Home | History | Annotate | Download | only in PowerPC
      1 //===- README.txt - Notes for improving PowerPC-specific code gen ---------===//
      2 
      3 TODO:
      4 * lmw/stmw pass a la arm load store optimizer for prolog/epilog
      5 
      6 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
      7 
      8 This code:
      9 
     10 unsigned add32carry(unsigned sum, unsigned x) {
     11  unsigned z = sum + x;
     12  if (sum + x < x)
     13      z++;
     14  return z;
     15 }
     16 
     17 Should compile to something like:
     18 
     19 	addc r3,r3,r4
     20 	addze r3,r3
     21 
     22 instead we get:
     23 
     24 	add r3, r4, r3
     25 	cmplw cr7, r3, r4
     26 	mfcr r4 ; 1
     27 	rlwinm r4, r4, 29, 31, 31
     28 	add r3, r3, r4
     29 
     30 Ick.
     31 
     32 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
     33 
     34 We compile the hottest inner loop of viterbi to:
     35 
     36         li r6, 0
     37         b LBB1_84       ;bb432.i
     38 LBB1_83:        ;bb420.i
     39         lbzx r8, r5, r7
     40         addi r6, r7, 1
     41         stbx r8, r4, r7
     42 LBB1_84:        ;bb432.i
     43         mr r7, r6
     44         cmplwi cr0, r7, 143
     45         bne cr0, LBB1_83        ;bb420.i
     46 
     47 The CBE manages to produce:
     48 
     49 	li r0, 143
     50 	mtctr r0
     51 loop:
     52 	lbzx r2, r2, r11
     53 	stbx r0, r2, r9
     54 	addi r2, r2, 1
     55 	bdz later
     56 	b loop
     57 
     58 This could be much better (bdnz instead of bdz) but it still beats us.  If we
     59 produced this with bdnz, the loop would be a single dispatch group.
     60 
     61 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
     62 
     63 Lump the constant pool for each function into ONE pic object, and reference
     64 pieces of it as offsets from the start.  For functions like this (contrived
     65 to have lots of constants obviously):
     66 
     67 double X(double Y) { return (Y*1.23 + 4.512)*2.34 + 14.38; }
     68 
     69 We generate:
     70 
     71 _X:
     72         lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_0)
     73         lfd f0, lo16(.CPI_X_0)(r2)
     74         lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_1)
     75         lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_1)(r2)
     76         fmadd f0, f1, f0, f2
     77         lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_2)
     78         lfd f1, lo16(.CPI_X_2)(r2)
     79         lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_3)
     80         lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_3)(r2)
     81         fmadd f1, f0, f1, f2
     82         blr
     83 
     84 It would be better to materialize .CPI_X into a register, then use immediates
     85 off of the register to avoid the lis's.  This is even more important in PIC 
     86 mode.
     87 
     88 Note that this (and the static variable version) is discussed here for GCC:
     89 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
     90 
     91 Here's another example (the sgn function):
     92 double testf(double a) {
     93        return a == 0.0 ? 0.0 : (a > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0);
     94 }
     95 
     96 it produces a BB like this:
     97 LBB1_1: ; cond_true
     98         lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_0)
     99         lfs f0, lo16(LCPI1_0)(r2)
    100         lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_1)
    101         lis r3, ha16(LCPI1_2)
    102         lfs f2, lo16(LCPI1_2)(r3)
    103         lfs f3, lo16(LCPI1_1)(r2)
    104         fsub f0, f0, f1
    105         fsel f1, f0, f2, f3
    106         blr 
    107 
    108 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    109 
    110 PIC Code Gen IPO optimization:
    111 
    112 Squish small scalar globals together into a single global struct, allowing the 
    113 address of the struct to be CSE'd, avoiding PIC accesses (also reduces the size
    114 of the GOT on targets with one).
