| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
... | |
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 14622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
since May 1st. In this code, the pred iterator was being invalidated sometimes
causing the wrong entries to be added to PHI nodes.
The fix for this is to defererence and safe the *PI value before we hack on
branch instructions, which changes use/def chains, which SOMETIMES invalidates
the iterator.
llvm-svn: 14278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix another non-deterministic behavior, this one should actually speed up the
code though as it was doing silly things.
llvm-svn: 14258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
nondeterministic results that depend on where these objects land in memory.
Instead, sort by the value of the constant, which is stable.
Before this patch, the -simplifycfg pass run from two different compilers
could cause different code to be generated, though it was semantically the
same:
@@ -12258,8 +12258,8 @@
%s_addr.1 = phi sbyte* [ %s, %entry ], [ %inc.0, %no_exit ] ; <sbyte*> [#uses=5]
%tmp.1 = load sbyte* %s_addr.1 ; <sbyte> [#uses=1]
switch sbyte %tmp.1, label %no_exit [
- sbyte 0, label %loopexit
sbyte 46, label %loopexit
+ sbyte 0, label %loopexit
]
We need to stomp all of this stuff out.
llvm-svn: 14243
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 13316
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 13315
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 13312
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Turning "if (A < B && B < C)" into "if (A < B & B < C)"
llvm-svn: 13311
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 13307
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 13306
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
if (C)
V1 |= V2;
into:
Vx = V1 | V2;
V1 = select C, V1, Vx
when the expression can be evaluated unconditionally and is *cheap* to
execute. This limited form of if conversion is quite handy in lots of cases.
For example, it turns this testcase into straight-line code:
int in0 ; int in1 ; int in2 ; int in3 ;
int in4 ; int in5 ; int in6 ; int in7 ;
int in8 ; int in9 ; int in10; int in11;
int in12; int in13; int in14; int in15;
long output;
void mux(void) {
output =
(in0 ? 0x00000001 : 0) | (in1 ? 0x00000002 : 0) |
(in2 ? 0x00000004 : 0) | (in3 ? 0x00000008 : 0) |
(in4 ? 0x00000010 : 0) | (in5 ? 0x00000020 : 0) |
(in6 ? 0x00000040 : 0) | (in7 ? 0x00000080 : 0) |
(in8 ? 0x00000100 : 0) | (in9 ? 0x00000200 : 0) |
(in10 ? 0x00000400 : 0) | (in11 ? 0x00000800 : 0) |
(in12 ? 0x00001000 : 0) | (in13 ? 0x00002000 : 0) |
(in14 ? 0x00004000 : 0) | (in15 ? 0x00008000 : 0) ;
}
llvm-svn: 12798
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 12618
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This actually causes us to turn code like:
return C ? A : B;
into a select instruction.
llvm-svn: 12617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instcombine
pass can eliminate many nasty cases of them, start generating them in the optimizers
llvm-svn: 12545
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 12465
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 12441
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
and br->br code and generalizing it. This allows us to compile code like this:
int test(Instruction *I) {
if (isa<CastInst>(I))
return foo(7);
else if (isa<BranchInst>(I))
return foo(123);
else if (isa<UnwindInst>(I))
return foo(1241);
else if (isa<SetCondInst>(I))
return foo(1);
else if (isa<VAArgInst>(I))
return foo(42);
return foo(-1);
}
into:
int %_Z4testPN4llvm11InstructionE("struct.llvm::Instruction"* %I) {
entry:
%tmp.1.i.i.i.i.i.i.i = getelementptr "struct.llvm::Instruction"* %I, long 0, ubyte 4 ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
%tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i = load uint* %tmp.1.i.i.i.i.i.i.i ; <uint> [#uses=2]
%tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i = seteq uint %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i, 27 ; <bool> [#uses=0]
switch uint %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i, label %endif.0 [
uint 27, label %then.0
uint 2, label %then.1
uint 5, label %then.2
uint 14, label %then.3
uint 15, label %then.3
uint 16, label %then.3
uint 17, label %then.3
uint 18, label %then.3
uint 19, label %then.3
uint 32, label %then.4
]
...
As well as handling the cases in 176.gcc and many other programs more effectively.
llvm-svn: 11964
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
if (X == 0 || X == 2)
...where the comparisons and branches are in different blocks... into a switch
instruction. This comes up a lot in various programs, and works well with
the switch/switch merging code I checked earlier. For example, this testcase:
int switchtest(int C) {
return C == 0 ? f(123) :
C == 1 ? f(3123) :
C == 4 ? f(312) :
C == 5 ? f(1234): f(444);
}
is converted into this:
switch int %C, label %cond_false.3 [
int 0, label %cond_true.0
int 1, label %cond_true.1
int 4, label %cond_true.2
int 5, label %cond_true.3
]
instead of a whole bunch of conditional branches.
Admittedly the code is ugly, and incomplete. To be complete, we need to add
br -> switch merging and switch -> br merging. For example, this testcase:
struct foo { int Q, R, Z; };
#define A (X->Q+X->R * 123)
int test(struct foo *X) {
return A == 123 ? X1() :
A == 12321 ? X2():
(A == 111 || A == 222) ? X3() :
A == 875 ? X4() : X5();
}
Gets compiled to this:
switch int %tmp.7, label %cond_false.2 [
int 123, label %cond_true.0
int 12321, label %cond_true.1
int 111, label %cond_true.2
int 222, label %cond_true.2
]
...
cond_false.2: ; preds = %entry
%tmp.52 = seteq int %tmp.7, 875 ; <bool> [#uses=1]
br bool %tmp.52, label %cond_true.3, label %cond_false.3
where the branch could be folded into the switch.
This kind of thing occurs *ALL OF THE TIME*, especially in programs like
176.gcc, which is a horrible mess of code. It contains stuff like *shudder*:
#define SWITCH_TAKES_ARG(CHAR) \
( (CHAR) == 'D' \
|| (CHAR) == 'U' \
|| (CHAR) == 'o' \
|| (CHAR) == 'e' \
|| (CHAR) == 'u' \
|| (CHAR) == 'I' \
|| (CHAR) == 'm' \
|| (CHAR) == 'L' \
|| (CHAR) == 'A' \
|| (CHAR) == 'h' \
|| (CHAR) == 'z')
and
#define CONST_OK_FOR_LETTER_P(VALUE, C) \
((C) == 'I' ? SMALL_INTVAL (VALUE) \
: (C) == 'J' ? SMALL_INTVAL (-(VALUE)) \
: (C) == 'K' ? (unsigned)(VALUE) < 32 \
: (C) == 'L' ? ((VALUE) & 0xffff) == 0 \
: (C) == 'M' ? integer_ok_for_set (VALUE) \
: (C) == 'N' ? (VALUE) < 0 \
: (C) == 'O' ? (VALUE) == 0 \
: (C) == 'P' ? (VALUE) >= 0 \
: 0)
and
#define LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(X,OLDX,MODE,WIN) \
{ \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (XEXP (X, 1))) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 0), \
copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, XEXP (X, 1))); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (XEXP (X, 0))) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 1), \
copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, XEXP (X, 0))); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == MULT) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 1), \
force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), 0)); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 1)) == MULT) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 0), \
force_operand (XEXP (X, 1), 0)); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == PLUS) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, Pmode, force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), NULL_RTX),\
XEXP (X, 1)); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 1)) == PLUS) \
(X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, Pmode, XEXP (X, 0), \
force_operand (XEXP (X, 1), NULL_RTX)); \
if (GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF || GET_CODE (X) == CONST \
|| GET_CODE (X) == LABEL_REF) \
(X) = legitimize_address (flag_pic, X, 0, 0); \
if (memory_address_p (MODE, X)) \
goto WIN; }
and others. These macros get used multiple times of course. These are such
lovely candidates for macros, aren't they? :)
This code also nicely handles LLVM constructs that look like this:
if (isa<CastInst>(I))
...
else if (isa<BranchInst>(I))
...
else if (isa<SetCondInst>(I))
...
else if (isa<UnwindInst>(I))
...
else if (isa<VAArgInst>(I))
...
where the isa can obviously be a dyn_cast as well. Switch instructions are a
good thing.
llvm-svn: 11870
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 11799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This case occurs many times in various benchmarks, especially when combined
with the previous patch. This allows it to get stuff like:
if (X == 4 || X == 3)
if (X == 5 || X == 8)
and
switch (X) {
case 4: case 5: case 6:
if (X == 4 || X == 5)
llvm-svn: 11797
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 11793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This turns code like this:
if (X == 4 | X == 7)
and
if (X != 4 & X != 7)
into switch instructions.
llvm-svn: 11792
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
see the testcase for the reasoning.
llvm-svn: 11496
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Having a proper 'select' instruction would allow the elimination of a lot
of the special case cruft in this patch, but we don't have one yet.
llvm-svn: 11307
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 11301
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
'unwind' dest
llvm-svn: 11202
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 10727
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 9903
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Header files will be on the way.
llvm-svn: 9298
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 9027
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instruction instead
llvm-svn: 8411
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 8126
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 7921
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix bug: SimplifyCFG/2003-08-05-MishandleInvoke.ll
llvm-svn: 7599
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 5872
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 5722
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 5702
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 5699
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 4423
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 4079
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 3913
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 3904
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
test/Regression/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/2002-06-24-PHINode.ll
llvm-svn: 3128
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 2777
|
|
llvm-svn: 2701
|