blob: 0fa56e66747d9230281432fca4f8ad42cc9da230 [file] [log] [blame]
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +00001Target Independent Opportunities:
2
Chris Lattner3cbd1602006-09-28 06:01:17 +00003//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
4
Chris Lattner2e339852010-12-15 07:25:55 +00005We should recognized various "overflow detection" idioms and translate them into
Chris Lattner5e0c0c72010-12-19 19:37:52 +00006llvm.uadd.with.overflow and similar intrinsics. Here is a multiply idiom:
Chris Lattner51749212010-12-15 07:28:58 +00007
8unsigned int mul(unsigned int a,unsigned int b) {
9 if ((unsigned long long)a*b>0xffffffff)
10 exit(0);
11 return a*b;
12}
13
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +000014The legalization code for mul-with-overflow needs to be made more robust before
15this can be implemented though.
16
Nate Begemanbb01d4f2006-03-17 01:40:33 +000017//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000018
19Get 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 +000020precision don't matter (ffastmath). Misc/mandel will like this. :) This isn't
21safe in general, even on darwin. See the libm implementation of hypot for
22examples (which special case when x/y are exactly zero to get signed zeros etc
23right).
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000024
Chris Lattnerd1aaee02006-02-03 06:21:43 +000025//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
26
Chris Lattnere43e5c02006-03-04 01:19:34 +000027On targets with expensive 64-bit multiply, we could LSR this:
28
29for (i = ...; ++i) {
30 x = 1ULL << i;
31
32into:
33 long long tmp = 1;
34 for (i = ...; ++i, tmp+=tmp)
35 x = tmp;
36
37This would be a win on ppc32, but not x86 or ppc64.
38
Chris Lattnerc9a318d2006-03-04 08:44:51 +000039//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner5032c322006-03-05 20:00:08 +000040
41Shrink: (setlt (loadi32 P), 0) -> (setlt (loadi8 Phi), 0)
42
43//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerbccb0e02006-03-07 02:46:26 +000044
Chris Lattner71cf7c22010-01-01 01:29:26 +000045Reassociate should turn things like:
46
47int factorial(int X) {
48 return X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;
49}
50
51into llvm.powi calls, allowing the code generator to produce balanced
52multiplication trees.
53
54First, the intrinsic needs to be extended to support integers, and second the
55code generator needs to be enhanced to lower these to multiplication trees.
Chris Lattner003f6332006-03-11 20:17:08 +000056
57//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
58
Chris Lattner4e56b682006-03-11 20:20:40 +000059Interesting? testcase for add/shift/mul reassoc:
60
61int bar(int x, int y) {
62 return x*x*x+y+x*x*x*x*x*y*y*y*y;
63}
64int foo(int z, int n) {
65 return bar(z, n) + bar(2*z, 2*n);
66}
67
Chris Lattner71cf7c22010-01-01 01:29:26 +000068This is blocked on not handling X*X*X -> powi(X, 3) (see note above). The issue
69is that we end up getting t = 2*X s = t*t and don't turn this into 4*X*X,
70which is the same number of multiplies and is canonical, because the 2*X has
71multiple uses. Here's a simple example:
72
73define i32 @test15(i32 %X1) {
74 %B = mul i32 %X1, 47 ; X1*47
75 %C = mul i32 %B, %B
76 ret i32 %C
77}
78
79
80//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
81
82Reassociate should handle the example in GCC PR16157:
83
84extern int a0, a1, a2, a3, a4; extern int b0, b1, b2, b3, b4;
85void f () { /* this can be optimized to four additions... */
86 b4 = a4 + a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
87 b3 = a3 + a2 + a1 + a0;
88 b2 = a2 + a1 + a0;
89 b1 = a1 + a0;
90}
91
92This requires reassociating to forms of expressions that are already available,
93something that reassoc doesn't think about yet.
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +000094
Chris Lattner7e3f8b62010-01-24 20:01:41 +000095
96//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
97
Chris Lattnerf1362992006-03-09 20:13:21 +000098These two functions should generate the same code on big-endian systems:
99
100int g(int *j,int *l) { return memcmp(j,l,4); }
101int h(int *j, int *l) { return *j - *l; }
102
103this could be done in SelectionDAGISel.cpp, along with other special cases,
104for 1,2,4,8 bytes.
105
106//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
107
Chris Lattnere24cf9d2006-03-22 07:33:46 +0000108It would be nice to revert this patch:
109http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060213/031986.html
110
111And teach the dag combiner enough to simplify the code expanded before
112legalize. It seems plausible that this knowledge would let it simplify other
113stuff too.
114
Chris Lattner0affd762006-03-24 19:59:17 +0000115//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
116
Micah Villmowcdfe20b2012-10-08 16:38:25 +0000117For vector types, DataLayout.cpp::getTypeInfo() returns alignment that is equal
Evan Chengdc1161c2006-03-31 22:35:14 +0000118to the type size. It works but can be overly conservative as the alignment of
Reid Spencer09575ba2007-02-15 03:39:18 +0000119specific vector types are target dependent.
Chris Lattner0baebb12006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000120
121//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
122
Dan Gohman1dbb40f2009-05-11 18:51:16 +0000123We should produce an unaligned load from code like this:
Chris Lattner0baebb12006-04-01 04:08:29 +0000124
125v4sf example(float *P) {
126 return (v4sf){P[0], P[1], P[2], P[3] };
127}
128
129//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
130
Chris Lattner4cda95b2006-05-18 18:26:13 +0000131Add support for conditional increments, and other related patterns. Instead
132of:
133
134 movl 136(%esp), %eax
135 cmpl $0, %eax
136 je LBB16_2 #cond_next
137LBB16_1: #cond_true
138 incl _foo
139LBB16_2: #cond_next
140
141emit:
142 movl _foo, %eax
143 cmpl $1, %edi
144 sbbl $-1, %eax
145 movl %eax, _foo
146
147//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner240f8462006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000148
149Combine: a = sin(x), b = cos(x) into a,b = sincos(x).
150
151Expand these to calls of sin/cos and stores:
152 double sincos(double x, double *sin, double *cos);
153 float sincosf(float x, float *sin, float *cos);
154 long double sincosl(long double x, long double *sin, long double *cos);
155
156Doing so could allow SROA of the destination pointers. See also:
157http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17687
158
Chris Lattner56fe52e2008-12-10 01:30:48 +0000159This is now easily doable with MRVs. We could even make an intrinsic for this
160if anyone cared enough about sincos.
161
Chris Lattner240f8462006-05-19 20:45:08 +0000162//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner29d7bde2006-05-19 21:01:38 +0000163
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000164quantum_sigma_x in 462.libquantum contains the following loop:
165
166 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
167 {
168 /* Flip the target bit of each basis state */
169 reg->node[i].state ^= ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
170 }
171
172Where MAX_UNSIGNED/state is a 64-bit int. On a 32-bit platform it would be just
173so cool to turn it into something like:
174
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000175 long long Res = ((MAX_UNSIGNED) 1 << target);
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000176 if (target < 32) {
177 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000178 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFFULL;
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000179 } else {
180 for(i=0; i<reg->size; i++)
Chris Lattner4a13d3b2006-09-18 04:54:35 +0000181 reg->node[i].state ^= Res & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
Chris Lattnerf7e34782006-09-16 23:57:51 +0000182 }
183
184... which would only do one 32-bit XOR per loop iteration instead of two.
185
186It would also be nice to recognize the reg->size doesn't alias reg->node[i], but
Chris Lattner8e09ad62009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000187this requires TBAA.
Chris Lattner61858782009-09-21 06:04:07 +0000188
189//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
190
Chris Lattnerf9325e52008-10-05 02:16:12 +0000191This isn't recognized as bswap by instcombine (yes, it really is bswap):
Chris Lattner4d475f62006-12-08 02:01:32 +0000192
193unsigned long reverse(unsigned v) {
194 unsigned t;
195 t = v ^ ((v << 16) | (v >> 16));
196 t &= ~0xff0000;
197 v = (v << 24) | (v >> 8);
198 return v ^ (t >> 8);
199}
200
Chris Lattnerf11327d2006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000201//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
202
Chris Lattnere9cba7b2011-02-21 02:13:39 +0000203[LOOP DELETION]
204
205We don't delete this output free loop, because trip count analysis doesn't
206realize that it is finite (if it were infinite, it would be undefined). Not
207having this blocks Loop Idiom from matching strlen and friends.
208
209void foo(char *C) {
210 int x = 0;
211 while (*C)
212 ++x,++C;
213}
214
215//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
216
Chris Lattner249da5c2010-01-23 18:49:30 +0000217[LOOP RECOGNITION]
218
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000219These idioms should be recognized as popcount (see PR1488):
220
221unsigned countbits_slow(unsigned v) {
222 unsigned c;
223 for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
224 c += v & 1;
225 return c;
226}
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000227
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000228unsigned int popcount(unsigned int input) {
229 unsigned int count = 0;
230 for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 4 * 8; i++)
231 count += (input >> i) & i;
232 return count;
233}
234
Chris Lattner659c7932011-02-21 01:33:38 +0000235This should be recognized as CLZ: rdar://8459039
236
237unsigned clz_a(unsigned a) {
238 int i;
239 for (i=0;i<32;i++)
240 if (a & (1<<(31-i)))
241 return i;
242 return 32;
243}
244
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000245This sort of thing should be added to the loop idiom pass.
Chris Lattner8e09ad62009-11-26 01:51:18 +0000246
Chris Lattner843dacc2008-10-15 16:02:15 +0000247//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
248
Chris Lattnerf11327d2006-09-25 17:12:14 +0000249These should turn into single 16-bit (unaligned?) loads on little/big endian
250processors.
251
252unsigned short read_16_le(const unsigned char *adr) {
253 return adr[0] | (adr[1] << 8);
254}
255unsigned short read_16_be(const unsigned char *adr) {
256 return (adr[0] << 8) | adr[1];
257}
258
259//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerf0540032006-10-24 16:12:47 +0000260
Reid Spencer7e80b0b2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000261-instcombine should handle this transform:
Reid Spencer266e42b2006-12-23 06:05:41 +0000262 icmp pred (sdiv X / C1 ), C2
Reid Spencer7e80b0b2006-10-26 06:15:43 +0000263when X, C1, and C2 are unsigned. Similarly for udiv and signed operands.
264
265Currently InstCombine avoids this transform but will do it when the signs of
266the operands and the sign of the divide match. See the FIXME in
267InstructionCombining.cpp in the visitSetCondInst method after the switch case
268for Instruction::UDiv (around line 4447) for more details.
