned int count = 0;
308 for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
309 count += (input >> i) & i;
310 return count;
311}
312
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000313This sort of thing should be added to the loop idiom pass.
Chris Lattner8e09ad62009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000314
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000315//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
316
Chris Lattnerf11327d2006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000317These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
318processors.
319
320unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
321 return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
322}
323unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
324 return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
325}
326
327//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerf0540032006-10-24 16:12:47 +0000328
Reid Spencer7e80b0b2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000329-instcombine should handle this transform:
Reid Spencer266e42b2006-12-23 06:05:41 +0000330 icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
Reid Spencer7e80b0b2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000331when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
332
333Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
334the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
335InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
336for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
337
338The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
339this construct.
Chris Lattner20483732006-11-03 22:27:39 +0000340
341//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
342
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000343[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
344
345SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
346opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
347interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
348variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
349apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
350
351..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
352 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
353 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
354 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
355 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
356 addl $8, %edx #
357 cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
358 jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
359
360It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
361do.
362
363//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
364
Chris Lattner89e58132007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000365Consider:
366
367typedef unsigned U32;
368typedef unsigned long long U64;
369int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
370 U64 effective_addr2;
371 U32 temp = *inst;
372 int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
373 int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
374 effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
375 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
376 b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
377 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
378 effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
379 if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
380 return 1;
381 return 0;
382}
383
384Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
385we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
386we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
387extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
388when it is declared U32.
389
Chris Lattner0169fd72009-11-10 23:47:45 +0000390PHI Slicing could be extended to do this.
391
Chris Lattner89e58132007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000392//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
393
Chris Lattner8e09ad62009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000394LSR should know what GPR types a target has from TargetData. This code:
Chris Lattner43cab752007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000395
396volatile short X, Y; // globals
397
398void foo(int N) {
399 int i;
400 for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { X = i; Y = i*4; }
401}
402
Chris Lattnerfc2d8462009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000403produces two near identical IV's (after promotion) on PPC/ARM:
Chris Lattner43cab752007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000404
Chris Lattnerfc2d8462009-09-20 17:37:38 +0000405LBB1_2:
406 ldr r3, LCPI1_0
407 ldr r3, [r3]
408 strh r2, [r3]
409 ldr r3, LCPI1_1
410 ldr r3, [r3]
411 strh r1, [r3]
412 add r1, r1, #4
413 add r2, r2, #1 <- [0,+,1]
414 sub r0, r0, #1 <- [0,-,1]
415 cmp r0, #0
416 bne LBB1_2
417
418LSR should reuse the "+" IV for the exit test.
Chris Lattner43cab752007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000419
Chris Lattner43cab752007-03-24 06:01:32 +0000420//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
421
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000422Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
423followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
424
425; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
426; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
427; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000428; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000429
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000430define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000431entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000432 %tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
433 %tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
434 br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000435
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000436then.0: ; preds = %entry
437 %tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
438 %tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
439 br label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000440
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000441else.0: ; preds = %entry
442 %tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
443 br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000444
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000445then.1: ; preds = %else.0
446 %tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
447 %tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
448 br label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000449
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000450return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
451 %result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000452 [ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000453 ret i32 %result.0
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000454}
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000455
456//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
457
Chris Lattner4afb0102008-08-10 00:47:21 +0000458Tail recursion elimination should handle:
459
460int pow2m1(int n) {
461 if (n == 0)
462 return 0;
463 return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
464}
465
466Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
467they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
468
469//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
470
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000471Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
472this:
473
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000474; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000475
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000476define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000477entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000478 %tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
479 %tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
480 ret i32 %tmp.foo
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000481}
482
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000483define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000484entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000485 %tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
486 ret i32 %tmp3
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000487}
488
Chris Lattner5e224c32007-12-05 23:05:06 +0000489//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner180f0e92007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000490
Chris Lattner9d53b612007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000491We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
492example in pic mode:
493
494#include <assert.h>
495void foo(int x) {
496 assert(x);
497 //...
498}
499
500we compile this to:
501_foo:
502 subl $28, %esp
503 call "L1$pb"
504"L1$pb":
505 popl %eax
506 cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
507 je LBB1_2 # cond_true
508LBB1_1: # return
509 # ...
510 addl $28, %esp
511 ret
512LBB1_2: # cond_true
513...
514
515The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
516code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
517better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
518assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
519code with early outs.
520
Chris Lattner7cafd922007-12-29 01:05:01 +0000521Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
522entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
523function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
524
Chris Lattner9d53b612007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000525In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
Chris Lattner180f0e92007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000526
527//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner730d0882008-01-07 21:38:14 +0000528
529Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
530http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
531
532//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000533
534We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
535corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
536
537double a[256];
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000538void foo() {
539 int i, b;
540 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
541 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
542 a[i] = -a[i];
543}
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000544
545is twice as slow as this loop:
546
547long long a[256];
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000548void foo() {
549 int i, b;
550 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
551 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
552 a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
553}
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000554
555and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
556big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
557instructions.
