blob: f1d4ca7b7fab5311758426664526470335da4460 [file] [log] [blame]
Chris Lattner22ec3e72006-03-27 07:04:16 +00001//===- README.txt - Notes for improving PowerPC-specific code gen ---------===//
2
Nate Begeman63be70d2004-08-10 20:42:36 +00003TODO:
Nate Begeman3090b0f2008-02-11 04:16:09 +00004* lmw/stmw pass a la arm load store optimizer for prolog/epilog
Nate Begeman9aea6e42005-12-24 01:00:15 +00005
Nate Begemanfc567d82006-02-03 05:17:06 +00006===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Nate Begeman9aea6e42005-12-24 01:00:15 +00007
Chris Lattner2e040eb2010-09-19 00:34:58 +00008This code:
9
10unsigned add32carry(unsigned sum, unsigned x) {
11 unsigned z = sum + x;
12 if (sum + x < x)
13 z++;
14 return z;
15}
16
17Should compile to something like:
18
19 addc r3,r3,r4
20 addze r3,r3
21
22instead we get:
23
24 add r3, r4, r3
25 cmplw cr7, r3, r4
26 mfcr r4 ; 1
27 rlwinm r4, r4, 29, 31, 31
28 add r3, r3, r4
29
30Ick.
Chris Lattner9e4e45a2010-01-07 17:53:10 +000031
32===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
33
Chris Lattnerbe7033b2006-11-07 18:30:21 +000034We compile the hottest inner loop of viterbi to:
35
36 li r6, 0
37 b LBB1_84 ;bb432.i
38LBB1_83: ;bb420.i
39 lbzx r8, r5, r7
40 addi r6, r7, 1
41 stbx r8, r4, r7
42LBB1_84: ;bb432.i
43 mr r7, r6
44 cmplwi cr0, r7, 143
45 bne cr0, LBB1_83 ;bb420.i
46
47The CBE manages to produce:
48
49 li r0, 143
50 mtctr r0
51loop:
52 lbzx r2, r2, r11
53 stbx r0, r2, r9
54 addi r2, r2, 1
55 bdz later
56 b loop
57
58This could be much better (bdnz instead of bdz) but it still beats us. If we
59produced this with bdnz, the loop would be a single dispatch group.
60
61===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
62
Chris Lattner1e98a332005-08-24 18:15:24 +000063Lump the constant pool for each function into ONE pic object, and reference
64pieces of it as offsets from the start. For functions like this (contrived
65to have lots of constants obviously):
66
67double X(double Y) { return (Y*1.23 + 4.512)*2.34 + 14.38; }
68
69We generate:
70
71_X:
72 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_0)
73 lfd f0, lo16(.CPI_X_0)(r2)
74 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_1)
75 lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_1)(r2)
76 fmadd f0, f1, f0, f2
77 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_2)
78 lfd f1, lo16(.CPI_X_2)(r2)
79 lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_3)
80 lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_3)(r2)
81 fmadd f1, f0, f1, f2
82 blr
83
84It would be better to materialize .CPI_X into a register, then use immediates
85off of the register to avoid the lis's. This is even more important in PIC
86mode.
87
Chris Lattner9b178ce2006-02-02 23:50:22 +000088Note that this (and the static variable version) is discussed here for GCC:
89http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
90
Chris Lattner92c6a652007-08-23 15:16:03 +000091Here's another example (the sgn function):
92double testf(double a) {
93 return a == 0.0 ? 0.0 : (a > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0);
94}
95
96it produces a BB like this:
97LBB1_1: ; cond_true
98 lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_0)
99 lfs f0, lo16(LCPI1_0)(r2)
100 lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_1)
101 lis r3, ha16(LCPI1_2)
102 lfs f2, lo16(LCPI1_2)(r3)
103 lfs f3, lo16(LCPI1_1)(r2)
104 fsub f0, f0, f1
105 fsel f1, f0, f2, f3
106 blr
107
Chris Lattner1e98a332005-08-24 18:15:24 +0000108===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Nate Begemane9e2c6d2005-09-06 15:30:48 +0000109
Chris Lattnera23b04a2006-02-03 06:22:11 +0000110PIC Code Gen IPO optimization:
111
112Squish small scalar globals together into a single global struct, allowing the
113address of the struct to be CSE'd, avoiding PIC accesses (also reduces the size
114of the GOT on targets with one).