269
270The SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash and hash2 tests have examples of
271this construct.
Chris Lattner20483732006-11-03 22:27:39 +0000272
273//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
274
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +0000275[LOOP OPTIMIZATION]
276
277SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c shows several interesting optimization
278opportunities in its double_array_divs_variable function: it needs loop
279interchange, memory promotion (which LICM already does), vectorization and
280variable trip count loop unrolling (since it has a constant trip count). ICC
281apparently produces this very nice code with -ffast-math:
282
283..B1.70: # Preds ..B1.70 ..B1.69
284 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
285 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
286 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
287 mulpd %xmm0, %xmm1 #108.2
288 addl $8, %edx #
289 cmpl $131072, %edx #108.2
290 jb ..B1.70 # Prob 99% #108.2
291
292It would be better to count down to zero, but this is a lot better than what we
293do.
294
295//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
296
Chris Lattner89e58132007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000297Consider:
298
299typedef unsigned U32;
300typedef unsigned long long U64;
301int test (U32 *inst, U64 *regs) {
302 U64 effective_addr2;
303 U32 temp = *inst;
304 int r1 = (temp >> 20) & 0xf;
305 int b2 = (temp >> 16) & 0xf;
306 effective_addr2 = temp & 0xfff;
307 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
308 b2 = (temp >> 12) & 0xf;
309 if (b2) effective_addr2 += regs[b2];
310 effective_addr2 &= regs[4];
311 if ((effective_addr2 & 3) == 0)
312 return 1;
313 return 0;
314}
315
316Note that only the low 2 bits of effective_addr2 are used. On 32-bit systems,
317we don't eliminate the computation of the top half of effective_addr2 because
318we don't have whole-function selection dags. On x86, this means we use one
319extra register for the function when effective_addr2 is declared as U64 than
320when it is declared U32.
321
Chris Lattner0169fd72009-11-10 23:47:45 +0000322PHI Slicing could be extended to do this.
323
Chris Lattner89e58132007-01-16 06:39:48 +0000324//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
325
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000326Tail call elim should be more aggressive, checking to see if the call is
327followed by an uncond branch to an exit block.
328
329; This testcase is due to tail-duplication not wanting to copy the return
330; instruction into the terminating blocks because there was other code
331; optimized out of the function after the taildup happened.
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000332; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -tailcallelim | llvm-dis | not grep call
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000333
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000334define i32 @t4(i32 %a) {
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000335entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000336 %tmp.1 = and i32 %a, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
337 %tmp.2 = icmp ne i32 %tmp.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
338 br i1 %tmp.2, label %then.0, label %else.0
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000339
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000340then.0: ; preds = %entry
341 %tmp.5 = add i32 %a, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
342 %tmp.3 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.5 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
343 br label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000344
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000345else.0: ; preds = %entry
346 %tmp.7 = icmp ne i32 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
347 br i1 %tmp.7, label %then.1, label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000348
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000349then.1: ; preds = %else.0
350 %tmp.11 = add i32 %a, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
351 %tmp.9 = call i32 @t4( i32 %tmp.11 ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
352 br label %return
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000353
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000354return: ; preds = %then.1, %else.0, %then.0
355 %result.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %else.0 ], [ %tmp.3, %then.0 ],
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000356 [ %tmp.9, %then.1 ]
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000357 ret i32 %result.0
Chris Lattner2cca31f2007-05-05 22:29:06 +0000358}
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000359
360//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
361
Chris Lattner4afb0102008-08-10 00:47:21 +0000362Tail recursion elimination should handle:
363
364int pow2m1(int n) {
365 if (n == 0)
366 return 0;
367 return 2 * pow2m1 (n - 1) + 1;
368}
369
370Also, multiplies can be turned into SHL's, so they should be handled as if
371they were associative. "return foo() << 1" can be tail recursion eliminated.
372
373//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
374
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000375Argument promotion should promote arguments for recursive functions, like
376this:
377
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000378; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -argpromotion | llvm-dis | grep x.val
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000379
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000380define internal i32 @foo(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000381entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000382 %tmp = load i32* %x ; <i32> [#uses=0]
383 %tmp.foo = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
384 ret i32 %tmp.foo
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000385}
386
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000387define i32 @bar(i32* %x) {
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000388entry:
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000389 %tmp3 = call i32 @foo( i32* %x ) ; <i32> [#uses=1]
390 ret i32 %tmp3
Chris Lattner9958b822007-05-05 22:44:08 +0000391}
392
Chris Lattner5e224c32007-12-05 23:05:06 +0000393//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner180f0e92007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000394
Chris Lattner9d53b612007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000395We should investigate an instruction sinking pass. Consider this silly
396example in pic mode:
397
398#include <assert.h>
399void foo(int x) {
400 assert(x);
401 //...
402}
403
404we compile this to:
405_foo:
406 subl $28, %esp
407 call "L1$pb"
408"L1$pb":
409 popl %eax
410 cmpl $0, 32(%esp)
411 je LBB1_2 # cond_true
412LBB1_1: # return
413 # ...
414 addl $28, %esp
415 ret
416LBB1_2: # cond_true
417...
418
419The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the
420code, but is currently always computed in the entry block. It would be
421better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the
422assertion, as it is the only one that uses it. This happens for a lot of
423code with early outs.
424
Chris Lattner7cafd922007-12-29 01:05:01 +0000425Another example is loads of arguments, which are usually emitted into the
426entry block on targets like x86. If not used in all paths through a
427function, they should be sunk into the ones that do.
428
Chris Lattner9d53b612007-12-28 22:30:05 +0000429In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
Chris Lattner180f0e92007-12-28 04:42:05 +0000430
431//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner730d0882008-01-07 21:38:14 +0000432
433Investigate lowering of sparse switch statements into perfect hash tables:
434http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
435
436//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000437
438We should turn things like "load+fabs+store" and "load+fneg+store" into the
439corresponding integer operations. On a yonah, this loop:
440
441double a[256];
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000442void foo() {
443 int i, b;
444 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
445 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
446 a[i] = -a[i];
447}
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000448
449is twice as slow as this loop:
450
451long long a[256];
Chris Lattner6bb6a552008-02-18 18:46:39 +0000452void foo() {
453 int i, b;
454 for (b = 0; b < 10000000; b++)
455 for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
456 a[i] ^= (1ULL << 63);
457}
Chris Lattner45e50322008-01-09 00:17:57 +0000458
459and I suspect other processors are similar. On X86 in particular this is a
460big win because doing this with integers allows the use of read/modify/write
461instructions.
462
463//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000464
465DAG Combiner should try to combine small loads into larger loads when
466profitable. For example, we compile this C++ example:
467
468struct THotKey { short Key; bool Control; bool Shift; bool Alt; };
469extern THotKey m_HotKey;
470THotKey GetHotKey () { return m_HotKey; }
471
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000472into (-m64 -O3 -fno-exceptions -static -fomit-frame-pointer):
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000473
Chris Lattner51415d22011-01-02 18:31:38 +0000474__Z9GetHotKeyv: ## @_Z9GetHotKeyv
475 movq _m_HotKey@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rax
476 movzwl (%rax), %ecx
477 movzbl 2(%rax), %edx
478 shlq $16, %rdx
479 orq %rcx, %rdx
480 movzbl 3(%rax), %ecx
481 shlq $24, %rcx
482 orq %rdx, %rcx
483 movzbl 4(%rax), %eax
484 shlq $32, %rax
485 orq %rcx, %rax
486 ret
Chris Lattner1d07b652008-01-10 18:25:41 +0000487
488//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner87b0c132008-01-11 06:17:47 +0000489
Nate Begeman0fddc342008-02-18 18:39:23 +0000490We should add an FRINT node to the DAG to model targets that have legal
491implementations of ceil/floor/rint.
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000492
493//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
494
495Consider:
496
497int test() {
Benjamin Kramerdfa40f82010-12-23 15:32:07 +0000498 long long input[8] = {1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0};
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000499 foo(input);
500}
501
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000502Clang compiles this into:
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000503
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000504 call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp, i8 0, i64 64, i32 16, i1 false)
505 %0 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 0
506 store i64 1, i64* %0, align 16
507 %1 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 2
508 store i64 1, i64* %1, align 16
509 %2 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 4
510 store i64 1, i64* %2, align 16
511 %3 = getelementptr [8 x i64]* %input, i64 0, i64 6
512 store i64 1, i64* %3, align 16
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000513
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +0000514Which gets codegen'd into:
515
516 pxor %xmm0, %xmm0
517 movaps %xmm0, -16(%rbp)
518 movaps %xmm0, -32(%rbp)
519 movaps %xmm0, -48(%rbp)
520 movaps %xmm0, -64(%rbp)
521 movq $1, -64(%rbp)
522 movq $1, -48(%rbp)
523 movq $1, -32(%rbp)
524 movq $1, -16(%rbp)
525
526It would be better to have 4 movq's of 0 instead of the movaps's.
Chris Lattner765be882008-02-28 05:34:27 +0000527
528//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner647c6642008-03-02 02:51:40 +0000529
530http://llvm.org/PR717:
531
532The following code should compile into "ret int undef". Instead, LLVM
533produces "ret int 0":
534
535int f() {
536 int x = 4;
537 int y;
538 if (x == 3) y = 0;
539 return y;
540}
541
542//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd51372a2008-03-02 19:29:42 +0000543
544The loop unroller should partially unroll loops (instead of peeling them)
545when code growth isn't too bad and when an unroll count allows simplification
546of some code within the loop. One trivial example is:
547
548#include <stdio.h>
549int main() {
550 int nRet = 17;
551 int nLoop;
552 for ( nLoop = 0; nLoop < 1000; nLoop++ ) {
553 if ( nLoop & 1 )
554 nRet += 2;
555 else
556 nRet -= 1;
557 }
558 return nRet;
559}
560
561Unrolling by 2 would eliminate the '&1' in both copies, leading to a net
562reduction in code size. The resultant code would then also be suitable for
563exit value computation.