558
559//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000560
561DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
562profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
563
564struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
565extern THotKey m_HotKey;
566THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
567
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000568into (-m64 -O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000569
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000570__Z9GetHotKeyv: ## @_Z9GetHotKeyv
571 movq _m_HotKey@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rax
572 movzwl (%rax), %ecx
573 movzbl 2(%rax), %edx
574 shlq $16, %rdx
575 orq %rcx, %rdx
576 movzbl 3(%rax), %ecx
577 shlq $24, %rcx
578 orq %rdx, %rcx
579 movzbl 4(%rax), %eax
580 shlq $32, %rax
581 orq %rcx, %rax
582 ret
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000583
584//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner87b0c132008-01-11 06:17:47 +0000585
Nate Begeman0fddc342008-02-18 18:39:23 +0000586We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
587implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000588
589//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
590
591Consider:
592
593int test() {
Benjamin Kramerdfa40f82010-12-23 15:32:07 +0000594 long long input[8] = {1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0};
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000595 foo(input);
596}
597
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000598Clang compiles this into:
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000599
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000600 call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp, i8 0, i64 64, i32 16, i1 false)
601 %0 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 0
602 store i64 1, i64* %0, align 16
603 %1 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 2
604 store i64 1, i64* %1, align 16
605 %2 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 4
606 store i64 1, i64* %2, align 16
607 %3 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 6
608 store i64 1, i64* %3, align 16
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000609
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000610Which gets codegen'd into:
611
612 pxor %xmm0, %xmm0
613 movaps %xmm0, -16(%rbp)
614 movaps %xmm0, -32(%rbp)
615 movaps %xmm0, -48(%rbp)
616 movaps %xmm0, -64(%rbp)
617 movq $1, -64(%rbp)
618 movq $1, -48(%rbp)
619 movq $1, -32(%rbp)
620 movq $1, -16(%rbp)
621
622It would be better to have 4 movq's of 0 instead of the movaps's.
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000623
624//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner647c6642008-03-02 02:51:40 +0000625
626http://llvm.org/PR717:
627
628The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
629produces "ret int 0":
630
631int f() {
632 int x = 4;
633 int y;
634 if (x == 3) y = 0;
635 return y;
636}
637
638//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd51372a2008-03-02 19:29:42 +0000639
640The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
641when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
642of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
643
644#include <stdio.h>
645int main() {
646 int nRet = 17;
647 int nLoop;
648 for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
649 if ( nLoop & 1 )
650 nRet += 2;
651 else
652 nRet -= 1;
653 }
654 return nRet;
655}
656
657Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
658reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
659exit value computation.
660
661//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000662
663We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
664etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
665matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
666enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
667
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000668unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
669 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
670}
671unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
672 switch(z) {
673 case 1:
674 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
675 case 2:
676 return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
677 case 3:
678 return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
679 case 4:
680 return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
681 default:
682 return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
683 }
684}
685
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000686//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerfd5fe2a2008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000687
Chris Lattner27ecda12010-12-15 07:10:43 +0000688This (and similar related idioms):
689
690unsigned int foo(unsigned char i) {
691 return i | (i<<8) | (i<<16) | (i<<24);
692}
693
694compiles into:
695
696define i32 @foo(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
697entry:
698 %conv = zext i8 %i to i32
699 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
700 %shl5 = shl i32 %conv, 16
701 %shl9 = shl i32 %conv, 24
702 %or = or i32 %shl9, %conv
703 %or6 = or i32 %or, %shl5
704 %or10 = or i32 %or6, %shl
705 ret i32 %or10
706}
707
708it would be better as:
709
710unsigned int bar(unsigned char i) {
711 unsigned int j=i | (i << 8);
712 return j | (j<<16);
713}
714
715aka:
716
717define i32 @bar(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
718entry:
719 %conv = zext i8 %i to i32
720 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
721 %or = or i32 %shl, %conv
722 %shl5 = shl i32 %or, 16
723 %or6 = or i32 %shl5, %or
724 ret i32 %or6
725}
726
727or even i*0x01010101, depending on the speed of the multiplier. The best way to
728handle this is to canonicalize it to a multiply in IR and have codegen handle
729lowering multiplies to shifts on cpus where shifts are faster.
730
731//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
732
Chris Lattnerfd5fe2a2008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000733We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
734standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
735example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
736be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
737
738//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
739
Chris Lattner113b3362008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000740We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
741http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
742
743Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
744slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
745
746$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
747$ time ./a.out fast
7481.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
749
750$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
751$ time ./a.out fast
7520.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
753
754It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
755codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
756
757//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
758
759We miss some instcombines for stuff like this:
760void bar (void);
761void foo (unsigned int a) {
762 /* This one is equivalent to a >= (3 << 2). */
763 if ((a >> 2) >= 3)
764 bar ();
765}
766
767A few other related ones are in GCC PR14753.
768
769//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
770
771Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
772being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
773
774void bar(unsigned n) {
775 if (n % 3 == 0)
776 true();
777}
778
Eli Friedman96cf7f42009-12-12 23:23:43 +0000779This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
780inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
781void bar(unsigned n) {
782 if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
783 true();
784}
785
786The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
787rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
788which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
789by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
790transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
791
792The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
793comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
Chris Lattner113b3362008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000794
795//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd7dd8b82008-08-19 06:22:16 +0000796
Chris Lattner6d275fd2008-10-15 16:06:03 +0000797Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
798bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
799
800#include <cstdio>
801struct test {
802 int val;
803 virtual ~test() {}
804};
805
806int main() {
807 test t;
808 std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
809 std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
810}
811
812//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
813
Nick Lewyckyedd5d3e2008-11-27 22:41:45 +0000814These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
Nick Lewyckyb3dc4ad2008-11-27 22:12:22 +0000815
816define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
817 %A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
818 %B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
819 ret i8 %B
820}
821
822define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
823 %A = zext i8 %x to i9
824 %B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
825 %C = lshr i9 %B, 8
826 %D = trunc i9 %C to i8
827 ret i8 %D
828}
829
830//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000831
832From gcc bug 24696:
833int
834f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
835{
836 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
837}
838int
839f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
840{
841 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
842}
843Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
844"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
845
846//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
847
848From GCC Bug 20192:
849#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
850void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
851{
852 if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
853 f();
854}
855The expression should optimize to something like
856"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
857-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
858
859//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
860
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000861unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
862i;}
863unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
864These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
865produces better code on X86.
