| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When doing some instruction scheduling work, we noticed some missing itineraries.
Before we switch to machine scheduler, those missing itineraries might not have impact to actually scheduling,
because we can still get same latency due to default values.
With machine scheduler, however, itineraries will have impact to scheduling.
eg: NumMicroOps will default to be 0 if there is NO itineraries for specific instruction class.
And most of the instruction class with itineraries will have NumMicroOps default to 1.
This will has impact on the count of RetiredMOps, affects the Pending/Available Queue,
then causing different scheduling or suboptimal scheduling further.
Patch by jsji (Jinsong Ji)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51506
llvm-svn: 341293
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The bug is visible in the constant-folded x86 tests. We can't use the
negated shift amount when the type is not power-of-2:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/US1r
...so in that case, use the regular lowering that includes a select
to guard against a shift-by-bitwidth. This path is improved by only
calculating the modulo shift amount once now.
Also, improve the rotate (with power-of-2 size) lowering to use
a negate rather than subtract from bitwidth. This improves the
codegen whether we have a rotate instruction or not (although
we can still see that we're not matching to a legal rotate in
all cases).
llvm-svn: 338592
|
|
|
As discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123292.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-July/124400.html
We want to add rotate intrinsics because the IR expansion of that pattern is 4+ instructions,
and we can lose pieces of the pattern before it gets to the backend. Generalizing the operation
by allowing 2 different input values (plus the 3rd shift/rotate amount) gives us a "funnel shift"
operation which may also be a single hardware instruction.
Initially, I thought we needed to define new DAG nodes for these ops, and I spent time working
on that (much larger patch), but then I concluded that we don't need it. At least as a first
step, we have all of the backend support necessary to match these ops...because it was required.
And shepherding these through the IR optimizer is the primary concern, so the IR intrinsics are
likely all that we'll ever need.
There was also a question about converting the intrinsics to the existing ROTL/ROTR DAG nodes
(along with improving the oversized shift documentation). Again, I don't think that's strictly
necessary (as the test results here prove). That can be an efficiency improvement as a small
follow-up patch.
So all we're left with is documentation, definition of the IR intrinsics, and DAG builder support.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49242
llvm-svn: 337221
|