564
565//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000566
567We miss a bunch of rotate opportunities on various targets, including ppc, x86,
568etc. On X86, we miss a bunch of 'rotate by variable' cases because the rotate
569matching code in dag combine doesn't look through truncates aggressively
570enough. Here are some testcases reduces from GCC PR17886:
571
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000572unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
573 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
574}
575unsigned long long f6(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y, int z) {
576 switch(z) {
577 case 1:
578 return (x << 8) | ((y >> 48) & 0xffull);
579 case 2:
580 return (x << 16) | ((y >> 40) & 0xffffull);
581 case 3:
582 return (x << 24) | ((y >> 32) & 0xffffffull);
583 case 4:
584 return (x << 32) | ((y >> 24) & 0xffffffffull);
585 default:
586 return (x << 40) | ((y >> 16) & 0xffffffffffull);
587 }
588}
589
Chris Lattneraf8d3c62008-03-17 01:47:51 +0000590//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerfd5fe2a2008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000591
Chris Lattner27ecda12010-12-15 07:10:43 +0000592This (and similar related idioms):
593
594unsigned int foo(unsigned char i) {
595 return i | (i<<8) | (i<<16) | (i<<24);
596}
597
598compiles into:
599
600define i32 @foo(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
601entry:
602 %conv = zext i8 %i to i32
603 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
604 %shl5 = shl i32 %conv, 16
605 %shl9 = shl i32 %conv, 24
606 %or = or i32 %shl9, %conv
607 %or6 = or i32 %or, %shl5
608 %or10 = or i32 %or6, %shl
609 ret i32 %or10
610}
611
612it would be better as:
613
614unsigned int bar(unsigned char i) {
615 unsigned int j=i | (i << 8);
616 return j | (j<<16);
617}
618
619aka:
620
621define i32 @bar(i8 zeroext %i) nounwind readnone ssp noredzone {
622entry:
623 %conv = zext i8 %i to i32
624 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 8
625 %or = or i32 %shl, %conv
626 %shl5 = shl i32 %or, 16
627 %or6 = or i32 %shl5, %or
628 ret i32 %or6
629}
630
631or even i*0x01010101, depending on the speed of the multiplier. The best way to
632handle this is to canonicalize it to a multiply in IR and have codegen handle
633lowering multiplies to shifts on cpus where shifts are faster.
634
635//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
636
Chris Lattnerfd5fe2a2008-03-20 04:46:13 +0000637We do a number of simplifications in simplify libcalls to strength reduce
638standard library functions, but we don't currently merge them together. For
639example, it is useful to merge memcpy(a,b,strlen(b)) -> strcpy. This can only
640be done safely if "b" isn't modified between the strlen and memcpy of course.
641
642//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
643
Chris Lattner113b3362008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000644We compile this program: (from GCC PR11680)
645http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4487
646
647Into code that runs the same speed in fast/slow modes, but both modes run 2x
648slower than when compile with GCC (either 4.0 or 4.2):
649
650$ llvm-g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
651$ time ./a.out fast
6521.821u 0.003s 0:01.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
653
654$ g++ perf.cpp -O3 -fno-exceptions
655$ time ./a.out fast
6560.821u 0.001s 0:00.82 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
657
658It looks like we are making the same inlining decisions, so this may be raw
659codegen badness or something else (haven't investigated).
660
661//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
662
Chris Lattner113b3362008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000663Divisibility by constant can be simplified (according to GCC PR12849) from
664being a mulhi to being a mul lo (cheaper). Testcase:
665
666void bar(unsigned n) {
667 if (n % 3 == 0)
668 true();
669}
670
Eli Friedman96cf7f42009-12-12 23:23:43 +0000671This is equivalent to the following, where 2863311531 is the multiplicative
672inverse of 3, and 1431655766 is ((2^32)-1)/3+1:
673void bar(unsigned n) {
674 if (n * 2863311531U < 1431655766U)
675 true();
676}
677
678The same transformation can work with an even modulo with the addition of a
679rotate: rotate the result of the multiply to the right by the number of bits
680which need to be zero for the condition to be true, and shrink the compare RHS
681by the same amount. Unless the target supports rotates, though, that
682transformation probably isn't worthwhile.
683
684The transformation can also easily be made to work with non-zero equality
685comparisons: just transform, for example, "n % 3 == 1" to "(n-1) % 3 == 0".
Chris Lattner113b3362008-08-10 01:14:08 +0000686
687//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerd7dd8b82008-08-19 06:22:16 +0000688
Chris Lattner6d275fd2008-10-15 16:06:03 +0000689Better mod/ref analysis for scanf would allow us to eliminate the vtable and a
690bunch of other stuff from this example (see PR1604):
691
692#include <cstdio>
693struct test {
694 int val;
695 virtual ~test() {}
696};
697
698int main() {
699 test t;
700 std::scanf("%d", &t.val);
701 std::printf("%d\n", t.val);
702}
703
704//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
705
Nick Lewyckyedd5d3e2008-11-27 22:41:45 +0000706These functions perform the same computation, but produce different assembly.
Nick Lewyckyb3dc4ad2008-11-27 22:12:22 +0000707
708define i8 @select(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
709 %A = icmp ult i8 %x, 250
710 %B = select i1 %A, i8 0, i8 1
711 ret i8 %B
712}
713
714define i8 @addshr(i8 %x) readnone nounwind {
715 %A = zext i8 %x to i9
716 %B = add i9 %A, 6 ;; 256 - 250 == 6
717 %C = lshr i9 %B, 8
718 %D = trunc i9 %C to i8
719 ret i8 %D
720}
721
722//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000723
724From gcc bug 24696:
725int
726f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
727{
728 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
729}
730int
731f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
732{
733 return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
734}
735Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000736"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000737
738//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
739
740From GCC Bug 20192:
741#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
742void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
743{
744 if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
745 f();
746}
747The expression should optimize to something like
748"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000749-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000750
751//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
752
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000753unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
754i;}
755unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
756These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
757produces better code on X86.
758
759//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
760
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000761From GCC Bug 15784:
762#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
763int f(int x, int y)
764{
765 return (abs(x)) >= 0;
766}
767This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000768optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000769
770//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
771
772From GCC Bug 14753:
773void
774rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
775{
776 a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
777 if (a == 123)
778 bar ();
779}
780void
781minus_cst (unsigned int a)
782{
783 unsigned int tem;
784
785 tem = 20 - a;
786 if (tem == 5)
787 bar ();
788}
789void
790mask_gt (unsigned int a)
791{
792 /* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
793 if ((a & ~7) > 8)
794 bar ();
795}
796void
797rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
798{
799 /* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
800 if ((a >> 2) > 5)
801 bar ();
802}
Chris Lattner727eebe2011-02-17 01:43:46 +0000803
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000804All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
805currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000806-O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000807
808//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
809
810From GCC Bug 32605:
811int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
812Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000813-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3" (although llc can optimize it).
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000814
815//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
816
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000817int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
818Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000819with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000820
821//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
822
823unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
824Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000825-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000826
827//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
828
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000829int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
830Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000831"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000832
833//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
834
835int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
836Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000837-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000838
839//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
840
841int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
842Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000843| opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000844
845//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
846
847int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
848Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000849optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000850
851//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
852
853int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
854Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000855-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000856
857//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
858
859int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
860Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000861-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000862
863//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
864
865int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
866Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000867-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000868
869//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
870
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000871int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
872Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000873-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000874
875//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
876
877unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
878Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000879with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000880
881//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
882
883unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
884There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000885-emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000886
887//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
888
889unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
890Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000891optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Eli Friedmane16c0ff2008-11-30 07:36:04 +0000892
893//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendling85de4b32008-12-02 05:12:47 +0000894
Erik Verbruggen5e1bac32014-03-28 14:50:57 +0000895int g(int x) { return (x - 10) < 0; }
896Should combine to "x <= 9" (the sub has nsw). Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000897optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Erik Verbruggen5e1bac32014-03-28 14:50:57 +0000898
899//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
900
901int g(int x) { return (x + 10) < 0; }
902Should combine to "x < -10" (the add has nsw). Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000903optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Erik Verbruggen5e1bac32014-03-28 14:50:57 +0000904
905//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
906
Benjamin Kramer20b32d22012-03-28 10:50:18 +0000907int f(int i, int j) { return i < j + 1; }
908int g(int i, int j) { return j > i - 1; }
909Should combine to "i <= j" (the add/sub has nsw). Currently not
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000910optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Benjamin Kramer20b32d22012-03-28 10:50:18 +0000911
912//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
913
Benjamin Kramer53ffe552012-06-23 15:19:31 +0000914unsigned f(unsigned x) { return ((x & 7) + 1) & 15; }
915The & 15 part should be optimized away, it doesn't change the result. Currently
Rafael Espindola11aaaee2014-10-16 20:00:02 +0000916not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -O3".
Benjamin Kramer53ffe552012-06-23 15:19:31 +0000917
918//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
919
Chris Lattner0cdc0bb2008-12-02 06:32:34 +0000920This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
921
922 %tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
923 %decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
924 %tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
925 %decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
926
927tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
928 (!tmp || decl_context == 1)
929
930This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
931the function, e.g. by:
932
933 %tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
934 %tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
935 %or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
936
937later.
938
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +0000939//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
940
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +0000941[STORE SINKING]
942
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +0000943Store sinking: This code:
944
945void f (int n, int *cond, int *res) {
946 int i;
947 *res = 0;
948 for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
949 if (*cond)
950 *res ^= 234; /* (*) */
951}
952
953On this function GVN hoists the fully redundant value of *res, but nothing
954moves the store out. This gives us this code:
955
956bb: ; preds = %bb2, %entry
957 %.rle = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %.rle6, %bb2 ]
958 %i.05 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvar.next, %bb2 ]
959 %1 = load i32* %cond, align 4
960 %2 = icmp eq i32 %1, 0
961 br i1 %2, label %bb2, label %bb1
962
963bb1: ; preds = %bb
964 %3 = xor i32 %.rle, 234
965 store i32 %3, i32* %res, align 4
966 br label %bb2
967
968bb2: ; preds = %bb, %bb1
969 %.rle6 = phi i32 [ %3, %bb1 ], [ %.rle, %bb ]
970 %indvar.next = add i32 %i.05, 1
971 %exitcond = icmp eq i32 %indvar.next, %n
972 br i1 %exitcond, label %return, label %bb
973
974DSE should sink partially dead stores to get the store out of the loop.
975
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +0000976Here's another partial dead case:
977http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12395
978
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +0000979//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
980
981Scalar PRE hoists the mul in the common block up to the else:
982
983int test (int a, int b, int c, int g) {
984 int d, e;
985 if (a)
986 d = b * c;
987 else
988 d = b - c;
989 e = b * c + g;
990 return d + e;
991}
992
993It would be better to do the mul once to reduce codesize above the if.
994This is GCC PR38204.