866
867//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
868
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000869From GCC Bug 15784:
870#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
871int f(int x, int y)
872{
873 return (abs(x)) >= 0;
874}
875This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
876optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
877
878//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
879
880From GCC Bug 14753:
881void
882rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
883{
884 a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
885 if (a == 123)
886 bar ();
887}
888void
889minus_cst (unsigned int a)
890{
891 unsigned int tem;
892
893 tem = 20 - a;
894 if (tem == 5)
895 bar ();
896}
897void
898mask_gt (unsigned int a)
899{
900 /* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
901 if ((a & ~7) > 8)
902 bar ();
903}
904void
905rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
906{
907 /* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
908 if ((a >> 2) > 5)
909 bar ();
910}
911All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
912currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
913-std-compile-opts".
914
915//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
916
917From GCC Bug 32605:
918int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
919Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
920-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it).
921
922//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
923
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000924int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
925Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
926with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
927
928//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
929
930unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
931Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
932-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
933
934//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
935
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000936int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
937Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
938"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
939
940//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
941
942int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
943Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
944-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
945
946//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
947
948int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
949Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
950| opt -std-compile-opts".
951
952//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
953
954int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
955Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
956optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
957
958//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
959
960int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
961Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
962-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
963
964//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
965
966int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
967Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
968-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
969
970//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
971
972int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
973Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
974-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
975
976//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
977
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000978int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
979Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
980-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
981
982//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
983
984unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
985Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
986with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
987
988//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
989
990unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
991There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
992-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
993
994//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
995
996unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
997Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
998optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
999
1000//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendling85de4b32008-12-02 05:12:47 +00001001
Chris Lattner0cdc0bb2008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001002This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
1003
1004 %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
1005 %decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
1006 %tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
1007 %decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
1008
1009tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
1010 (!tmp || decl_context == 1)
1011
1012This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
1013the function, e.g. by:
1014
1015 %tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1016 %tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1017 %or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1018
1019later.
1020
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001021//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1022
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001023[STORE SINKING]
1024
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001025Store sinking: This code:
1026
1027void f (int n, int *cond, int *res) {
1028 int i;
1029 *res = 0;
1030 for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
1031 if (*cond)
1032 *res ^= 234; /* (*) */
1033}
1034
1035On this function GVN hoists the fully redundant value of *res, but nothing
1036moves the store out. This gives us this code:
1037
1038bb: ; preds = %bb2, %entry
1039 %.rle = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %.rle6, %bb2 ]
1040 %i.05 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %bb2 ]
1041 %1 = load i32* %cond, align 4
1042 %2 = icmp eq i32 %1, 0
1043 br i1 %2, label %bb2, label %bb1
1044
1045bb1: ; preds = %bb
1046 %3 = xor i32 %.rle, 234
1047 store i32 %3, i32* %res, align 4
1048 br label %bb2
1049
1050bb2: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
1051 %.rle6 = phi i32 [ %3, %bb1 ], [ %.rle, %bb ]
1052 %indvar.next = add i32 %i.05, 1
1053 %exitcond = icmp eq i32 %indvar.next, %n
1054 br i1 %exitcond, label %return, label %bb
1055
1056DSE should sink partially dead stores to get the store out of the loop.
1057
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001058Here's another partial dead case:
1059http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
1060
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001061//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1062
1063Scalar PRE hoists the mul in the common block up to the else:
1064
1065int test (int a, int b, int c, int g) {
1066 int d, e;
1067 if (a)
1068 d = b * c;
1069 else
1070 d = b - c;
1071 e = b * c + g;
1072 return d + e;
1073}
1074
1075It would be better to do the mul once to reduce codesize above the if.
1076This is GCC PR38204.
1077
1078//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1079
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001080[STORE SINKING]
1081
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001082GCC PR37810 is an interesting case where we should sink load/store reload
1083into the if block and outside the loop, so we don't reload/store it on the
1084non-call path.
1085
1086for () {
1087 *P += 1;
1088 if ()
1089 call();
1090 else
1091 ...
1092->
1093tmp = *P
1094for () {
1095 tmp += 1;
1096 if () {
1097 *P = tmp;
1098 call();
1099 tmp = *P;
1100 } else ...
1101}
1102*P = tmp;
1103
Chris Lattner81ee7312008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001104We now hoist the reload after the call (Transforms/GVN/lpre-call-wrap.ll), but
1105we don't sink the store. We need partially dead store sinking.
1106
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001107//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1108
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001109[LOAD PRE CRIT EDGE SPLITTING]
Chris Lattner81ee7312008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001110
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001111GCC PR37166: Sinking of loads prevents SROA'ing the "g" struct on the stack
1112leading to excess stack traffic. This could be handled by GVN with some crazy
1113symbolic phi translation. The code we get looks like (g is on the stack):
1114
1115bb2: ; preds = %bb1
1116..
1117 %9 = getelementptr %struct.f* %g, i32 0, i32 0
1118 store i32 %8, i32* %9, align bel %bb3
1119
1120bb3: ; preds = %bb1, %bb2, %bb
1121 %c_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %g, %bb2 ], [ %c, %bb ], [ %c, %bb1 ]
1122 %b_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %b, %bb2 ], [ %g, %bb ], [ %b, %bb1 ]
1123 %10 = getelementptr %struct.f* %c_addr.0, i32 0, i32 0
1124 %11 = load i32* %10, align 4
1125
Chris Lattnerca9e0e82009-11-27 16:53:57 +00001126%11 is partially redundant, an in BB2 it should have the value %8.
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001127
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001128GCC PR33344 and PR35287 are similar cases.
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001129
Chris Lattner06c26d92009-11-05 18:19:19 +00001130
1131//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1132
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001133[LOAD PRE]
1134
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001135There are many load PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre* in the
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001136GCC testsuite, ones we don't get yet are (checked through loadpre25):
1137
1138[CRIT EDGE BREAKING]
1139loadpre3.c predcom-4.c
1140
1141[PRE OF READONLY CALL]
1142loadpre5.c
1143
1144[TURN SELECT INTO BRANCH]
1145loadpre14.c loadpre15.c
1146
1147actually a conditional increment: loadpre18.c loadpre19.c
1148
Chris Lattneraded09f2010-12-15 06:38:24 +00001149//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1150
1151[LOAD PRE / STORE SINKING / SPEC HACK]
1152
1153This is a chunk of code from 456.hmmer:
1154
1155int f(int M, int *mc, int *mpp, int *tpmm, int *ip, int *tpim, int *dpp,
1156 int *tpdm, int xmb, int *bp, int *ms) {
1157 int k, sc;
1158 for (k = 1; k <= M; k++) {
1159 mc[k] = mpp[k-1] + tpmm[k-1];
1160 if ((sc = ip[k-1] + tpim[k-1]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1161 if ((sc = dpp[k-1] + tpdm[k-1]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1162 if ((sc = xmb + bp[k]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1163 mc[k] += ms[k];
1164 }
1165}
1166
1167It is very profitable for this benchmark to turn the conditional stores to mc[k]
1168into a conditional move (select instr in IR) and allow the final store to do the
1169store. See GCC PR27313 for more details. Note that this is valid to xform even
1170with the new C++ memory model, since mc[k] is previously loaded and later
1171stored.
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001172
1173//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1174
1175[SCALAR PRE]
1176There are many PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-*.c in the
1177GCC testsuite.
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001178
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001179//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1180
1181There are some interesting cases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pred-comm* in the
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001182GCC testsuite. For example, we get the first example in predcom-1.c, but
1183miss the second one:
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001184
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001185unsigned fib[1000];
1186unsigned avg[1000];
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001187
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001188__attribute__ ((noinline))
1189void count_averages(int n) {
1190 int i;
1191 for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
1192 avg[i] = (((unsigned long) fib[i - 1] + fib[i] + fib[i + 1]) / 3) & 0xffff;
1193}
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001194
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001195which compiles into two loads instead of one in the loop.
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001196
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001197predcom-2.c is the same as predcom-1.c
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001198
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001199predcom-3.c is very similar but needs loads feeding each other instead of
1200store->load.
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001201
1202
1203//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1204
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001205[ALIAS ANALYSIS]
1206
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001207Type based alias analysis:
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001208http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14705
1209
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001210We should do better analysis of posix_memalign. At the least it should
1211no-capture its pointer argument, at best, we should know that the out-value
1212result doesn't point to anything (like malloc). One example of this is in
1213SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c
1214
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001215//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1216
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001217A/B get pinned to the stack because we turn an if/then into a select instead
1218of PRE'ing the load/store. This may be fixable in instcombine:
1219http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37892
1220
Chris Lattner98588592009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001221struct X { int i; };
1222int foo (int x) {
1223 struct X a;
1224 struct X b;
1225 struct X *p;
1226 a.i = 1;
1227 b.i = 2;
1228 if (x)
1229 p = &a;
1230 else
1231 p = &b;
1232 return p->i;
1233}
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001234
Chris Lattner98588592009-09-21 02:53:57 +00001235//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001236
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001237Interesting missed case because of control flow flattening (should be 2 loads):
1238http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26629
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001239With: llvm-gcc t2.c -S -o - -O0 -emit-llvm | llvm-as |
1240 opt -mem2reg -gvn -instcombine | llvm-dis
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001241we miss it because we need 1) CRIT EDGE 2) MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001242VALS PRODUCED BY ONE BLOCK OVER DIFFERENT PATHS
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001243
1244//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1245
1246http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19633
1247We could eliminate the branch condition here, loading from null is undefined:
1248
1249struct S { int w, x, y, z; };
1250struct T { int r; struct S s; };
1251void bar (struct S, int);
1252void foo (int a, struct T b)
1253{
1254 struct S *c = 0;
1255 if (a)
1256 c = &b.s;
1257 bar (*c, a);
1258}
1259
1260//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner0cdc0bb2008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001261
Chris Lattner8a35adf2008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001262simplifylibcalls should do several optimizations for strspn/strcspn:
1263
Chris Lattner8a35adf2008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001264strcspn(x, "a") -> inlined loop for up to 3 letters (similarly for strspn):
1265
1266size_t __strcspn_c3 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2,
1267 int __reject3) {
1268 register size_t __result = 0;
1269 while (__s[__result] != '\0' && __s[__result] != __reject1 &&
1270 __s[__result] != __reject2 && __s[__result] != __reject3)
1271 ++__result;
1272 return __result;
1273}
1274
1275This should turn into a switch on the character. See PR3253 for some notes on
1276codegen.
1277
1278456.hmmer apparently uses strcspn and strspn a lot. 471.omnetpp uses strspn.
1279
1280//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera4142252008-12-31 00:54:13 +00001281
1282"gas" uses this idiom:
1283 else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string))
1284..
1285 else if (strchr ("<>", *intel_parser.op_string)
1286
1287Those should be turned into a switch.
1288
1289//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner7cb3ae02009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001290
1291252.eon contains this interesting code:
1292
1293 %3072 = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 0
1294 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1295 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072) ; uses = 1
1296 %endptr = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 %strlen
1297 call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %endptr,
1298 i8* getelementptr ([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42", i32 0, i32 0), i32 5, i32 1)
1299 %3074 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr) nounwind readonly
1300
1301This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, in this:
1302
Benjamin Kramerdfa40f82010-12-23 15:32:07 +00001303The memcpy+strlen strlen can be replaced with:
Chris Lattner7cb3ae02009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001304
1305 %3074 = call i32 @strlen([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42") nounwind readonly
1306
1307Because the destination was just copied into the specified memory buffer. This,
1308in turn, can be constant folded to "4".