    115 
    116 Note that this is discussed here for GCC:
    117 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
    118 
    119 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    120 
    121 Darwin Stub removal:
    122 
    123 We still generate calls to foo$stub, and stubs, on Darwin.  This is not
    124 necessary when building with the Leopard (10.5) or later linker, as stubs are
    125 generated by ld when necessary.  Parameterizing this based on the deployment
    126 target (-mmacosx-version-min) is probably enough.  x86-32 does this right, see
    127 its logic.
    128 
    129 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    130 
    131 Darwin Stub LICM optimization:
    132 
    133 Loops like this:
    134   
    135   for (...)  bar();
    136 
    137 Have to go through an indirect stub if bar is external or linkonce.  It would 
    138 be better to compile it as:
    139 
    140      fp = &bar;
    141      for (...)  fp();
    142 
    143 which only computes the address of bar once (instead of each time through the 
    144 stub).  This is Darwin specific and would have to be done in the code generator.
    145 Probably not a win on x86.
    146 
    147 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    148 
    149 Simple IPO for argument passing, change:
    150   void foo(int X, double Y, int Z) -> void foo(int X, int Z, double Y)
    151 
    152 the Darwin ABI specifies that any integer arguments in the first 32 bytes worth
    153 of arguments get assigned to r3 through r10. That is, if you have a function
    154 foo(int, double, int) you get r3, f1, r6, since the 64 bit double ate up the
    155 argument bytes for r4 and r5. The trick then would be to shuffle the argument
    156 order for functions we can internalize so that the maximum number of 
    157 integers/pointers get passed in regs before you see any of the fp arguments.
    158 
    159 Instead of implementing this, it would actually probably be easier to just 
    160 implement a PPC fastcc, where we could do whatever we wanted to the CC, 
    161 including having this work sanely.
    162 
    163 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    164 
    165 Fix Darwin FP-In-Integer Registers ABI
    166 
    167 Darwin passes doubles in structures in integer registers, which is very very 
    168 bad.  Add something like a BITCAST to LLVM, then do an i-p transformation that
    169 percolates these things out of functions.
    170 
    171 Check out how horrible this is:
    172 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01036.html
    173 
    174 This is an extension of "interprocedural CC unmunging" that can't be done with
    175 just fastcc.
    176 
    177 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    178 
    179 Fold add and sub with constant into non-extern, non-weak addresses so this:
    180 
    181 static int a;
    182 void bar(int b) { a = b; }
    183 void foo(unsigned char *c) {
    184   *c = a;
    185 }
    186 
    187 So that 
    188 
    189 _foo:
    190         lis r2, ha16(_a)
    191         la r2, lo16(_a)(r2)
    192         lbz r2, 3(r2)
    193         stb r2, 0(r3)
    194         blr
    195 
    196 Becomes
    197 
    198 _foo:
    199         lis r2, ha16(_a+3)
    200         lbz r2, lo16(_a+3)(r2)
    201         stb r2, 0(r3)
    202         blr
    203 
    204 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    205 
    206 We should compile these two functions to the same thing:
    207 
    208 #include <stdlib.h>
    209 void f(int a, int b, int *P) {
    210   *P = (a-b)>=0?(a-b):(b-a);
    211 }
    212 void g(int a, int b, int *P) {
    213   *P = abs(a-b);
    214 }
    215 
    216 Further, they should compile to something better than:
    217 
    218 _g:
    219         subf r2, r4, r3
    220         subfic r3, r2, 0
    221         cmpwi cr0, r2, -1
    222         bgt cr0, LBB2_2 ; entry
    223 LBB2_1: ; entry
    224         mr r2, r3
    225 LBB2_2: ; entry
    226         stw r2, 0(r5)
    227         blr
    228 
    229 GCC produces:
    230 
    231 _g:
    232         subf r4,r4,r3
    233         srawi r2,r4,31
    234         xor r0,r2,r4
    235         subf r0,r2,r0
    236         stw r0,0(r5)
    237         blr
    238 
    239 ... which is much nicer.