115
116Note that this is discussed here for GCC:
117http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
118
119===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
120
Dale Johannesen4e6044c2009-07-01 23:36:02 +0000121Darwin Stub removal:
122
123We still generate calls to foo$stub, and stubs, on Darwin. This is not
Chris Lattner4ec83ea2009-07-02 01:24:34 +0000124necessary when building with the Leopard (10.5) or later linker, as stubs are
125generated by ld when necessary. Parameterizing this based on the deployment
126target (-mmacosx-version-min) is probably enough. x86-32 does this right, see
127its logic.
Dale Johannesen4e6044c2009-07-01 23:36:02 +0000128
129===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
130
Chris Lattner7c762902006-01-16 17:58:54 +0000131Darwin Stub LICM optimization:
132
133Loops like this:
134
135 for (...) bar();
136
137Have to go through an indirect stub if bar is external or linkonce. It would
138be better to compile it as:
139
140 fp = &bar;
141 for (...) fp();
142
143which only computes the address of bar once (instead of each time through the
144stub). This is Darwin specific and would have to be done in the code generator.
145Probably not a win on x86.
146
147===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
148
Chris Lattner7c762902006-01-16 17:58:54 +0000149Simple IPO for argument passing, change:
150 void foo(int X, double Y, int Z) -> void foo(int X, int Z, double Y)
151
152the Darwin ABI specifies that any integer arguments in the first 32 bytes worth
153of arguments get assigned to r3 through r10. That is, if you have a function
154foo(int, double, int) you get r3, f1, r6, since the 64 bit double ate up the
155argument bytes for r4 and r5. The trick then would be to shuffle the argument
156order for functions we can internalize so that the maximum number of
157integers/pointers get passed in regs before you see any of the fp arguments.
158
159Instead of implementing this, it would actually probably be easier to just
160implement a PPC fastcc, where we could do whatever we wanted to the CC,
161including having this work sanely.
162
163===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
164
165Fix Darwin FP-In-Integer Registers ABI
166
167Darwin passes doubles in structures in integer registers, which is very very
Wesley Peck527da1b2010-11-23 03:31:01 +0000168bad. Add something like a BITCAST to LLVM, then do an i-p transformation that
169percolates these things out of functions.
Chris Lattner7c762902006-01-16 17:58:54 +0000170
171Check out how horrible this is:
172http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01036.html
173
174This is an extension of "interprocedural CC unmunging" that can't be done with
175just fastcc.
176
177===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
178
Nate Begemanfc567d82006-02-03 05:17:06 +0000179Fold add and sub with constant into non-extern, non-weak addresses so this:
180
181static int a;
182void bar(int b) { a = b; }
183void foo(unsigned char *c) {
184 *c = a;
185}
186
187So that
188
189_foo:
190 lis r2, ha16(_a)
191 la r2, lo16(_a)(r2)
192 lbz r2, 3(r2)
193 stb r2, 0(r3)
194 blr
195
196Becomes
197
198_foo:
199 lis r2, ha16(_a+3)
200 lbz r2, lo16(_a+3)(r2)
201 stb r2, 0(r3)
202 blr
Chris Lattnerc0e48c62006-02-05 05:27:35 +0000203
204===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
205
Chris Lattnera8dd6362006-03-08 00:25:47 +0000206We should compile these two functions to the same thing:
207
208#include <stdlib.h>
209void f(int a, int b, int *P) {
210 *P = (a-b)>=0?(a-b):(b-a);
211}
212void g(int a, int b, int *P) {
213 *P = abs(a-b);
214}
215
216Further, they should compile to something better than:
217
218_g:
219 subf r2, r4, r3
220 subfic r3, r2, 0
221 cmpwi cr0, r2, -1
222 bgt cr0, LBB2_2 ; entry
223LBB2_1: ; entry
224 mr r2, r3
225LBB2_2: ; entry
226 stw r2, 0(r5)
227 blr
228
229GCC produces:
230
231_g:
232 subf r4,r4,r3
233 srawi r2,r4,31
234 xor r0,r2,r4
235 subf r0,r2,r0
236 stw r0,0(r5)
237 blr
238
239... which is much nicer.