1309
1310In other code, it contains:
1311
1312 %endptr6978 = bitcast i8* %endptr69 to i32*
1313 store i32 7107374, i32* %endptr6978, align 1
1314 %3167 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr69) nounwind readonly
1315
1316Which could also be constant folded. Whatever is producing this should probably
1317be fixed to leave this as a memcpy from a string.
1318
1319Further, eon also has an interesting partially redundant strlen call:
1320
1321bb8: ; preds = %_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.exit
1322 %682 = getelementptr i8** %argv, i32 6 ; <i8**> [#uses=2]
1323 %683 = load i8** %682, align 4 ; <i8*> [#uses=4]
1324 %684 = load i8* %683, align 1 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1325 %685 = icmp eq i8 %684, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1326 br i1 %685, label %bb10, label %bb9
1327
1328bb9: ; preds = %bb8
1329 %686 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1330 %687 = icmp ugt i32 %686, 254 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1331 br i1 %687, label %bb10, label %bb11
1332
1333bb10: ; preds = %bb9, %bb8
1334 %688 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1335
1336This could be eliminated by doing the strlen once in bb8, saving code size and
1337improving perf on the bb8->9->10 path.
1338
1339//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6c2ee502009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001340
1341I see an interesting fully redundant call to strlen left in 186.crafty:InputMove
1342which looks like:
1343 %movetext11 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 0
1344
1345
1346bb62: ; preds = %bb55, %bb53
1347 %promote.0 = phi i32 [ %169, %bb55 ], [ 0, %bb53 ]
1348 %171 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1349 %172 = add i32 %171, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1350 %173 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 %172
1351
1352... no stores ...
1353 br i1 %or.cond, label %bb65, label %bb72
1354
1355bb65: ; preds = %bb62
1356 store i8 0, i8* %173, align 1
1357 br label %bb72
1358
1359bb72: ; preds = %bb65, %bb62
1360 %trank.1 = phi i32 [ %176, %bb65 ], [ -1, %bb62 ]
1361 %177 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1362
1363Note that on the bb62->bb72 path, that the %177 strlen call is partially
1364redundant with the %171 call. At worst, we could shove the %177 strlen call
1365up into the bb65 block moving it out of the bb62->bb72 path. However, note
1366that bb65 stores to the string, zeroing out the last byte. This means that on
1367that path the value of %177 is actually just %171-1. A sub is cheaper than a
1368strlen!
1369
1370This pattern repeats several times, basically doing:
1371
1372 A = strlen(P);
1373 P[A-1] = 0;
1374 B = strlen(P);
1375 where it is "obvious" that B = A-1.
1376
1377//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1378
Chris Lattner6c2ee502009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001379186.crafty has this interesting pattern with the "out.4543" variable:
1380
1381call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(
1382 i8* getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0),
1383 i8* getelementptr ([7 x i8]* @"\01LC28700", i32 0, i32 0), i32 7, i32 1)
1384%101 = call@printf(i8* ... @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0)) nounwind
1385
1386It is basically doing:
1387
1388 memcpy(globalarray, "string");
1389 printf(..., globalarray);
1390
1391Anyway, by knowing that printf just reads the memory and forward substituting
1392the string directly into the printf, this eliminates reads from globalarray.
1393Since this pattern occurs frequently in crafty (due to the "DisplayTime" and
1394other similar functions) there are many stores to "out". Once all the printfs
1395stop using "out", all that is left is the memcpy's into it. This should allow
1396globalopt to remove the "stored only" global.
1397
1398//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1399
Dan Gohman83d2e062009-01-20 01:07:33 +00001400This code:
1401
1402define inreg i32 @foo(i8* inreg %p) nounwind {
1403 %tmp0 = load i8* %p
1404 %tmp1 = ashr i8 %tmp0, 5
1405 %tmp2 = sext i8 %tmp1 to i32
1406 ret i32 %tmp2
1407}
1408
1409could be dagcombine'd to a sign-extending load with a shift.
1410For example, on x86 this currently gets this:
1411
1412 movb (%eax), %al
1413 sarb $5, %al
1414 movsbl %al, %eax
1415
1416while it could get this:
1417
1418 movsbl (%eax), %eax
1419 sarl $5, %eax
1420
1421//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner705ac702009-01-22 07:16:03 +00001422
1423GCC PR31029:
1424
1425int test(int x) { return 1-x == x; } // --> return false
1426int test2(int x) { return 2-x == x; } // --> return x == 1 ?
1427
1428Always foldable for odd constants, what is the rule for even?
1429
1430//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1431
Torok Edwin3cedd4d2009-01-24 19:30:25 +00001432PR 3381: GEP to field of size 0 inside a struct could be turned into GEP
1433for next field in struct (which is at same address).
1434
1435For example: store of float into { {{}}, float } could be turned into a store to
1436the float directly.
1437
Torok Edwin87d5ca02009-02-20 18:42:06 +00001438//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky5c10a3a2009-02-25 06:52:48 +00001439
Chris Lattner17a999e2009-05-11 17:41:40 +00001440The arg promotion pass should make use of nocapture to make its alias analysis
1441stuff much more precise.