995
Chris Lattner245de782011-01-06 07:41:22 +0000996
997//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
998This simple function from 179.art:
999
1000int winner, numf2s;
1001struct { double y; int reset; } *Y;
1002
1003void find_match() {
1004 int i;
1005 winner = 0;
1006 for (i=0;i<numf2s;i++)
1007 if (Y[i].y > Y[winner].y)
1008 winner =i;
1009}
1010
1011Compiles into (with clang TBAA):
1012
1013for.body: ; preds = %for.inc, %bb.nph
1014 %indvar = phi i64 [ 0, %bb.nph ], [ %indvar.next, %for.inc ]
1015 %i.01718 = phi i32 [ 0, %bb.nph ], [ %i.01719, %for.inc ]
1016 %tmp4 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.anon* %tmp3, i64 %indvar, i32 0
1017 %tmp5 = load double* %tmp4, align 8, !tbaa !4
1018 %idxprom7 = sext i32 %i.01718 to i64
1019 %tmp10 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.anon* %tmp3, i64 %idxprom7, i32 0
1020 %tmp11 = load double* %tmp10, align 8, !tbaa !4
1021 %cmp12 = fcmp ogt double %tmp5, %tmp11
1022 br i1 %cmp12, label %if.then, label %for.inc
1023
1024if.then: ; preds = %for.body
1025 %i.017 = trunc i64 %indvar to i32
1026 br label %for.inc
1027
1028for.inc: ; preds = %for.body, %if.then
1029 %i.01719 = phi i32 [ %i.01718, %for.body ], [ %i.017, %if.then ]
1030 %indvar.next = add i64 %indvar, 1
1031 %exitcond = icmp eq i64 %indvar.next, %tmp22
1032 br i1 %exitcond, label %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, label %for.body
1033
1034
1035It is good that we hoisted the reloads of numf2's, and Y out of the loop and
1036sunk the store to winner out.
1037
1038However, this is awful on several levels: the conditional truncate in the loop
1039(-indvars at fault? why can't we completely promote the IV to i64?).
1040
1041Beyond that, we have a partially redundant load in the loop: if "winner" (aka
1042%i.01718) isn't updated, we reload Y[winner].y the next time through the loop.
1043Similarly, the addressing that feeds it (including the sext) is redundant. In
1044the end we get this generated assembly:
1045
1046LBB0_2: ## %for.body
1047 ## =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
1048 movsd (%rdi), %xmm0
1049 movslq %edx, %r8
1050 shlq $4, %r8
1051 ucomisd (%rcx,%r8), %xmm0
1052 jbe LBB0_4
1053 movl %esi, %edx
1054LBB0_4: ## %for.inc
1055 addq $16, %rdi
1056 incq %rsi
1057 cmpq %rsi, %rax
1058 jne LBB0_2
1059
1060All things considered this isn't too bad, but we shouldn't need the movslq or
1061the shlq instruction, or the load folded into ucomisd every time through the
1062loop.
1063
1064On an x86-specific topic, if the loop can't be restructure, the movl should be a
1065cmov.
1066
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001067//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1068
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001069[STORE SINKING]
1070
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001071GCC PR37810 is an interesting case where we should sink load/store reload
1072into the if block and outside the loop, so we don't reload/store it on the
1073non-call path.
1074
1075for () {
1076 *P += 1;
1077 if ()
1078 call();
1079 else
1080 ...
1081->
1082tmp = *P
1083for () {
1084 tmp += 1;
1085 if () {
1086 *P = tmp;
1087 call();
1088 tmp = *P;
1089 } else ...
1090}
1091*P = tmp;
1092
Chris Lattner81ee7312008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001093We now hoist the reload after the call (Transforms/GVN/lpre-call-wrap.ll), but
1094we don't sink the store. We need partially dead store sinking.
1095
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001096//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1097
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001098[LOAD PRE CRIT EDGE SPLITTING]
Chris Lattner81ee7312008-12-15 07:49:24 +00001099
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001100GCC PR37166: Sinking of loads prevents SROA'ing the "g" struct on the stack
1101leading to excess stack traffic. This could be handled by GVN with some crazy
1102symbolic phi translation. The code we get looks like (g is on the stack):
1103
1104bb2: ; preds = %bb1
1105..
1106 %9 = getelementptr %struct.f* %g, i32 0, i32 0
1107 store i32 %8, i32* %9, align bel %bb3
1108
1109bb3: ; preds = %bb1, %bb2, %bb
1110 %c_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %g, %bb2 ], [ %c, %bb ], [ %c, %bb1 ]
1111 %b_addr.0 = phi %struct.f* [ %b, %bb2 ], [ %g, %bb ], [ %b, %bb1 ]
1112 %10 = getelementptr %struct.f* %c_addr.0, i32 0, i32 0
1113 %11 = load i32* %10, align 4
1114
Chris Lattnerca9e0e82009-11-27 16:53:57 +00001115%11 is partially redundant, an in BB2 it should have the value %8.
Chris Lattner543d6c62008-12-06 19:28:22 +00001116
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001117GCC PR33344 and PR35287 are similar cases.
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001118
Chris Lattner06c26d92009-11-05 18:19:19 +00001119
1120//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1121
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001122[LOAD PRE]
1123
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001124There are many load PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loadpre* in the
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001125GCC testsuite, ones we don't get yet are (checked through loadpre25):
1126
1127[CRIT EDGE BREAKING]
Erik Verbruggenccc517c2014-08-15 10:33:03 +00001128predcom-4.c
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001129
1130[PRE OF READONLY CALL]
1131loadpre5.c
1132
1133[TURN SELECT INTO BRANCH]
1134loadpre14.c loadpre15.c
1135
1136actually a conditional increment: loadpre18.c loadpre19.c
1137
Chris Lattneraded09f2010-12-15 06:38:24 +00001138//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1139
1140[LOAD PRE / STORE SINKING / SPEC HACK]
1141
1142This is a chunk of code from 456.hmmer:
1143
1144int f(int M, int *mc, int *mpp, int *tpmm, int *ip, int *tpim, int *dpp,
1145 int *tpdm, int xmb, int *bp, int *ms) {
1146 int k, sc;
1147 for (k = 1; k <= M; k++) {
1148 mc[k] = mpp[k-1] + tpmm[k-1];
1149 if ((sc = ip[k-1] + tpim[k-1]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1150 if ((sc = dpp[k-1] + tpdm[k-1]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1151 if ((sc = xmb + bp[k]) > mc[k]) mc[k] = sc;
1152 mc[k] += ms[k];
1153 }
1154}
1155
1156It is very profitable for this benchmark to turn the conditional stores to mc[k]
1157into a conditional move (select instr in IR) and allow the final store to do the
1158store. See GCC PR27313 for more details. Note that this is valid to xform even
1159with the new C++ memory model, since mc[k] is previously loaded and later
1160stored.
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001161
1162//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1163
1164[SCALAR PRE]
1165There are many PRE testcases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-*.c in the
1166GCC testsuite.
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001167
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001168//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1169
1170There are some interesting cases in testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pred-comm* in the
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001171GCC testsuite. For example, we get the first example in predcom-1.c, but
1172miss the second one:
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001173
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001174unsigned fib[1000];
1175unsigned avg[1000];
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001176
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001177__attribute__ ((noinline))
1178void count_averages(int n) {
1179 int i;
1180 for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
1181 avg[i] = (((unsigned long) fib[i - 1] + fib[i] + fib[i + 1]) / 3) & 0xffff;
1182}
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001183
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001184which compiles into two loads instead of one in the loop.
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001185
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001186predcom-2.c is the same as predcom-1.c
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001187
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001188predcom-3.c is very similar but needs loads feeding each other instead of
1189store->load.
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001190
1191
1192//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1193
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001194[ALIAS ANALYSIS]
1195
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001196Type based alias analysis:
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001197http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14705
1198
Chris Lattner082da532010-01-23 17:59:23 +00001199We should do better analysis of posix_memalign. At the least it should
1200no-capture its pointer argument, at best, we should know that the out-value
1201result doesn't point to anything (like malloc). One example of this is in
1202SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/dt.c
1203
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001204//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1205
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001206Interesting missed case because of control flow flattening (should be 2 loads):
1207http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26629
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001208With: llvm-gcc t2.c -S -o - -O0 -emit-llvm | llvm-as |
1209 opt -mem2reg -gvn -instcombine | llvm-dis
Chris Lattner58ccf882009-11-29 02:19:52 +00001210we miss it because we need 1) CRIT EDGE 2) MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
Chris Lattner5d196e62008-12-15 08:32:28 +00001211VALS PRODUCED BY ONE BLOCK OVER DIFFERENT PATHS
Chris Lattnerda930632008-12-06 22:52:12 +00001212
1213//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1214
1215http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19633
1216We could eliminate the branch condition here, loading from null is undefined:
1217
1218struct S { int w, x, y, z; };
1219struct T { int r; struct S s; };
1220void bar (struct S, int);
1221void foo (int a, struct T b)
1222{
1223 struct S *c = 0;
1224 if (a)
1225 c = &b.s;
1226 bar (*c, a);
1227}
1228
1229//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner0cdc0bb2008-12-02 06:32:34 +00001230
Chris Lattner8a35adf2008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001231simplifylibcalls should do several optimizations for strspn/strcspn:
1232
Chris Lattner8a35adf2008-12-23 20:52:52 +00001233strcspn(x, "a") -> inlined loop for up to 3 letters (similarly for strspn):
1234
1235size_t __strcspn_c3 (__const char *__s, int __reject1, int __reject2,
1236 int __reject3) {
1237 register size_t __result = 0;
1238 while (__s[__result] != '\0' && __s[__result] != __reject1 &&
1239 __s[__result] != __reject2 && __s[__result] != __reject3)
1240 ++__result;
1241 return __result;
1242}
1243
1244This should turn into a switch on the character. See PR3253 for some notes on
1245codegen.
1246
1247456.hmmer apparently uses strcspn and strspn a lot. 471.omnetpp uses strspn.
1248
1249//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnera4142252008-12-31 00:54:13 +00001250
Chris Lattner0c6cb462011-03-01 00:24:51 +00001251simplifylibcalls should turn these snprintf idioms into memcpy (GCC PR47917)
1252
1253char buf1[6], buf2[6], buf3[4], buf4[4];
1254int i;
1255
1256int foo (void) {
1257 int ret = snprintf (buf1, sizeof buf1, "abcde");
1258 ret += snprintf (buf2, sizeof buf2, "abcdef") * 16;
1259 ret += snprintf (buf3, sizeof buf3, "%s", i++ < 6 ? "abc" : "def") * 256;
1260 ret += snprintf (buf4, sizeof buf4, "%s", i++ > 10 ? "abcde" : "defgh")*4096;
1261 return ret;
1262}
1263
1264//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1265
Chris Lattnera4142252008-12-31 00:54:13 +00001266"gas" uses this idiom:
1267 else if (strchr ("+-/*%|&^:[]()~", *intel_parser.op_string))
1268..