240
241This theoretically may help improve twolf slightly (used in dimbox.c:142?).
242
243===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
244
Chris Lattnere0359b42010-01-24 02:27:03 +0000245PR5945: This:
246define i32 @clamp0g(i32 %a) {
247entry:
248 %cmp = icmp slt i32 %a, 0
249 %sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 0, i32 %a
250 ret i32 %sel
251}
252
253Is compile to this with the PowerPC (32-bit) backend:
254
255_clamp0g:
256 cmpwi cr0, r3, 0
257 li r2, 0
258 blt cr0, LBB1_2
259; BB#1: ; %entry
260 mr r2, r3
261LBB1_2: ; %entry
262 mr r3, r2
263 blr
264
265This could be reduced to the much simpler:
266
267_clamp0g:
268 srawi r2, r3, 31
269 andc r3, r3, r2
270 blr
271
272===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
273
Nate Begeman32e73f92006-03-16 18:50:44 +0000274int foo(int N, int ***W, int **TK, int X) {
275 int t, i;
276
277 for (t = 0; t < N; ++t)
278 for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
279 W[t / X][i][t % X] = TK[i][t];
280
281 return 5;
282}
283
Chris Lattner325bb462006-03-16 22:25:55 +0000284We generate relatively atrocious code for this loop compared to gcc.
285
Chris Lattnerf1948342006-03-21 00:47:09 +0000286We could also strength reduce the rem and the div:
287http://www.lcs.mit.edu/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-600.pdf
288
Chris Lattnerea646872006-03-19 05:33:30 +0000289===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattner325bb462006-03-16 22:25:55 +0000290
Chris Lattner9f9b6112006-03-24 20:04:27 +0000291We generate ugly code for this:
292
293void func(unsigned int *ret, float dx, float dy, float dz, float dw) {
294 unsigned code = 0;
295 if(dx < -dw) code |= 1;
296 if(dx > dw) code |= 2;
297 if(dy < -dw) code |= 4;
298 if(dy > dw) code |= 8;
299 if(dz < -dw) code |= 16;
300 if(dz > dw) code |= 32;
301 *ret = code;
302}
303
Chris Lattner5d70a7c2006-03-25 06:47:10 +0000304===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
305
Nate Begeman17f25002007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000306%struct.B = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
Nate Begemance6646c2006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000307
Nate Begeman17f25002007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000308define void @bar(%struct.B* %b) {
Nate Begemance6646c2006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000309entry:
Nate Begeman17f25002007-01-29 21:21:22 +0000310 %tmp = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
311 %tmp = load i32* %tmp ; <uint> [#uses=1]
312 %tmp3 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
313 %tmp4 = load i32* %tmp3 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
314 %tmp8 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
315 %tmp9 = load i32* %tmp8 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
316 %tmp4.mask17 = shl i32 %tmp4, i8 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
317 %tmp1415 = and i32 %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
318 %tmp.masked = and i32 %tmp, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
319 %tmp11 = or i32 %tmp1415, %tmp.masked ; <uint> [#uses=1]
320 %tmp12 = and i32 %tmp9, 2147483647 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
321 %tmp13 = or i32 %tmp12, %tmp11 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
322 store i32 %tmp13, i32* %tmp8
Chris Lattner304bbf32006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000323 ret void
324}
325
326We emit:
327
328_foo:
329 lwz r2, 0(r3)
Nate Begemance6646c2006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000330 slwi r4, r2, 1
331 or r4, r4, r2
332 rlwimi r2, r4, 0, 0, 0
Nate Begeman9b6d4c22006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000333 stw r2, 0(r3)
Chris Lattner304bbf32006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000334 blr
335
Nate Begemance6646c2006-05-08 20:54:02 +0000336We could collapse a bunch of those ORs and ANDs and generate the following
337equivalent code:
Chris Lattner304bbf32006-05-05 05:36:15 +0000338
Nate Begeman9b6d4c22006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000339_foo:
340 lwz r2, 0(r3)
Nate Begeman0eb8f2e2006-05-08 19:09:24 +0000341 rlwinm r4, r2, 1, 0, 0
Nate Begeman9b6d4c22006-05-08 17:38:32 +0000342 or r2, r2, r4
343 stw r2, 0(r3)
344 blr
Chris Lattner950dffa2006-07-14 04:07:29 +0000345
346===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
347
Chris Lattner889d9342007-01-18 07:34:57 +0000348Consider a function like this:
349
350float foo(float X) { return X + 1234.4123f; }
351
352The FP constant ends up in the constant pool, so we need to get the LR register.
353 This ends up producing code like this:
354
355_foo:
356.LBB_foo_0: ; entry
357 mflr r11
358*** stw r11, 8(r1)
359 bl "L00000$pb"
360"L00000$pb":
361 mflr r2
362 addis r2, r2, ha16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")
363 lfs f0, lo16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")(r2)
364 fadds f1, f1, f0
365*** lwz r11, 8(r1)
366 mtlr r11
367 blr
368
369This is functional, but there is no reason to spill the LR register all the way
370to the stack (the two marked instrs): spilling it to a GPR is quite enough.
371
372Implementing this will require some codegen improvements. Nate writes:
373
374"So basically what we need to support the "no stack frame save and restore" is a
375generalization of the LR optimization to "callee-save regs".
376
377Currently, we have LR marked as a callee-save reg. The register allocator sees
378that it's callee save, and spills it directly to the stack.
379
380Ideally, something like this would happen:
381
382LR would be in a separate register class from the GPRs. The class of LR would be
383marked "unspillable". When the register allocator came across an unspillable
384reg, it would ask "what is the best class to copy this into that I *can* spill"
385If it gets a class back, which it will in this case (the gprs), it grabs a free
386register of that class. If it is then later necessary to spill that reg, so be
387it.
388
389===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattner37ebf932007-01-31 19:49:20 +0000390
391We compile this:
392int test(_Bool X) {
393 return X ? 524288 : 0;
394}
395
396to:
397_test:
398 cmplwi cr0, r3, 0
399 lis r2, 8
400 li r3, 0
401 beq cr0, LBB1_2 ;entry
402LBB1_1: ;entry
403 mr r3, r2
404LBB1_2: ;entry
405 blr
406
407instead of:
408_test:
409 addic r2,r3,-1
410 subfe r0,r2,r3
411 slwi r3,r0,19
412 blr
413
414This sort of thing occurs a lot due to globalopt.