    240 
    241 This theoretically may help improve twolf slightly (used in dimbox.c:142?).
    242 
    243 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    244 
    245 PR5945: This: 
    246 define i32 @clamp0g(i32 %a) {
    247 entry:
    248         %cmp = icmp slt i32 %a, 0
    249         %sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 0, i32 %a
    250         ret i32 %sel
    251 }
    252 
    253 Is compile to this with the PowerPC (32-bit) backend:
    254 
    255 _clamp0g:
    256         cmpwi cr0, r3, 0
    257         li r2, 0
    258         blt cr0, LBB1_2
    259 ; BB#1:                                                     ; %entry
    260         mr r2, r3
    261 LBB1_2:                                                     ; %entry
    262         mr r3, r2
    263         blr
    264 
    265 This could be reduced to the much simpler:
    266 
    267 _clamp0g:
    268         srawi r2, r3, 31
    269         andc r3, r3, r2
    270         blr
    271 
    272 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    273 
    274 int foo(int N, int ***W, int **TK, int X) {
    275   int t, i;
    276   
    277   for (t = 0; t < N; ++t)
    278     for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
    279       W[t / X][i][t % X] = TK[i][t];
    280       
    281   return 5;
    282 }
    283 
    284 We generate relatively atrocious code for this loop compared to gcc.
    285 
    286 We could also strength reduce the rem and the div:
    287 http://www.lcs.mit.edu/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-600.pdf
    288 
    289 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    290 
    291 We generate ugly code for this:
    292 
    293 void func(unsigned int *ret, float dx, float dy, float dz, float dw) {
    294   unsigned code = 0;
    295   if(dx < -dw) code |= 1;
    296   if(dx > dw)  code |= 2;
    297   if(dy < -dw) code |= 4;
    298   if(dy > dw)  code |= 8;
    299   if(dz < -dw) code |= 16;
    300   if(dz > dw)  code |= 32;
    301   *ret = code;
    302 }
    303 
    304 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    305 
    306 %struct.B = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
    307 
    308 define void @bar(%struct.B* %b) {
    309 entry:
    310         %tmp = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32*              ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
    311         %tmp = load i32* %tmp          ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    312         %tmp3 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32*             ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
    313         %tmp4 = load i32* %tmp3                ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    314         %tmp8 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32*             ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
    315         %tmp9 = load i32* %tmp8                ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    316         %tmp4.mask17 = shl i32 %tmp4, i8 1          ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    317         %tmp1415 = and i32 %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648            ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    318         %tmp.masked = and i32 %tmp, 2147483648         ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    319         %tmp11 = or i32 %tmp1415, %tmp.masked          ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    320         %tmp12 = and i32 %tmp9, 2147483647             ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    321         %tmp13 = or i32 %tmp12, %tmp11         ; <uint> [#uses=1]
    322         store i32 %tmp13, i32* %tmp8
    323         ret void
    324 }
    325 
    326 We emit:
    327 
    328 _foo:
    329         lwz r2, 0(r3)
    330         slwi r4, r2, 1
    331         or r4, r4, r2
    332         rlwimi r2, r4, 0, 0, 0
    333         stw r2, 0(r3)
    334         blr
    335 
    336 We could collapse a bunch of those ORs and ANDs and generate the following
    337 equivalent code:
    338 
    339 _foo:
    340         lwz r2, 0(r3)
    341         rlwinm r4, r2, 1, 0, 0
    342         or r2, r2, r4
    343         stw r2, 0(r3)
    344         blr
    345 
    346 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    347 
    348 Consider a function like this:
    349 
    350 float foo(float X) { return X + 1234.4123f; }
    351 
    352 The FP constant ends up in the constant pool, so we need to get the LR register.
    353  This ends up producing code like this:
    354 
    355 _foo:
    356 .LBB_foo_0:     ; entry
    357         mflr r11
    358 ***     stw r11, 8(r1)
    359         bl "L00000$pb"
    360 "L00000$pb":
    361         mflr r2
    362         addis r2, r2, ha16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")
    363         lfs f0, lo16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")(r2)
    364         fadds f1, f1, f0
    365 ***     lwz r11, 8(r1)
    366         mtlr r11
    367         blr
    368 
    369 This is functional, but there is no reason to spill the LR register all the way
    370 to the stack (the two marked instrs): spilling it to a GPR is quite enough.