1269 else if (strchr ("<>", *intel_parser.op_string)
1270
1271Those should be turned into a switch.
1272
1273//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner7cb3ae02009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001274
1275252.eon contains this interesting code:
1276
1277 %3072 = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 0
1278 %3073 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %3072, i8* %3071) nounwind
1279 %strlen = call i32 @strlen(i8* %3072) ; uses = 1
1280 %endptr = getelementptr [100 x i8]* %tempString, i32 0, i32 %strlen
1281 call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %endptr,
1282 i8* getelementptr ([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42", i32 0, i32 0), i32 5, i32 1)
1283 %3074 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr) nounwind readonly
1284
1285This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, in this:
1286
Benjamin Kramerdfa40f82010-12-23 15:32:07 +00001287The memcpy+strlen strlen can be replaced with:
Chris Lattner7cb3ae02009-01-08 06:52:57 +00001288
1289 %3074 = call i32 @strlen([5 x i8]* @"\01LC42") nounwind readonly
1290
1291Because the destination was just copied into the specified memory buffer. This,
1292in turn, can be constant folded to "4".
1293
1294In other code, it contains:
1295
1296 %endptr6978 = bitcast i8* %endptr69 to i32*
1297 store i32 7107374, i32* %endptr6978, align 1
1298 %3167 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %endptr69) nounwind readonly
1299
1300Which could also be constant folded. Whatever is producing this should probably
1301be fixed to leave this as a memcpy from a string.
1302
1303Further, eon also has an interesting partially redundant strlen call:
1304
1305bb8: ; preds = %_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.exit
1306 %682 = getelementptr i8** %argv, i32 6 ; <i8**> [#uses=2]
1307 %683 = load i8** %682, align 4 ; <i8*> [#uses=4]
1308 %684 = load i8* %683, align 1 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1309 %685 = icmp eq i8 %684, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1310 br i1 %685, label %bb10, label %bb9
1311
1312bb9: ; preds = %bb8
1313 %686 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1314 %687 = icmp ugt i32 %686, 254 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1315 br i1 %687, label %bb10, label %bb11
1316
1317bb10: ; preds = %bb9, %bb8
1318 %688 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %683) nounwind readonly
1319
1320This could be eliminated by doing the strlen once in bb8, saving code size and
1321improving perf on the bb8->9->10 path.
1322
1323//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6c2ee502009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001324
1325I see an interesting fully redundant call to strlen left in 186.crafty:InputMove
1326which looks like:
1327 %movetext11 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 0
1328
1329
1330bb62: ; preds = %bb55, %bb53
1331 %promote.0 = phi i32 [ %169, %bb55 ], [ 0, %bb53 ]
1332 %171 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1333 %172 = add i32 %171, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1334 %173 = getelementptr [128 x i8]* %movetext, i32 0, i32 %172
1335
1336... no stores ...
1337 br i1 %or.cond, label %bb65, label %bb72
1338
1339bb65: ; preds = %bb62
1340 store i8 0, i8* %173, align 1
1341 br label %bb72
1342
1343bb72: ; preds = %bb65, %bb62
1344 %trank.1 = phi i32 [ %176, %bb65 ], [ -1, %bb62 ]
1345 %177 = call i32 @strlen(i8* %movetext11) nounwind readonly align 1
1346
1347Note that on the bb62->bb72 path, that the %177 strlen call is partially
1348redundant with the %171 call. At worst, we could shove the %177 strlen call
1349up into the bb65 block moving it out of the bb62->bb72 path. However, note
1350that bb65 stores to the string, zeroing out the last byte. This means that on
1351that path the value of %177 is actually just %171-1. A sub is cheaper than a
1352strlen!
1353
1354This pattern repeats several times, basically doing:
1355
1356 A = strlen(P);
1357 P[A-1] = 0;
1358 B = strlen(P);
1359 where it is "obvious" that B = A-1.
1360
1361//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1362
Chris Lattner6c2ee502009-01-08 07:34:55 +00001363186.crafty has this interesting pattern with the "out.4543" variable:
1364
1365call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(
1366 i8* getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0),
1367 i8* getelementptr ([7 x i8]* @"\01LC28700", i32 0, i32 0), i32 7, i32 1)
1368%101 = call@printf(i8* ... @out.4543, i32 0, i32 0)) nounwind
1369
1370It is basically doing:
1371
1372 memcpy(globalarray, "string");
1373 printf(..., globalarray);
1374
1375Anyway, by knowing that printf just reads the memory and forward substituting
1376the string directly into the printf, this eliminates reads from globalarray.
1377Since this pattern occurs frequently in crafty (due to the "DisplayTime" and
1378other similar functions) there are many stores to "out". Once all the printfs
1379stop using "out", all that is left is the memcpy's into it. This should allow
1380globalopt to remove the "stored only" global.
1381
1382//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1383
Dan Gohman83d2e062009-01-20 01:07:33 +00001384This code:
1385
1386define inreg i32 @foo(i8* inreg %p) nounwind {
1387 %tmp0 = load i8* %p
1388 %tmp1 = ashr i8 %tmp0, 5
1389 %tmp2 = sext i8 %tmp1 to i32
1390 ret i32 %tmp2
1391}
1392
1393could be dagcombine'd to a sign-extending load with a shift.
1394For example, on x86 this currently gets this:
1395
1396 movb (%eax), %al
1397 sarb $5, %al
1398 movsbl %al, %eax
1399
1400while it could get this:
1401
1402 movsbl (%eax), %eax
1403 sarl $5, %eax
1404
1405//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner705ac702009-01-22 07:16:03 +00001406
1407GCC PR31029:
1408
1409int test(int x) { return 1-x == x; } // --> return false
1410int test2(int x) { return 2-x == x; } // --> return x == 1 ?
1411
1412Always foldable for odd constants, what is the rule for even?
1413
1414//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1415
Torok Edwin3cedd4d2009-01-24 19:30:25 +00001416PR 3381: GEP to field of size 0 inside a struct could be turned into GEP
1417for next field in struct (which is at same address).
1418
1419For example: store of float into { {{}}, float } could be turned into a store to
1420the float directly.
1421
Torok Edwin87d5ca02009-02-20 18:42:06 +00001422//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewycky5c10a3a2009-02-25 06:52:48 +00001423
Chris Lattner17a999e2009-05-11 17:41:40 +00001424The arg promotion pass should make use of nocapture to make its alias analysis
1425stuff much more precise.
1426
1427//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1428
1429The following functions should be optimized to use a select instead of a
1430branch (from gcc PR40072):
1431
1432char char_int(int m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1433int int_char(char m) {if(m>7) return 0; return m;}
1434
1435//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1436
Bill Wendlingfd2730e2009-10-27 22:48:31 +00001437int func(int a, int b) { if (a & 0x80) b |= 0x80; else b &= ~0x80; return b; }
1438
1439Generates this:
1440
1441define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1442entry:
1443 %0 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1444 %1 = icmp eq i32 %0, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1445 %2 = or i32 %b, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1446 %3 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1447 %b_addr.0 = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 %2 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1448 ret i32 %b_addr.0
1449}
1450
1451However, it's functionally equivalent to:
1452
1453 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1454
1455Which generates this:
1456
1457define i32 @func(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1458entry:
1459 %0 = and i32 %b, -129 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1460 %1 = and i32 %a, 128 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1461 %2 = or i32 %0, %1 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1462 ret i32 %2
1463}
1464
1465This can be generalized for other forms:
1466
1467 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x40) << 1;
1468
1469//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Bill Wendling2e5198f2009-10-27 23:30:07 +00001470
1471These two functions produce different code. They shouldn't:
1472
1473#include <stdint.h>
1474
1475uint8_t p1(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1476 b = (b & ~0xc0) | (a & 0xc0);
1477 return (b);
1478}
1479
1480uint8_t p2(uint8_t b, uint8_t a) {
1481 b = (b & ~0x40) | (a & 0x40);
1482 b = (b & ~0x80) | (a & 0x80);
1483 return (b);
1484}
1485
1486define zeroext i8 @p1(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1487entry:
1488 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1489 %1 = and i8 %a, -64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1490 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1491 ret i8 %2
1492}
1493
1494define zeroext i8 @p2(i8 zeroext %b, i8 zeroext %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1495entry:
1496 %0 = and i8 %b, 63 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1497 %.masked = and i8 %a, 64 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1498 %1 = and i8 %a, -128 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1499 %2 = or i8 %1, %0 ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1500 %3 = or i8 %2, %.masked ; <i8> [#uses=1]
1501 ret i8 %3
1502}
1503
1504//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner539bdf02009-11-11 17:51:27 +00001505
1506IPSCCP does not currently propagate argument dependent constants through
1507functions where it does not not all of the callers. This includes functions
1508with normal external linkage as well as templates, C99 inline functions etc.
1509Specifically, it does nothing to:
1510
1511define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) nounwind {
1512entry:
1513 %0 = add nsw i32 %y, %z
1514 %1 = mul i32 %0, %x
1515 %2 = mul i32 %y, %z
1516 %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2
1517 ret i32 %3
1518}
1519
1520define i32 @test2() nounwind {
1521entry:
1522 %0 = call i32 @test(i32 1, i32 2, i32 4) nounwind
1523 ret i32 %0
1524}
1525
1526It would be interesting extend IPSCCP to be able to handle simple cases like
1527this, where all of the arguments to a call are constant. Because IPSCCP runs
1528before inlining, trivial templates and inline functions are not yet inlined.
1529The results for a function + set of constant arguments should be memoized in a
1530map.
