| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This extends the PeelingModuloScheduleExpander to generate prolog and epilog code,
and correctly stitch uses through the prolog, kernel, epilog DAG.
The key concept in this patch is to ensure that all transforms are *local*; only a
function of a block and its immediate predecessor and successor. By defining the problem in this way
we can inductively rewrite the entire DAG using only local knowledge that is easy to
reason about.
For example, we assume that all prologs and epilogs are near-perfect clones of the
steady-state kernel. This means that if a block has an instruction that is predicated out,
we can redirect all users of that instruction to that equivalent instruction in our
immediate predecessor. As all blocks are clones, every instruction must have an equivalent in
every other block.
Similarly we can make the assumption by construction that if a value defined in a block is used
outside that block, the only possible user is its immediate successors. We maintain this
even for values that are used outside the loop by creating a limited form of LCSSA.
This code isn't small, but it isn't complex.
Enabled a bunch of testing from Hexagon. There are a couple of tests not enabled yet;
I'm about 80% sure there isn't buggy codegen but the tests are checking for patterns
that we don't produce. Those still need a bit more investigation. In the meantime we
(Google) are happy with the code produced by this on our downstream SMS implementation,
and believe it generates correct code.
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, jsji, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68205
llvm-svn: 373462
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some loops, we end up generating loop induction variables that look like:
{(-1 * (zext i16 (%i0 * %i1) to i32))<nsw>,+,1}
As opposed to the simpler:
{(zext i16 (%i0 * %i1) to i32),+,-1}
i.e we count up from -limit to 0, not the simpler counting down from limit to
0. This is because the scores, as LSR calculates them, are the same and the
second is filtered in place of the first. We end up with a redundant SUB from 0
in the code.
This patch tries to make the calculation of the setup cost a little more
thoroughly, recursing into the scev members to better approximate the setup
required. The cost function for comparing LSR costs is:
return std::tie(C1.NumRegs, C1.AddRecCost, C1.NumIVMuls, C1.NumBaseAdds,
C1.ScaleCost, C1.ImmCost, C1.SetupCost) <
std::tie(C2.NumRegs, C2.AddRecCost, C2.NumIVMuls, C2.NumBaseAdds,
C2.ScaleCost, C2.ImmCost, C2.SetupCost);
So this will only alter results if none of the other variables turn out to be
different.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58770
llvm-svn: 355597
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the most important uaddo problem mentioned in PR31754:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
...but that was overcome in x86 codegen with D57637.
That patch also corrects the inc vs. add regressions seen with the previous attempt at this.
Still, we want to make this matcher complete, so we can potentially canonicalize the pattern
even if it's an 'add 1' operation.
Pattern matching, however, shouldn't assume that we have canonicalized IR, so we match 4
commuted variants of uaddo.
There's also a test with a crazy type to show that the existing CGP transform based on this
matcher is not limited by target legality checks.
I'm not sure if the Hexagon diff means the test is no longer testing what it intended to
test, but that should be solvable in a follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57516
llvm-svn: 352998
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 327271
|
