search for: isbeforelegalize

...a more elaborate type check before type legalization to enable it? On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > Hi @ll, > > I am wondering about the use of !isBeforeLegalize in PerformSELECTCombine in the X86 backend. This defers all VSELECT related DAG combines until after the Legalizer has run. If the IR has already only legal types the second round of DAG combines is skipped and no VSELECT specified optimizations are performed at all. > > Is there a reason we...

...t; I see. We still can use that shortcut to catch the simple case after type > legalization, but we could also do a more elaborate type check before type > legalization to enable it? > If you're going to write the code to check the types anyway, it's probably clearer to remove the isBeforeLegalize check. -Eli > On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com>wrote: > >> Hi @ll, >> >> I am wondering about the use of !isBeforeLegalize in PerformS...

Hi @ll, I am wondering about the use of !isBeforeLegalize in PerformSELECTCombine in the X86 backend. This defers all VSELECT related DAG combines until after the Legalizer has run. If the IR has already only legal types the second round of DAG combines is skipped and no VSELECT specified optimizations are performed at all. Is there a reason we don’t run...

...om>> wrote: I see. We still can use that shortcut to catch the simple case after type legalization, but we could also do a more elaborate type check before type legalization to enable it? If you're going to write the code to check the types anyway, it's probably clearer to remove the isBeforeLegalize check. -Eli On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com<mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com<mailto:juergen at apple.com>> wrote: Hi @ll, I am wondering about the use o...

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > Hi @ll, > > I am wondering about the use of !isBeforeLegalize in PerformSELECTCombine > in the X86 backend. This defers all VSELECT related DAG combines until > after the Legalizer has run. If the IR has already only legal types the > second round of DAG combines is skipped and no VSELECT specified > optimizations are performed at all. > > I...

...where a bugfix was made > after 2.8?  Any idea where to look? The following? // If the LHS is '(and load, const)', the RHS is 0, // the test is for equality or unsigned, and all 1 bits of the const are // in the same partial word, see if we can shorten the load. if (DCI.isBeforeLegalize() && N0.getOpcode() == ISD::AND && C1 == 0 && N0.getNode()->hasOneUse() && isa<LoadSDNode>(N0.getOperand(0)) && N0.getOperand(0).getNode()->hasOneUse() && isa<ConstantSDNode>(N0.getOperand(1)))...

Hi Eli, On 07/27/2011 04:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson > <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: >> Hi All, >> I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte, >> 4-byte-aligned loads and stores. I custom-lower all {*EXT}LOAD and >> STORE nodes in TargetISelLowering.cpp to take advantage of

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > At the beginning, I have the following chain: LOAD -> TRUNCATE -> ZERO_EXTEND. > After Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) the optimization of ZERO_EXTEND  gives me the new chain LOAD -> ANY_EXTEND -> AND. > > I want to optimize ANY_EXTEND but is not analyzed in the same Combine().

At the beginning, I have the following chain: LOAD -> TRUNCATE -> ZERO_EXTEND. After Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) the optimization of ZERO_EXTEND gives me the new chain LOAD -> ANY_EXTEND -> AND. I want to optimize ANY_EXTEND but is not analyzed in the same Combine(). Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes) is no called at all. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman

...structions, however, conditional-move from a register needs + // only one instruction. + // + // CAVEAT: By replacing a constant with a symbolic value, it may obscure + // some instruction-combining opportunities. This opt needs to be + // postponed as late as possible. + // + if (!DCI.isBeforeLegalize() && !DCI.isBeforeLegalizeOps()) { + // the DCI.xxxx conditions are provided to postpone the optimization as + // late as possible. + + ConstantSDNode *CmpAgainst = 0; + if ((Cond.getOpcode() == X86ISD::CMP || Cond.getOpcode() == X86ISD::SUB) && + (CmpAgainst =...

Hello, Arnold. > with the sentence i tried to express the question whether there is a > way to persuade the code generator to use another register to load (or > move) the function pointer to (right before the callee saved register > restore) but thinking a little further that's nonsense. Why don't define some special op for callee address and custom lower it? I really