415
416===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
Chris Lattnerc9088b42007-02-09 17:38:01 +0000417
Chris Lattner97331ae2010-01-23 18:42:37 +0000418We compile:
419
420define i32 @bar(i32 %x) nounwind readnone ssp {
421entry:
422 %0 = icmp eq i32 %x, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
Chris Lattner1b35bbe2010-01-24 00:09:49 +0000423 %neg = sext i1 %0 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
Chris Lattner97331ae2010-01-23 18:42:37 +0000424 ret i32 %neg
425}
426
427to:
428
429_bar:
Chris Lattner1b35bbe2010-01-24 00:09:49 +0000430 cntlzw r2, r3
431 slwi r2, r2, 26
432 srawi r3, r2, 31
Chris Lattner97331ae2010-01-23 18:42:37 +0000433 blr
434
Chris Lattner1b35bbe2010-01-24 00:09:49 +0000435it would be better to produce:
Chris Lattner97331ae2010-01-23 18:42:37 +0000436
437_bar:
438 addic r3,r3,-1
439 subfe r3,r3,r3
440 blr
441
442===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
443
Chris Lattner075b4db2007-03-31 07:06:25 +0000444We generate horrible ppc code for this:
445
446#define N 2000000
447double a[N],c[N];
448void simpleloop() {
449 int j;
450 for (j=0; j<N; j++)
451 c[j] = a[j];
452}
453
454LBB1_1: ;bb
455 lfdx f0, r3, r4
456 addi r5, r5, 1 ;; Extra IV for the exit value compare.
457 stfdx f0, r2, r4
458 addi r4, r4, 8
459
460 xoris r6, r5, 30 ;; This is due to a large immediate.
461 cmplwi cr0, r6, 33920
462 bne cr0, LBB1_1
463
Chris Lattner6777b722007-09-10 21:43:18 +0000464//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
465
466This:
467 #include <algorithm>
468 inline std::pair<unsigned, bool> full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
469 { return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
470 bool no_overflow(unsigned a, unsigned b)
471 { return !full_add(a, b).second; }
472
473Should compile to:
474
475__Z11no_overflowjj:
476 add r4,r3,r4
477 subfc r3,r3,r4
478 li r3,0
479 adde r3,r3,r3
480 blr
481
482(or better) not:
483
484__Z11no_overflowjj:
485 add r2, r4, r3
486 cmplw cr7, r2, r3
487 mfcr r2
488 rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
489 xori r3, r2, 1
490 blr
491
492//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner075b4db2007-03-31 07:06:25 +0000493
Chris Lattner89f36e62008-01-08 06:46:30 +0000494We compile some FP comparisons into an mfcr with two rlwinms and an or. For
495example:
496#include <math.h>
497int test(double x, double y) { return islessequal(x, y);}
498int test2(double x, double y) { return islessgreater(x, y);}
499int test3(double x, double y) { return !islessequal(x, y);}
500
501Compiles into (all three are similar, but the bits differ):
502
503_test:
504 fcmpu cr7, f1, f2
505 mfcr r2
506 rlwinm r3, r2, 29, 31, 31
507 rlwinm r2, r2, 31, 31, 31
508 or r3, r2, r3
509 blr
510
511GCC compiles this into:
512
513 _test:
514 fcmpu cr7,f1,f2
515 cror 30,28,30
516 mfcr r3
517 rlwinm r3,r3,31,1
518 blr
519
520which is more efficient and can use mfocr. See PR642 for some more context.
521
522//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Chris Lattner6b0a1892008-03-02 19:27:34 +0000523
524void foo(float *data, float d) {
525 long i;
526 for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++)
527 data[i] = d;
528}
529void foo2(float *data, float d) {
530 long i;
531 data--;
532 for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++) {
533 data[1] = d;
534 data++;
535 }
536}
537
538These compile to:
539
540_foo:
541 li r2, 0
542LBB1_1: ; bb
543 addi r4, r2, 4
544 stfsx f1, r3, r2
545 cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
546 mr r2, r4
547 bne cr0, LBB1_1 ; bb
548 blr
549_foo2:
550 li r2, 0
551LBB2_1: ; bb
552 addi r4, r2, 4
553 stfsx f1, r3, r2
554 cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
555 mr r2, r4
556 bne cr0, LBB2_1 ; bb
557 blr
558
559The 'mr' could be eliminated to folding the add into the cmp better.
560
561//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Dale Johannesenaae3a4f2008-11-17 18:56:34 +0000562Codegen for the following (low-probability) case deteriorated considerably
563when the correctness fixes for unordered comparisons went in (PR 642, 58871).
564It should be possible to recover the code quality described in the comments.
565
566; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep or | count 3
567; This should produce one 'or' or 'cror' instruction per function.
568
569; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep mfcr | count 3
570; PR2964
571
572define i32 @test(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
573entry:
574 %tmp3 = fcmp ole double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
575 %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
576 ret i32 %tmp345
577}
578
579define i32 @test2(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
580entry:
581 %tmp3 = fcmp one double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
582 %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
583 ret i32 %tmp345
584}
585
586define i32 @test3(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
587entry:
588 %tmp3 = fcmp ugt double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
589 %tmp34 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
590 ret i32 %tmp34
591}
Ehsan Amiri631ed042016-03-18 04:02:25 +0000592
593//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
594for the following code:
595
596void foo (float *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, int n) {
597 a[n] = b[n] * 2.321;
598}
599
600we load b[n] to GPR, then move it VSX register and convert it float. We should
601use vsx scalar integer load instructions to avoid direct moves
602
Dale Johannesenaae3a4f2008-11-17 18:56:34 +0000603//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
604; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | not grep fneg
605
606; This could generate FSEL with appropriate flags (FSEL is not IEEE-safe, and
607; should not be generated except with -enable-finite-only-fp-math or the like).
608; With the correctness fixes for PR642 (58871) LowerSELECT_CC would need to
609; recognize a more elaborate tree than a simple SETxx.
610
611define double @test_FNEG_sel(double %A, double %B, double %C) {
Dan Gohman6f34abd2010-03-02 01:11:08 +0000612 %D = fsub double -0.000000e+00, %A ; <double> [#uses=1]
Dale Johannesenaae3a4f2008-11-17 18:56:34 +0000613 %Cond = fcmp ugt double %D, -0.000000e+00 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
614 %E = select i1 %Cond, double %B, double %C ; <double> [#uses=1]
615 ret double %E
616}
617
Dale Johannesen626b79d2010-02-12 23:16:24 +0000618//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
619The save/restore sequence for CR in prolog/epilog is terrible:
620- Each CR subreg is saved individually, rather than doing one save as a unit.
621- On Darwin, the save is done after the decrement of SP, which means the offset
622from SP of the save slot can be too big for a store instruction, which means we
623need an additional register (currently hacked in 96015+96020; the solution there
624is correct, but poor).
625- On SVR4 the same thing can happen, and I don't think saving before the SP
626decrement is safe on that target, as there is no red zone. This is currently
627broken AFAIK, although it's not a target I can exercise.
628The following demonstrates the problem:
629extern void bar(char *p);
630void foo() {
631 char x[100000];
632 bar(x);
633 __asm__("" ::: "cr2");
634}
Kit Barton116e18b2015-03-11 17:43:43 +0000635
Nemanja Ivanovicc0904792015-04-09 23:54:37 +0000636//===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
637Naming convention for instruction formats is very haphazard.
638We have agreed on a naming scheme as follows:
639
640<INST_form>{_<OP_type><OP_len>}+
641
642Where:
643INST_form is the instruction format (X-form, etc.)
644OP_type is the operand type - one of OPC (opcode), RD (register destination),
645 RS (register source),
646 RDp (destination register pair),
647 RSp (source register pair), IM (immediate),
648 XO (extended opcode)
649OP_len is the length of the operand in bits
650
651VSX register operands would be of length 6 (split across two fields),
652condition register fields of length 3.
653We would not need denote reserved fields in names of instruction formats.
654
Kit Barton116e18b2015-03-11 17:43:43 +0000655//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
656
657Instruction fusion was introduced in ISA 2.06 and more opportunities added in
658ISA 2.07. LLVM needs to add infrastructure to recognize fusion opportunities
659and force instruction pairs to be scheduled together.
660