1531
1532//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner7a099642009-11-11 17:54:02 +00001533
1534The libcall constant folding stuff should be moved out of SimplifyLibcalls into
1535libanalysis' constantfolding logic. This would allow IPSCCP to be able to
1536handle simple things like this:
1537
1538static int foo(const char *X) { return strlen(X); }
1539int bar() { return foo("abcd"); }
1540
1541//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Nick Lewyckyef4ea9a2009-11-15 17:51:23 +00001542
Duncan Sandsc8493da2010-01-06 15:37:47 +00001543functionattrs doesn't know much about memcpy/memset. This function should be
Duncan Sands78376ad2010-01-06 08:45:52 +00001544marked readnone rather than readonly, since it only twiddles local memory, but
1545functionattrs doesn't handle memset/memcpy/memmove aggressively:
Chris Lattnerf05330a2009-12-03 07:43:46 +00001546
1547struct X { int *p; int *q; };
1548int foo() {
1549 int i = 0, j = 1;
1550 struct X x, y;
1551 int **p;
1552 y.p = &i;
1553 x.q = &j;
1554 p = __builtin_memcpy (&x, &y, sizeof (int *));
1555 return **p;
1556}
1557
Chris Lattnere5d5a412011-01-01 22:52:11 +00001558This can be seen at:
1559$ clang t.c -S -o - -mkernel -O0 -emit-llvm | opt -functionattrs -S
1560
1561
Chris Lattnerd1e4ee32009-12-03 07:41:54 +00001562//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1563
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001564Missed instcombine transformation:
1565define i1 @a(i32 %x) nounwind readnone {
1566entry:
1567 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 30
1568 %sub = add i32 %x, -30
1569 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i32 %sub, 9
1570 %or = or i1 %cmp, %cmp2
1571 ret i1 %or
1572}
1573This should be optimized to a single compare. Testcase derived from gcc.
1574
1575//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1576
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001577Missed instcombine or reassociate transformation:
1578int a(int a, int b) { return (a==12)&(b>47)&(b<58); }
1579
1580The sgt and slt should be combined into a single comparison. Testcase derived
1581from gcc.
1582
1583//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1584
1585Missed instcombine transformation:
Chris Lattner9165d9d2010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001586
1587 %382 = srem i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1588 %383 = zext i32 %382 to i64 ; [#uses=1]
1589 %384 = shl i64 %381, %383 ; [#uses=1]
1590 %385 = icmp slt i32 %tmp14.i, 64 ; [#uses=1]
1591
Benjamin Kramer94a622a2010-11-23 20:33:57 +00001592The srem can be transformed to an and because if %tmp14.i is negative, the
1593shift is undefined. Testcase derived from 403.gcc.
Chris Lattner9165d9d2010-11-21 07:05:31 +00001594
1595//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1596
1597This is a range comparison on a divided result (from 403.gcc):
1598
1599 %1337 = sdiv i32 %1336, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1600 %.off.i208 = add i32 %1336, 7 ; [#uses=1]
1601 %1338 = icmp ult i32 %.off.i208, 15 ; [#uses=1]
1602
1603We already catch this (removing the sdiv) if there isn't an add, we should
1604handle the 'add' as well. This is a common idiom with it's builtin_alloca code.
1605C testcase:
1606
1607int a(int x) { return (unsigned)(x/16+7) < 15; }
1608
1609Another similar case involves truncations on 64-bit targets:
1610
1611 %361 = sdiv i64 %.046, 8 ; [#uses=1]
1612 %362 = trunc i64 %361 to i32 ; [#uses=2]
1613...
1614 %367 = icmp eq i32 %362, 0 ; [#uses=1]
1615
Eli Friedman0de0b362010-01-31 04:55:32 +00001616//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1617
1618Missed instcombine/dagcombine transformation:
1619define void @lshift_lt(i8 zeroext %a) nounwind {
1620entry:
1621 %conv = zext i8 %a to i32
1622 %shl = shl i32 %conv, 3
1623 %cmp = icmp ult i32 %shl, 33
1624 br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end
1625
1626if.then:
1627 tail call void @bar() nounwind
1628 ret void
1629
1630if.end:
1631 ret void
1632}
1633declare void @bar() nounwind
1634
1635The shift should be eliminated. Testcase derived from gcc.
Eli Friedman9ed49c52010-01-18 22:36:59 +00001636
1637//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner187242b2010-02-09 00:11:10 +00001638
1639These compile into different code, one gets recognized as a switch and the
1640other doesn't due to phase ordering issues (PR6212):
1641
1642int test1(int mainType, int subType) {
1643 if (mainType == 7)
1644 subType = 4;
1645 else if (mainType == 9)
1646 subType = 6;
1647 else if (mainType == 11)
1648 subType = 9;
1649 return subType;
1650}
1651
1652int test2(int mainType, int subType) {
1653 if (mainType == 7)
1654 subType = 4;
1655 if (mainType == 9)
1656 subType = 6;
1657 if (mainType == 11)
1658 subType = 9;
1659 return subType;
1660}
1661
1662//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner1f6689a2010-03-10 21:42:42 +00001663
1664The following test case (from PR6576):
1665
1666define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1667entry:
1668 %cond1 = icmp eq i32 %b, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
1669 br i1 %cond1, label %exit, label %bb.nph
1670bb.nph: ; preds = %entry
1671 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=1]
1672 ret i32 %tmp
1673exit: ; preds = %entry
1674 ret i32 0
1675}
1676
1677could be reduced to:
1678
1679define i32 @mul(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone {
1680entry:
1681 %tmp = mul i32 %b, %a
1682 ret i32 %tmp
1683}
1684
1685//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1686
Chris Lattnercfc921c2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001687We should use DSE + llvm.lifetime.end to delete dead vtable pointer updates.
1688See GCC PR34949
1689
Chris Lattner4dc833c2010-05-21 23:16:21 +00001690Another interesting case is that something related could be used for variables
1691that go const after their ctor has finished. In these cases, globalopt (which
1692can statically run the constructor) could mark the global const (so it gets put
1693in the readonly section). A testcase would be:
1694
1695#include <complex>
1696using namespace std;
1697const complex<char> should_be_in_rodata (42,-42);
1698complex<char> should_be_in_data (42,-42);
1699complex<char> should_be_in_bss;
1700
1701Where we currently evaluate the ctors but the globals don't become const because
1702the optimizer doesn't know they "become const" after the ctor is done. See
1703GCC PR4131 for more examples.
1704
Chris Lattnercfc921c2010-04-16 23:52:30 +00001705//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1706
Dan Gohman73c81452010-05-03 14:31:00 +00001707In this code:
1708
1709long foo(long x) {
1710 return x > 1 ? x : 1;
1711}
1712
1713LLVM emits a comparison with 1 instead of 0. 0 would be equivalent
1714and cheaper on most targets.
1715
1716LLVM prefers comparisons with zero over non-zero in general, but in this
1717case it choses instead to keep the max operation obvious.
1718
1719//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Eli Friedmane17e4ae2010-06-12 05:54:27 +00001720
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001721define void @a(i32 %x) nounwind {
1722entry:
1723 switch i32 %x, label %if.end [
1724 i32 0, label %if.then
1725 i32 1, label %if.then
1726 i32 2, label %if.then
1727 i32 3, label %if.then
1728 i32 5, label %if.then
1729 ]
1730if.then:
1731 tail call void @foo() nounwind
1732 ret void
1733if.end:
1734 ret void
1735}
1736declare void @foo()
1737
1738Generated code on x86-64 (other platforms give similar results):
1739a:
1740 cmpl $5, %edi
Benjamin Kramer15cd5a32011-07-14 01:38:42 +00001741 ja LBB2_2
1742 cmpl $4, %edi
1743 jne LBB2_3
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001744.LBB0_2:
1745 ret
1746.LBB0_3:
Eli Friedmanc8f59522010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001747 jmp foo # TAILCALL
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001748
Benjamin Kramer15cd5a32011-07-14 01:38:42 +00001749If we wanted to be really clever, we could simplify the whole thing to
Eli Friedmanc8f59522010-07-03 08:43:32 +00001750something like the following, which eliminates a branch:
1751 xorl $1, %edi
1752 cmpl $4, %edi
1753 ja .LBB0_2
1754 ret
1755.LBB0_2:
1756 jmp foo # TAILCALL
1757
Eli Friedman836fdbc2010-07-03 07:38:12 +00001758//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner4d94e472010-11-09 19:37:28 +00001759
Chris Lattner932aab32010-11-11 18:23:57 +00001760We compile this:
1761
1762int foo(int a) { return (a & (~15)) / 16; }
1763
1764Into:
1765
1766define i32 @foo(i32 %a) nounwind readnone ssp {
1767entry:
1768 %and = and i32 %a, -16
1769 %div = sdiv i32 %and, 16
1770 ret i32 %div
1771}
1772
1773but this code (X & -A)/A is X >> log2(A) when A is a power of 2, so this case
1774should be instcombined into just "a >> 4".
1775
1776We do get this at the codegen level, so something knows about it, but
1777instcombine should catch it earlier:
1778
1779_foo: ## @foo
1780## BB#0: ## %entry
1781 movl %edi, %eax
1782 sarl $4, %eax
1783 ret
1784
1785//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1786
Chris Lattner14cb11d2010-12-13 00:15:25 +00001787This code (from GCC PR28685):
1788
1789int test(int a, int b) {
1790 int lt = a < b;
1791 int eq = a == b;
1792 if (lt)
1793 return 1;
1794 return eq;
1795}
1796
1797Is compiled to:
1798
1799define i32 @test(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1800entry:
1801 %cmp = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
1802 br i1 %cmp, label %return, label %if.end
1803
1804if.end: ; preds = %entry
1805 %cmp5 = icmp eq i32 %a, %b
1806 %conv6 = zext i1 %cmp5 to i32
1807 ret i32 %conv6
1808
1809return: ; preds = %entry
1810 ret i32 1
1811}
1812
1813it could be:
1814
1815define i32 @test__(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind readnone ssp {
1816entry:
1817 %0 = icmp sle i32 %a, %b
1818 %retval = zext i1 %0 to i32
1819 ret i32 %retval
1820}
1821
1822//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Duncan Sands772749a2011-01-01 20:08:02 +00001823
Benjamin Kramer134cde92011-01-07 20:42:20 +00001824This code can be seen in viterbi:
1825
1826 %64 = call noalias i8* @malloc(i64 %62) nounwind
1827...
1828 %67 = call i64 @llvm.objectsize.i64(i8* %64, i1 false) nounwind
1829 %68 = call i8* @__memset_chk(i8* %64, i32 0, i64 %62, i64 %67) nounwind
1830
1831llvm.objectsize.i64 should be taught about malloc/calloc, allowing it to
1832fold to %62. This is a security win (overflows of malloc will get caught)
1833and also a performance win by exposing more memsets to the optimizer.
1834
1835This occurs several times in viterbi.
1836
1837Note that this would change the semantics of @llvm.objectsize which by its
1838current definition always folds to a constant. We also should make sure that
1839we remove checking in code like
1840
1841 char *p = malloc(strlen(s)+1);
1842 __strcpy_chk(p, s, __builtin_objectsize(p, 0));
1843
1844//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1845
Chris Lattner73552c22011-01-06 07:09:23 +00001846This code (from Benchmarks/Dhrystone/dry.c):
1847
1848define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1849entry:
1850 %sext = shl i32 %0, 24
1851 %conv = ashr i32 %sext, 24
1852 %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24
1853 %conv4 = ashr i32 %sext6, 24
1854 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
1855 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
1856 ret i32 %.
1857}
1858
1859Should be simplified into something like:
1860
1861define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1862entry:
1863 %sext = shl i32 %0, 24
1864 %conv = and i32 %sext, 0xFF000000
1865 %sext6 = shl i32 %1, 24
1866 %conv4 = and i32 %sext6, 0xFF000000
1867 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
1868 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
1869 ret i32 %.
1870}
1871
1872and then to:
1873
1874define i32 @Func1(i32, i32) nounwind readnone optsize ssp {
1875entry:
1876 %conv = and i32 %0, 0xFF
1877 %conv4 = and i32 %1, 0xFF
1878 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %conv, %conv4
1879 %. = select i1 %cmp, i32 10000, i32 0
1880 ret i32 %.
1881}
1882//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6c3fc0a2011-01-01 22:57:31 +00001883
Benjamin Kramer1e01ade2011-01-06 17:35:50 +00001884clang -O3 currently compiles this code
1885
1886int g(unsigned int a) {
1887 unsigned int c[100];
1888 c[10] = a;
1889 c[11] = a;
1890 unsigned int b = c[10] + c[11];
1891 if(b > a*2) a = 4;
1892 else a = 8;
1893 return a + 7;
1894}
1895
1896into
1897
1898define i32 @g(i32 a) nounwind readnone {
1899 %add = shl i32 %a, 1
1900 %mul = shl i32 %a, 1
1901 %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %add, %mul
1902 %a.addr.0 = select i1 %cmp, i32 11, i32 15
1903 ret i32 %a.addr.0
1904}
1905
1906The icmp should fold to false. This CSE opportunity is only available
1907after GVN and InstCombine have run.
1908
1909//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner84184b72011-01-06 22:25:00 +00001910
1911memcpyopt should turn this:
1912
1913define i8* @test10(i32 %x) {
1914 %alloc = call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 %x) nounwind
1915 call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i32(i8* %alloc, i8 0, i32 %x, i32 1, i1 false)
1916 ret i8* %alloc
1917}
1918
1919into a call to calloc. We should make sure that we analyze calloc as
1920aggressively as malloc though.
1921
1922//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruth5d684c12011-01-09 01:32:55 +00001923
Chris Lattner78cdd2a2011-01-10 21:01:17 +00001924clang -O3 doesn't optimize this:
Chandler Carruth5d684c12011-01-09 01:32:55 +00001925
1926void f1(int* begin, int* end) {
1927 std::fill(begin, end, 0);
1928}
1929
Chris Lattner5b358c62011-01-09 23:48:41 +00001930into a memset. This is PR8942.
Chandler Carruth5d684c12011-01-09 01:32:55 +00001931
1932//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruthf3261932011-01-09 09:58:33 +00001933
1934clang -O3 -fno-exceptions currently compiles this code:
1935
1936void f(int N) {
1937 std::vector<int> v(N);
Chandler Carruth43f6d1b2011-01-09 10:10:59 +00001938
1939 extern void sink(void*); sink(&v);
Chandler Carruthf3261932011-01-09 09:58:33 +00001940}
1941
1942into
1943
1944define void @_Z1fi(i32 %N) nounwind {
1945entry:
1946 %v2 = alloca [3 x i32*], align 8
1947 %v2.sub = getelementptr inbounds [3 x i32*]* %v2, i64 0, i64 0
1948 %tmpcast = bitcast [3 x i32*]* %v2 to %"class.std::vector"*
1949 %conv = sext i32 %N to i64
1950 store i32* null, i32** %v2.sub, align 8, !tbaa !0
1951 %tmp3.i.i.i.i.i = getelementptr inbounds [3 x i32*]* %v2, i64 0, i64 1
1952 store i32* null, i32** %tmp3.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1953 %tmp4.i.i.i.i.i = getelementptr inbounds [3 x i32*]* %v2, i64 0, i64 2
1954 store i32* null, i32** %tmp4.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1955 %cmp.i.i.i.i = icmp eq i32 %N, 0
1956 br i1 %cmp.i.i.i.i, label %_ZNSt12_Vector_baseIiSaIiEEC2EmRKS0_.exit.thread.i.i, label %cond.true.i.i.i.i
1957
1958_ZNSt12_Vector_baseIiSaIiEEC2EmRKS0_.exit.thread.i.i: ; preds = %entry
1959 store i32* null, i32** %v2.sub, align 8, !tbaa !0
1960 store i32* null, i32** %tmp3.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1961 %add.ptr.i5.i.i = getelementptr inbounds i32* null, i64 %conv
1962 store i32* %add.ptr.i5.i.i, i32** %tmp4.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1963 br label %_ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEEC1EmRKiRKS0_.exit
1964
1965cond.true.i.i.i.i: ; preds = %entry
1966 %cmp.i.i.i.i.i = icmp slt i32 %N, 0
1967 br i1 %cmp.i.i.i.i.i, label %if.then.i.i.i.i.i, label %_ZNSt12_Vector_baseIiSaIiEEC2EmRKS0_.exit.i.i
1968
1969if.then.i.i.i.i.i: ; preds = %cond.true.i.i.i.i
1970 call void @_ZSt17__throw_bad_allocv() noreturn nounwind
1971 unreachable
1972
1973_ZNSt12_Vector_baseIiSaIiEEC2EmRKS0_.exit.i.i: ; preds = %cond.true.i.i.i.i
1974 %mul.i.i.i.i.i = shl i64 %conv, 2
1975 %call3.i.i.i.i.i = call noalias i8* @_Znwm(i64 %mul.i.i.i.i.i) nounwind
1976 %0 = bitcast i8* %call3.i.i.i.i.i to i32*
1977 store i32* %0, i32** %v2.sub, align 8, !tbaa !0
1978 store i32* %0, i32** %tmp3.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1979 %add.ptr.i.i.i = getelementptr inbounds i32* %0, i64 %conv
1980 store i32* %add.ptr.i.i.i, i32** %tmp4.i.i.i.i.i, align 8, !tbaa !0
1981 call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %call3.i.i.i.i.i, i8 0, i64 %mul.i.i.i.i.i, i32 4, i1 false)
1982 br label %_ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEEC1EmRKiRKS0_.exit
1983
1984This is just the handling the construction of the vector. Most surprising here
Chris Lattnerc326ebd2011-01-16 06:39:44 +00001985is the fact that all three null stores in %entry are dead (because we do no
1986cross-block DSE).
1987
Chandler Carruthf3261932011-01-09 09:58:33 +00001988Also surprising is that %conv isn't simplified to 0 in %....exit.thread.i.i.
Chris Lattnerc326ebd2011-01-16 06:39:44 +00001989This is a because the client of LazyValueInfo doesn't simplify all instruction
1990operands, just selected ones.
Chandler Carruthf3261932011-01-09 09:58:33 +00001991
1992//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00001993
1994clang -O3 -fno-exceptions currently compiles this code:
1995
Chandler Carruthef28abe2011-01-16 01:40:23 +00001996void f(char* a, int n) {
1997 __builtin_memset(a, 0, n);
1998 for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
1999 a[i] = 0;
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002000}
2001
Chandler Carruthef28abe2011-01-16 01:40:23 +00002002into:
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002003
Chandler Carruthef28abe2011-01-16 01:40:23 +00002004define void @_Z1fPci(i8* nocapture %a, i32 %n) nounwind {
2005entry:
2006 %conv = sext i32 %n to i64
2007 tail call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %a, i8 0, i64 %conv, i32 1, i1 false)
2008 %cmp8 = icmp sgt i32 %n, 0
2009 br i1 %cmp8, label %for.body.lr.ph, label %for.end
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002010
Chandler Carruthef28abe2011-01-16 01:40:23 +00002011for.body.lr.ph: ; preds = %entry
2012 %tmp10 = add i32 %n, -1
2013 %tmp11 = zext i32 %tmp10 to i64
2014 %tmp12 = add i64 %tmp11, 1
2015 call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* %a, i8 0, i64 %tmp12, i32 1, i1 false)
2016 ret void
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002017
Chandler Carruthef28abe2011-01-16 01:40:23 +00002018for.end: ; preds = %entry
2019 ret void
2020}
2021
2022This shouldn't need the ((zext (%n - 1)) + 1) game, and it should ideally fold
Eli Friedman822e7bc2011-03-22 20:49:53 +00002023the two memset's together.
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002024
Eli Friedman822e7bc2011-03-22 20:49:53 +00002025The issue with the addition only occurs in 64-bit mode, and appears to be at
2026least partially caused by Scalar Evolution not keeping its cache updated: it
2027returns the "wrong" result immediately after indvars runs, but figures out the
2028expected result if it is run from scratch on IR resulting from running indvars.
Chris Lattnerc326ebd2011-01-16 06:39:44 +00002029
Chandler Carruthad6e1f02011-01-09 09:58:36 +00002030//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruth82e6f6a2011-01-09 11:29:57 +00002031
2032clang -O3 -fno-exceptions currently compiles this code:
2033
2034struct S {
2035 unsigned short m1, m2;
2036 unsigned char m3, m4;
2037};
2038
2039void f(int N) {
2040 std::vector<S> v(N);
2041 extern void sink(void*); sink(&v);
2042}
2043
2044into poor code for zero-initializing 'v' when N is >0. The problem is that
2045S is only 6 bytes, but each element is 8 byte-aligned. We generate a loop and
20464 stores on each iteration. If the struct were 8 bytes, this gets turned into
2047a memset.
2048
Chris Lattnerc326ebd2011-01-16 06:39:44 +00002049In order to handle this we have to:
2050 A) Teach clang to generate metadata for memsets of structs that have holes in
2051 them.
2052 B) Teach clang to use such a memset for zero init of this struct (since it has
2053 a hole), instead of doing elementwise zeroing.
