similar to: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in CodeGenPrepare

I wonder why CodeGenPrepare breaks GEP into integer calculations (ptrtoin/add/inttopt) instead of directly sinking the address calculation using GEP into user's block. Thanks, Jun On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > The reason for this is to allow folding of address computation into loads and stores. A lot of modern arch, e.g. X86 and arm,

When multiple GEPs or other operations are used for the address calculation, OptimizeMemoryInst() performs address matching and determines a final addressing expression as a simple form (e.g., ptrtoint/add/inttoptr) and sinks it into user's block so that ISel could have better chance to fold address computation into LDRs and STRs. However, OptimizeMemoryInst() seems to do this transformation

On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com> wrote: > > I wonder why CodeGenPrepare breaks GEP into integer calculations (ptrtoin/add/inttopt) instead of directly sinking the address calculation using GEP into user's block. I believe it's primary for address mode matching where only part of the GEP can be folded (depending on the instruction set). Evan

On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com> wrote: > > > When multiple GEPs or other operations are used for the address calculation, OptimizeMemoryInst() performs address matching and determines a final addressing expression as a simple form (e.g., ptrtoint/add/inttoptr) and sinks it into user's block so that ISel could have better chance to fold address

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> > To: "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:01:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in CodeGenPrepare > > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com>

The reason for this is to allow folding of address computation into loads and stores. A lot of modern arch, e.g. X86 and arm, have complex addressing mode. Evan Sent from my iPad > On Nov 12, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > In CodeGenPrepare pass, OptimizeMemoryInst() try to sink address computing into users' block by

On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> To: "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:01:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:48:13 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in CodeGenPrepare > >

On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013

On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >>> Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at

On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com>

Hi, I want to improve the way CGP sinks the incoming values of a PHI node towards memory accesses. Improving it means a lot to some of our key benchmarks, and I believe can benefit many general cases as well. CGP's OptimizeMemoryInst function handles PHI nodes by running AddressingModeMatcher on all incoming values to see whether they reach consensus on the addressing mode. It does a

Hey guys, I'm working on the S3D Benchmark and notice that CodeGenPrepare::OptimizeMemoryInst(...) in lib/Transforms/Scalar/CodeGenPrepare.cpp isn't scaling well. A whopping 99.3% of the compilation time for one file is spent in this function. The User Time for this compilation is 3166 seconds with a stock LLVM 3.1. If I disable the calls to OptimizeMemoryInst(...), the compilation time

Dear Community, I'm trying to implement optimization described in PR26223 and meet the following bail out condition in CodeGenPrepare::optimizeMemoryInst. // Break use-def graph loops. if (!Visited.insert(V).second) { Consensus = nullptr; break; } So while traversing thorough phi nodes from memory instruction to find addr mode we bail out if we meet some instruction

Hi, I am working on a patch for CodeGenPrepare, which introduces a use of TargetLoweringBase::InstructionOpcodeToISD (see [1] for the details). This is usual for CodeGenPrepare to use the TargetLowering class when it is available, however, using this particular function creates linking problems. ** Context ** The TargetLowering class is part of libLLVMCodeGen, which means that in theory every

Hi, I have a question about the definitions of t2LDRSB and t2LDRSB_PRE in ARMInstrThumb2.td : I was aware that the definitions of target RegisterClass (outs) are different in t2LDRSB and t2LDRSB_PRE. While t2LDRSB uses rGPR, t2LDRSB_PRE uses GPR. I wonder if lr and pc are already prevented from being allocated in pre-indexing case, because of some register hint that is being enforced?

Hi Junbum, > I was aware that the definitions of target RegisterClass (outs) are different in t2LDRSB and t2LDRSB_PRE. While t2LDRSB uses rGPR, t2LDRSB_PRE uses GPR. I wonder if lr and pc are already prevented from being allocated in pre-indexing case, because of some register hint that is being enforced? They're not allocated during CodeGen because of the Reserved.set(…) calls in

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:17 AM Jorg Brown via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:50 AM kamlesh kumar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Devs, >> Consider testcase here >> https://godbolt.org/z/qHZzqw >> When optimization is O1 or above it produces unoptimized code >> because it

Hello everyone, For the context of question, I have a small loop written in a custom front-end which can be fairly accurately expressed with the following C program: struct Array { double * data; long n; }; #define X 0 #define Y 1 #define Z 2 void f(struct Array * restrict d, struct Array * restrict out, const long n) { for (long i = 0;

Hi all! Attached a patch to preserve ProfileInfo in CodeGenPrepare. Would it be okay to commit such patches (that touch parts of LLVM to preserve ProfileInfo) without prior approval? Thanks, Andi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm-r81438.preserver.profile.info.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 4480 bytes Desc: not available URL: