| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This re-commits everything that was pulled in r314244. The transformation
is off by default (patch to enable it to follow). The code is refactored
to have a single entry-point and provide fine-grained control over patterns
that it selects. This patch also fixes the bugs in the original code.
Everything that failed with the original patch has been re-tested with this
patch (with the transformation turned on). So the patch to turn this on is
soon to follow.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38575
llvm-svn: 319434
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instructions
In the past while, I've committed a number of patches in the PowerPC back end
aimed at eliminating comparison instructions. However, this causes some failures
in proprietary source and these issues are not observed in SPEC or any open
source packages I've been able to run.
As a result, I'm pulling the entire series and will refactor it to:
- Have a single entry point for easy control
- Have fine-grained control over which patterns we transform
A side-effect of this is that test cases for these patches (and modified by
them) are XFAIL-ed. This is a temporary measure as it is counter-productive
to remove/modify these test cases and then have to modify them again when
the refactored patch is recommitted.
The failure will be investigated in parallel to the refactoring effort and
the recommit will either have a fix for it or will leave this transformation
off by default until the problem is resolved.
llvm-svn: 314244
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Adds handling for i32 SETNE comparison (both sign and zero extended).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33718
llvm-svn: 304901
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292154
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 1d0e0374438ca6e153844c683826ba9b82486bb1.
llvm-svn: 292131
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292128
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently we have a number of tests that fail with -verify-machineinstrs.
To detect this cases earlier we add the option to the testcases with the
exception of tests that will currently fail with this option. PR 27456 keeps
track of this failures.
No code review, as discussed with Hal Finkel.
llvm-svn: 277624
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PowerPC uses itineraries to describe processor pipelines (and dispatch-group
restrictions for P7/P8 cores). Unfortunately, the target-independent
implementation of TII.getInstrLatency calls ItinData->getStageLatency, and that
looks for the largest cycle count in the pipeline for any given instruction.
This, however, yields the wrong answer for the PPC itineraries, because we
don't encode the full pipeline. Because the functional units are fully
pipelined, we only model the initial stages (there are no relevant hazards in
the later stages to model), and so the technique employed by getStageLatency
does not really work. Instead, we should take the maximum output operand
latency, and that's what PPCInstrInfo::getInstrLatency now does.
This caused some test-case churn, including two unfortunate side effects.
First, the new arrangement of copies we get from function parameters now
sometimes blocks VSX FMA mutation (a FIXME has been added to the code and the
test cases), and we have one significant test-suite regression:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/spectral-norm
56.4185% +/- 18.9398%
In this benchmark we have a loop with a vectorized FP divide, and it with the
new scheduling both divides end up in the same dispatch group (which in this
case seems to cause a problem, although why is not exactly clear). The grouping
structure is hard to predict from the bottom of the loop, and there may not be
much we can do to fix this.
Very few other test-suite performance effects were really significant, but
almost all weakly favor this change. However, in light of the issues
highlighted above, I've left the old behavior available via a
command-line flag.
llvm-svn: 242188
|
|
|
of this add a test that shows we can generate code with
for functions that differ by subtarget feature.
llvm-svn: 232882
|