2054
Chandler Carruth82e6f6a2011-01-09 11:29:57 +00002055//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruth0c68a6682011-01-09 21:00:19 +00002056
2057clang -O3 currently compiles this code:
2058
2059extern const int magic;
2060double f() { return 0.0 * magic; }
2061
2062into
2063
2064@magic = external constant i32
2065
2066define double @_Z1fv() nounwind readnone {
2067entry:
2068 %tmp = load i32* @magic, align 4, !tbaa !0
2069 %conv = sitofp i32 %tmp to double
2070 %mul = fmul double %conv, 0.000000e+00
2071 ret double %mul
2072}
2073
Chris Lattnereef14552011-01-10 00:33:01 +00002074We should be able to fold away this fmul to 0.0. More generally, fmul(x,0.0)
2075can be folded to 0.0 if we can prove that the LHS is not -0.0, not a NaN, and
2076not an INF. The CannotBeNegativeZero predicate in value tracking should be
2077extended to support general "fpclassify" operations that can return
2078yes/no/unknown for each of these predicates.
2079
Chris Lattner78cdd2a2011-01-10 21:01:17 +00002080In this predicate, we know that uitofp is trivially never NaN or -0.0, and
Chris Lattnereef14552011-01-10 00:33:01 +00002081we know that it isn't +/-Inf if the floating point type has enough exponent bits
2082to represent the largest integer value as < inf.
Chandler Carruth0c68a6682011-01-09 21:00:19 +00002083
2084//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chandler Carruthd011d532011-01-09 22:36:18 +00002085
Chris Lattner78cdd2a2011-01-10 21:01:17 +00002086When optimizing a transformation that can change the sign of 0.0 (such as the
20870.0*val -> 0.0 transformation above), it might be provable that the sign of the
2088expression doesn't matter. For example, by the above rules, we can't transform
2089fmul(sitofp(x), 0.0) into 0.0, because x might be -1 and the result of the
2090expression is defined to be -0.0.
2091
2092If we look at the uses of the fmul for example, we might be able to prove that
2093all uses don't care about the sign of zero. For example, if we have:
2094
2095 fadd(fmul(sitofp(x), 0.0), 2.0)
2096
2097Since we know that x+2.0 doesn't care about the sign of any zeros in X, we can
2098transform the fmul to 0.0, and then the fadd to 2.0.
2099
2100//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerb9cdf392011-01-13 22:08:15 +00002101
2102We should enhance memcpy/memcpy/memset to allow a metadata node on them
2103indicating that some bytes of the transfer are undefined. This is useful for
Chris Lattnerb6c3aff2011-01-13 22:11:56 +00002104frontends like clang when lowering struct copies, when some elements of the
Chris Lattnerb9cdf392011-01-13 22:08:15 +00002105struct are undefined. Consider something like this:
2106
2107struct x {
2108 char a;
2109 int b[4];
2110};
2111void foo(struct x*P);
2112struct x testfunc() {
2113 struct x V1, V2;
2114 foo(&V1);
2115 V2 = V1;
2116
2117 return V2;
2118}
2119
2120We currently compile this to:
2121$ clang t.c -S -o - -O0 -emit-llvm | opt -scalarrepl -S
2122
2123
2124%struct.x = type { i8, [4 x i32] }
2125
2126define void @testfunc(%struct.x* sret %agg.result) nounwind ssp {
2127entry:
2128 %V1 = alloca %struct.x, align 4
2129 call void @foo(%struct.x* %V1)
2130 %tmp1 = bitcast %struct.x* %V1 to i8*
2131 %0 = bitcast %struct.x* %V1 to i160*
2132 %srcval1 = load i160* %0, align 4
2133 %tmp2 = bitcast %struct.x* %agg.result to i8*
2134 %1 = bitcast %struct.x* %agg.result to i160*
2135 store i160 %srcval1, i160* %1, align 4
2136 ret void
2137}
2138
2139This happens because SRoA sees that the temp alloca has is being memcpy'd into
2140and out of and it has holes and it has to be conservative. If we knew about the
2141holes, then this could be much much better.
2142
2143Having information about these holes would also improve memcpy (etc) lowering at
2144llc time when it gets inlined, because we can use smaller transfers. This also
2145avoids partial register stalls in some important cases.
2146
2147//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner28bf91f2011-02-16 19:16:34 +00002148
Chris Lattner727eebe2011-02-17 01:43:46 +00002149We don't fold (icmp (add) (add)) unless the two adds only have a single use.
2150There are a lot of cases that we're refusing to fold in (e.g.) 256.bzip2, for
2151example:
2152
2153 %indvar.next90 = add i64 %indvar89, 1 ;; Has 2 uses
2154 %tmp96 = add i64 %tmp95, 1 ;; Has 1 use
2155 %exitcond97 = icmp eq i64 %indvar.next90, %tmp96
2156
2157We don't fold this because we don't want to introduce an overlapped live range
2158of the ivar. However if we can make this more aggressive without causing
2159performance issues in two ways:
2160
21611. If *either* the LHS or RHS has a single use, we can definitely do the
2162 transformation. In the overlapping liverange case we're trading one register
2163 use for one fewer operation, which is a reasonable trade. Before doing this
2164 we should verify that the llc output actually shrinks for some benchmarks.
21652. If both ops have multiple uses, we can still fold it if the operations are
2166 both sinkable to *after* the icmp (e.g. in a subsequent block) which doesn't
2167 increase register pressure.
2168
2169There are a ton of icmp's we aren't simplifying because of the reg pressure
2170concern. Care is warranted here though because many of these are induction
2171variables and other cases that matter a lot to performance, like the above.
2172Here's a blob of code that you can drop into the bottom of visitICmp to see some
2173missed cases:
2174
2175 { Value *A, *B, *C, *D;
2176 if (match(Op0, m_Add(m_Value(A), m_Value(B))) &&
2177 match(Op1, m_Add(m_Value(C), m_Value(D))) &&
2178 (A == C || A == D || B == C || B == D)) {
2179 errs() << "OP0 = " << *Op0 << " U=" << Op0->getNumUses() << "\n";
2180 errs() << "OP1 = " << *Op1 << " U=" << Op1->getNumUses() << "\n";
2181 errs() << "CMP = " << I << "\n\n";
2182 }
2183 }
2184
2185//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
2186
Benjamin Kramerdc0082b2011-03-25 17:32:40 +00002187define i1 @test1(i32 %x) nounwind {
2188 %and = and i32 %x, 3
2189 %cmp = icmp ult i32 %and, 2
2190 ret i1 %cmp
2191}
Chris Lattner727eebe2011-02-17 01:43:46 +00002192
Benjamin Kramerdc0082b2011-03-25 17:32:40 +00002193Can be folded to (x & 2) == 0.
2194
2195define i1 @test2(i32 %x) nounwind {
2196 %and = and i32 %x, 3
2197 %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %and, 1
2198 ret i1 %cmp
2199}
2200
2201Can be folded to (x & 2) != 0.
2202
2203SimplifyDemandedBits shrinks the "and" constant to 2 but instcombine misses the
2204icmp transform.
2205
2206//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner1d313c62011-04-14 04:21:42 +00002207
Chris Lattner6e298922011-04-25 18:44:26 +00002208This code:
2209
2210typedef struct {
2211int f1:1;
2212int f2:1;
2213int f3:1;
2214int f4:29;
2215} t1;
2216
2217typedef struct {
2218int f1:1;
2219int f2:1;
2220int f3:30;
2221} t2;
2222
2223t1 s1;
2224t2 s2;
2225
2226void func1(void)
2227{
2228s1.f1 = s2.f1;
2229s1.f2 = s2.f2;
2230}
2231
2232Compiles into this IR (on x86-64 at least):
2233
2234%struct.t1 = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
2235@s2 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4
2236@s1 = global %struct.t1 zeroinitializer, align 4
2237define void @func1() nounwind ssp noredzone {
2238entry:
2239 %0 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s2 to i32*), align 4
2240 %bf.val.sext5 = and i32 %0, 1
2241 %1 = load i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4
2242 %2 = and i32 %1, -4
2243 %3 = or i32 %2, %bf.val.sext5
2244 %bf.val.sext26 = and i32 %0, 2
2245 %4 = or i32 %3, %bf.val.sext26
2246 store i32 %4, i32* bitcast (%struct.t1* @s1 to i32*), align 4
2247 ret void
2248}
2249
2250The two or/and's should be merged into one each.
2251
2252//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
2253
Chris Lattnerbbc40ac2011-05-22 05:45:06 +00002254Machine level code hoisting can be useful in some cases. For example, PR9408
2255is about:
Chris Lattner6e298922011-04-25 18:44:26 +00002256
Chris Lattnerbbc40ac2011-05-22 05:45:06 +00002257typedef union {
2258 void (*f1)(int);
2259 void (*f2)(long);
2260} funcs;
2261
2262void foo(funcs f, int which) {
2263 int a = 5;
2264 if (which) {
2265 f.f1(a);
2266 } else {
2267 f.f2(a);
2268 }
2269}
2270
2271which we compile to:
2272
2273foo: # @foo
2274# BB#0: # %entry
2275 pushq %rbp
2276 movq %rsp, %rbp
2277 testl %esi, %esi
2278 movq %rdi, %rax
2279 je .LBB0_2
2280# BB#1: # %if.then
2281 movl $5, %edi
2282 callq *%rax
2283 popq %rbp
2284 ret
2285.LBB0_2: # %if.else
2286 movl $5, %edi
2287 callq *%rax
2288 popq %rbp
2289 ret
2290
2291Note that bb1 and bb2 are the same. This doesn't happen at the IR level
2292because one call is passing an i32 and the other is passing an i64.
2293
2294//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattnerbfe2c242011-05-22 18:28:46 +00002295
2296I see this sort of pattern in 176.gcc in a few places (e.g. the start of
2297store_bit_field). The rem should be replaced with a multiply and subtract:
2298
2299 %3 = sdiv i32 %A, %B
2300 %4 = srem i32 %A, %B
2301
Chris Lattnerd71ed9432011-05-23 20:17:44 +00002302Similarly for udiv/urem. Note that this shouldn't be done on X86 or ARM,
2303which can do this in a single operation (instruction or libcall). It is
2304probably best to do this in the code generator.
Chris Lattnerbfe2c242011-05-22 18:28:46 +00002305
2306//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Benjamin Kramer2e63f6e2011-09-07 22:49:26 +00002307
2308unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return (x & y) == 0 || x == 0; }
2309should fold to (x & y) == 0.
2310
2311//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
2312
2313unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
2314should fold to x > y.
2315
2316//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//