1442
1443//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1444
1445The following functions should be optimized to use a select instead of a
1446branch (from gcc PR40072):
1447
1448char char_int(int m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1449int int_char(char m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1450
1451//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1452
Bill Wendlingfd2730e2009-10-27 22:48:31 +00001453int func(int a, int b) { if (a & 0x80) b |= 0x80; else b &= ~0x80; return b; }
1454
1455Generates this:
1456
1457define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1458entry:
1459 %0 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1460 %1 = icmp eq i32 %0, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1461 %2 = or i32 %b, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1462 %3 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1463 %b_addr.0 = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 %2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1464 ret i32 %b_addr.0
1465}
1466
1467However, it's functionally equivalent to:
1468
1469 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1470
1471Which generates this:
1472
1473define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1474entry:
1475 %0 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1476 %1 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1477 %2 = or i32 %0, %1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1478 ret i32 %2
1479}
1480
1481This can be generalized for other forms:
1482
1483 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x40) << 1;
1484
1485//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendling2e5198f2009-10-27 23:30:07 +00001486
1487These two functions produce different code. They shouldn't:
1488
1489#include <stdint.h>
1490
1491uint8_t p1(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1492 b = (b & ~0xc0) | (a & 0xc0);
1493 return (b);
1494}
1495
1496uint8_t p2(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1497 b = (b & ~0x40) | (a & 0x40);
1498 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1499 return (b);
1500}
1501
1502define zeroext i8 @p1(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1503entry:
1504 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1505 %1 = and i8 %a, -64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1506 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1507 ret i8 %2
1508}
1509
1510define zeroext i8 @p2(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1511entry:
1512 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1513 %.masked = and i8 %a, 64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1514 %1 = and i8 %a, -128 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1515 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1516 %3 = or i8 %2, %.masked ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1517 ret i8 %3
1518}
1519
1520//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner539bdf02009-11-11 17:51:27 +00001521
1522IPSCCP does not currently propagate argument dependent constants through
1523functions where it does not not all of the callers. This includes functions
1524with normal external linkage as well as templates, C99 inline functions etc.
1525Specifically, it does nothing to:
1526
1527define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) nounwind {
1528entry:
1529 %0 = add nsw i32 %y, %z
1530 %1 = mul i32 %0, %x
1531 %2 = mul i32 %y, %z
1532 %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2
1533 ret i32 %3
1534}
1535
1536define i32 @test2() nounwind {
1537entry:
1538 %0 = call i32 @test(i32 1, i32 2, i32 4) nounwind
1539 ret i32 %0
1540}
1541
1542It would be interesting extend IPSCCP to be able to handle simple cases like
1543this, where all of the arguments to a call are constant. Because IPSCCP runs
1544before inlining, trivial templates and inline functions are not yet inlined.
1545The results for a function + set of constant arguments should be memoized in a
1546map.
1547
1548//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner7a099642009-11-11 17:54:02 +00001549
1550The libcall constant folding stuff should be moved out of SimplifyLibcalls into
1551libanalysis' constantfolding logic. This would allow IPSCCP to be able to
1552handle simple things like this:
1553
1554static int foo(const char *X) { return strlen(X); }
1555int bar() { return foo("abcd"); }
1556
1557//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewyckyef4ea9a2009-11-15 17:51:23 +00001558
1559InstCombine should use SimplifyDemandedBits to remove the or instruction:
1560
1561define i1 @test(i8 %x, i8 %y) {
1562 %A = or i8 %x, 1
1563 %B = icmp ugt i8 %A, 3
1564 ret i1 %B
1565}
1566
1567Currently instcombine calls SimplifyDemandedBits with either all bits or just
1568the sign bit, if the comparison is obviously a sign test. In this case, we only
1569need all but the bottom two bits from %A, and if we gave that mask to SDB it
1570would delete the or instruction for us.
1571
1572//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd1e4ee32009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001573
Duncan Sandsc8493da2010-01-06 15:37:47 +00001574functionattrs doesn't know much about memcpy/memset. This function should be
Duncan Sands78376ad2010-01-06 08:45:52 +00001575marked readnone rather than readonly, since it only twiddles local memory, but
1576functionattrs doesn't handle memset/memcpy/memmove aggressively:
Chris Lattnerf05330a2009-12-03 07:43:46 +00001577
1578struct X { int *p; int *q; };
1579int foo() {
1580 int i = 0, j = 1;
1581 struct X x, y;
1582 int **p;
1583 y.p = &i;
1584 x.q = &j;
1585 p = __builtin_memcpy (&x, &y, sizeof (int *));
1586 return **p;
1587}
1588
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +00001589This can be seen at:
1590$ clang t.c -S -o - -mkernel -O0 -emit-llvm | opt -functionattrs -S
1591
1592
Chris Lattnerd1e4ee32009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001593//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1594
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001595Missed instcombine transformation:
1596define i1 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
1597entry:
1598 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 30
1599 %sub = add i32 %x, -30
1600 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i32 %sub, 9
1601 %or = or i1 %cmp, %cmp2
1602 ret i1 %or
1603}
1604This should be optimized to a single compare. Testcase derived from gcc.
1605
1606//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1607
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001608Missed instcombine or reassociate transformation:
1609int a(int a, int b) { return (a==12)&(b>47)&(b<58); }
1610
1611The sgt and slt should be combined into a single comparison. Testcase derived
1612from gcc.
1613
1614//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1615
1616Missed instcombine transformation:
Chris Lattner9165d9d2010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001617
1618 %382 = srem i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1619 %383 = zext i32 %382 to i64 ; [#uses=1]
1620 %384 = shl i64 %381, %383 ; [#uses=1]
1621 %385 = icmp slt i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1622
Benjamin Kramer94a622a2010-11-23 20:33:57 +00001623The srem can be transformed to an and because if %tmp14.i is negative, the
1624shift is undefined. Testcase derived from 403.gcc.
Chris Lattner9165d9d2010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001625
1626//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1627
1628This is a range comparison on a divided result (from 403.gcc):
1629
1630 %1337 = sdiv i32 %1336, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1631 %.off.i208 = add i32 %1336, 7 ; [#uses=1]
1632 %1338 = icmp ult i32 %.off.i208, 15 ; [#uses=1]
1633
1634We already catch this (removing the sdiv) if there isn't an add, we should
1635handle the 'add' as well. This is a common idiom with it's builtin_alloca code.
1636C testcase:
1637
1638int a(int x) { return (unsigned)(x/16+7) < 15; }
1639
1640Another similar case involves truncations on 64-bit targets:
1641
1642 %361 = sdiv i64 %.046, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1643 %362 = trunc i64 %361 to i32 ; [#uses=2]
1644...
1645 %367 = icmp eq i32 %362, 0 ; [#uses=1]
1646
Eli Friedman0de0b362010-01-31 04:55:32 +00001647//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1648
1649Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
1650define void @lshift_lt(i8 zeroext %a) nounwind {
1651entry:
1652 %conv = zext i8 %a to i32
1653 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 3
1654 %cmp = icmp ult i32 %shl, 33
1655 br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end
1656
1657if.then:
1658 tail call void @bar() nounwind
1659 ret void
1660
1661if.end:
1662 ret void
1663}
1664declare void @bar() nounwind
1665
1666The shift should be eliminated. Testcase derived from gcc.
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001667
1668//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner187242b2010-02-09 00:11:10 +00001669
1670These compile into different code, one gets recognized as a switch and the
1671other doesn't due to phase ordering issues (PR6212):
1672
1673int test1(int mainType, int subType) {
1674 if (mainType == 7)
1675 subType = 4;
1676 else if (mainType == 9)
1677 subType = 6;
1678 else if (mainType == 11)
1679 subType = 9;
1680 return subType;
1681}
1682
1683int test2(int mainType, int subType) {
1684 if (mainType == 7)
1685 subType = 4;
1686 if (mainType == 9)
1687 subType = 6;
1688 if (mainType == 11)
1689 subType = 9;
1690 return subType;
1691}
1692
1693//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner1f6689a2010-03-10 21:42:42 +00001694
1695The following test case (from PR6576):
1696
1697define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1698entry:
1699 %cond1 = icmp eq i32 %b, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1700 br i1 %cond1, label %exit, label %bb.nph
1701bb.nph: ; preds = %entry
1702 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1703 ret i32 %tmp
1704exit: ; preds = %entry
1705 ret i32 0
1706}
1707
1708could be reduced to:
1709
1710define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1711entry:
1712 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a
1713 ret i32 %tmp
1714}
1715
1716//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1717
Chris Lattnercfc921c2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001718We should use DSE + llvm.lifetime.end to delete dead vtable pointer updates.
1719See GCC PR34949
1720
Chris Lattner4dc833c2010-05-21 23:16:21 +00001721Another interesting case is that something related could be used for variables
1722that go const after their ctor has finished. In these cases, globalopt (which
1723can statically run the constructor) could mark the global const (so it gets put
1724in the readonly section). A testcase would be:
1725
1726#include <complex>
1727using namespace std;
1728const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
1729complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
1730complex<char> should_be_in_bss;
1731
1732Where we currently evaluate the ctors but the globals don't become const because
1733the optimizer doesn't know they "become const" after the ctor is done. See
1734GCC PR4131 for more examples.
1735
Chris Lattnercfc921c2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001736//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1737
Dan Gohman73c81452010-05-03 14:31:00 +00001738In this code:
1739
1740long foo(long x) {
1741 return x > 1 ? x : 1;
1742}
1743
1744LLVM emits a comparison with 1 instead of 0. 0 would be equivalent
1745and cheaper on most targets.
1746
1747LLVM prefers comparisons with zero over non-zero in general, but in this
1748case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious.
1749
1750//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmane17e4ae2010-06-12 05:54:27 +00001751
1752Take the following testcase on x86-64 (similar testcases exist for all targets
1753with addc/adde):
1754
1755define void @a(i64* nocapture %s, i64* nocapture %t, i64 %a, i64 %b,
1756i64 %c) nounwind {
1757entry:
1758 %0 = zext i64 %a to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1759 %1 = zext i64 %b to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1760 %2 = add i128 %1, %0 ; <i128> [#uses=2]
1761 %3 = zext i64 %c to i128 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1762 %4 = shl i128 %3, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1763 %5 = add i128 %4, %2 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1764 %6 = lshr i128 %5, 64 ; <i128> [#uses=1]
1765 %7 = trunc i128 %6 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1766 store i64 %7, i64* %s, align 8
1767 %8 = trunc i128 %2 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1]
1768 store i64 %8, i64* %t, align 8
1769 ret void
1770}
1771
1772Generated code:
1773 addq %rcx, %rdx
1774 movl $0, %eax
1775 adcq $0, %rax
1776 addq %r8, %rax
1777 movq %rax, (%rdi)
1778 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1779 ret
1780
1781Expected code:
1782 addq %rcx, %rdx
1783 adcq $0, %r8
1784 movq %r8, (%rdi)
1785 movq %rdx, (%rsi)
1786 ret
1787
1788The generated SelectionDAG has an ADD of an ADDE, where both operands of the
1789ADDE are zero. Replacing one of the operands of the ADDE with the other operand
1790of the ADD, and replacing the ADD with the ADDE, should give the desired result.
1791
1792(That said, we are doing a lot better than gcc on this testcase. :) )
1793
1794//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001795
1796Switch lowering generates less than ideal code for the following switch:
1797define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind {
1798entry:
1799 switch i32 %x, label %if.end [
1800 i32 0, label %if.then
1801 i32 1, label %if.then
1802 i32 2, label %if.then
1803 i32 3, label %if.then
1804 i32 5, label %if.then
1805 ]
1806if.then:
1807 tail call void @foo() nounwind
1808 ret void
1809if.end:
1810 ret void
1811}
1812declare void @foo()
1813
1814Generated code on x86-64 (other platforms give similar results):
1815a:
1816 cmpl $5, %edi
1817 ja .LBB0_2
1818 movl %edi, %eax
1819 movl $47, %ecx
1820 btq %rax, %rcx
1821 jb .LBB0_3
1822.LBB0_2:
1823 ret
1824.LBB0_3:
Eli Friedmanc8f59522010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001825 jmp foo # TAILCALL
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001826
1827The movl+movl+btq+jb could be simplified to a cmpl+jne.
1828
Eli Friedmanc8f59522010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001829Or, if we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to
1830something like the following, which eliminates a branch:
1831 xorl $1, %edi
1832 cmpl $4, %edi
1833 ja .LBB0_2
1834 ret
1835.LBB0_2:
1836 jmp foo # TAILCALL
Nick Lewyckybb10e902010-08-08 07:04:25 +00001837//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1838Given a branch where the two target blocks are identical ("ret i32 %b" in
1839both), simplifycfg will simplify them away. But not so for a switch statement:
Eli Friedmanc8f59522010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001840
Nick Lewyckybb10e902010-08-08 07:04:25 +00001841define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1842entry:
1843 switch i32 %a, label %bb3 [
1844 i32 4, label %bb
1845 i32 6, label %bb
1846 ]
1847
1848bb: ; preds = %entry, %entry
1849 ret i32 %b
1850
1851bb3: ; preds = %entry
1852 ret i32 %b
1853}
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001854//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner4d94e472010-11-09 19:37:28 +00001855
1856clang -O3 fails to devirtualize this virtual inheritance case: (GCC PR45875)
Chris Lattner1d6aa322010-11-11 17:17:56 +00001857Looks related to PR3100
Chris Lattner4d94e472010-11-09 19:37:28 +00001858
1859struct c1 {};
1860struct c10 : c1{
1861 virtual void foo ();
1862};
1863struct c11 : c10, c1{
1864 virtual void f6 ();
1865};
1866struct c28 : virtual c11{
1867 void f6 ();
1868};
1869void check_c28 () {
1870 c28 obj;
1871 c11 *ptr = &obj;
1872 ptr->f6 ();
1873}
1874
1875//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner932aab32010-11-11 18:23:57 +00001876
1877We compile this:
1878
1879int foo(int a) { return (a & (~15)) / 16; }
1880
1881Into:
1882
1883define i32 @foo(i32 %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1884entry:
1885 %and = and i32 %a, -16
1886 %div = sdiv i32 %and, 16
1887 ret i32 %div
1888}
1889
1890but this code (X & -A)/A is X >> log2(A) when A is a power of 2, so this case
1891should be instcombined into just "a >> 4".
1892
1893We do get this at the codegen level, so something knows about it, but
1894instcombine should catch it earlier:
1895
1896_foo: ## @foo
1897## BB#0: ## %entry
1898 movl %edi, %eax
1899 sarl $4, %eax
1900 ret
1901
1902//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1903
Chris Lattner14cb11d2010-12-13 00:15:25 +00001904This code (from GCC PR28685):
1905
1906int test(int a, int b) {
1907 int lt = a < b;
1908 int eq = a == b;
1909 if (lt)
1910 return 1;
1911 return eq;
1912}
1913
1914Is compiled to:
1915
1916define i32 @test(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1917entry:
1918 %cmp = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
1919 br i1 %cmp, label %return, label %if.end
1920
1921if.end: ; preds = %entry
1922 %cmp5 = icmp eq i32 %a, %b
1923 %conv6 = zext i1 %cmp5 to i32
1924 ret i32 %conv6
1925
1926return: ; preds = %entry
1927 ret i32 1
1928}
1929
1930it could be:
1931
1932define i32 @test__(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1933entry:
1934 %0 = icmp sle i32 %a, %b
1935 %retval = zext i1 %0 to i32
1936 ret i32 %retval
1937}
1938
1939//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Duncan Sands772749a2011-01-01 20:08:02 +00001940
1941This compare could fold to false:
1942
1943define i1 @g(i32 a) nounwind readnone {
1944 %add = shl i32 %a, 1
1945 %mul = shl i32 %a, 1
1946 %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %add, %mul
1947 ret i1 %cmp
1948}
1949
1950//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6c3fc0a2011-01-01 22:57:31 +00001951
1952This code can be seen in viterbi:
1953
1954 %64 = call noalias i8* @malloc(i64 %62) nounwind
1955...
1956 %67 = call i64 @llvm.objectsize.i64(i8* %64, i1 false) nounwind
1957 %68 = call i8* @__memset_chk(i8* %64, i32 0, i64 %62, i64 %67) nounwind
1958
1959llvm.objectsize.i64 should be taught about malloc/calloc, allowing it to
1960fold to %62. This is a security win (overflows of malloc will get caught)
1961and also a performance win by exposing more memsets to the optimizer.
1962
1963This occurs several times in viterbi.
1964
1965//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1966
Chris Lattner73552c22011-01-06 07:09:23 +00001967This code (from Benchmarks/Dhrystone/dry.c):
1968
1969define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1970entry:
1971 %sext = shl i32 %0, 24
1972 %conv = ashr i32 %sext, 24
1973 %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24
1974 %conv4 = ashr i32 %sext6, 24
1975 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
1976 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
1977 ret i32 %.
1978}
1979
1980Should be simplified into something like:
1981
1982define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1983entry:
1984 %sext = shl i32 %0, 24
1985 %conv = and i32 %sext, 0xFF000000
1986 %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24
1987 %conv4 = and i32 %sext6, 0xFF000000
1988 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
1989 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
1990 ret i32 %.
1991}
1992
1993and then to:
1994
1995define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1996entry:
1997 %conv = and i32 %0, 0xFF
1998 %conv4 = and i32 %1, 0xFF
1999 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
2000 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
2001 ret i32 %.
2002}
2003//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6c3fc0a2011-01-01 22:57:31 +00002004