    371 
    372 Implementing this will require some codegen improvements.  Nate writes:
    373 
    374 "So basically what we need to support the "no stack frame save and restore" is a
    375 generalization of the LR optimization to "callee-save regs".
    376 
    377 Currently, we have LR marked as a callee-save reg.  The register allocator sees
    378 that it's callee save, and spills it directly to the stack.
    379 
    380 Ideally, something like this would happen:
    381 
    382 LR would be in a separate register class from the GPRs. The class of LR would be
    383 marked "unspillable".  When the register allocator came across an unspillable
    384 reg, it would ask "what is the best class to copy this into that I *can* spill"
    385 If it gets a class back, which it will in this case (the gprs), it grabs a free
    386 register of that class.  If it is then later necessary to spill that reg, so be
    387 it.
    388 
    389 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    390 
    391 We compile this:
    392 int test(_Bool X) {
    393   return X ? 524288 : 0;
    394 }
    395 
    396 to: 
    397 _test:
    398         cmplwi cr0, r3, 0
    399         lis r2, 8
    400         li r3, 0
    401         beq cr0, LBB1_2 ;entry
    402 LBB1_1: ;entry
    403         mr r3, r2
    404 LBB1_2: ;entry
    405         blr 
    406 
    407 instead of:
    408 _test:
    409         addic r2,r3,-1
    410         subfe r0,r2,r3
    411         slwi r3,r0,19
    412         blr
    413 
    414 This sort of thing occurs a lot due to globalopt.
    415 
    416 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    417 
    418 We compile:
    419 
    420 define i32 @bar(i32 %x) nounwind readnone ssp {
    421 entry:
    422   %0 = icmp eq i32 %x, 0                          ; <i1> [#uses=1]
    423   %neg = sext i1 %0 to i32              ; <i32> [#uses=1]
    424   ret i32 %neg
    425 }
    426 
    427 to:
    428 
    429 _bar:
    430 	cntlzw r2, r3
    431 	slwi r2, r2, 26
    432 	srawi r3, r2, 31
    433 	blr 
    434 
    435 it would be better to produce:
    436 
    437 _bar: 
    438         addic r3,r3,-1
    439         subfe r3,r3,r3
    440         blr
    441 
    442 ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    443 
    444 We generate horrible ppc code for this:
    445 
    446 #define N  2000000
    447 double   a[N],c[N];
    448 void simpleloop() {
    449    int j;
    450    for (j=0; j<N; j++)
    451      c[j] = a[j];
    452 }
    453 
    454 LBB1_1: ;bb
    455         lfdx f0, r3, r4
    456         addi r5, r5, 1                 ;; Extra IV for the exit value compare.
    457         stfdx f0, r2, r4
    458         addi r4, r4, 8
    459 
    460         xoris r6, r5, 30               ;; This is due to a large immediate.
    461         cmplwi cr0, r6, 33920
    462         bne cr0, LBB1_1
    463 
    464 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    465 
    466 This:
    467         #include <algorithm>
    468         inline std::pair<unsigned, bool> full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
    469         { return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
    470         bool no_overflow(unsigned a, unsigned b)
    471         { return !full_add(a, b).second; }
    472 
    473 Should compile to:
    474 
    475 __Z11no_overflowjj:
    476         add r4,r3,r4
    477         subfc r3,r3,r4
    478         li r3,0
    479         adde r3,r3,r3
    480         blr
    481 
    482 (or better) not:
    483 
    484 __Z11no_overflowjj:
    485         add r2, r4, r3
    486         cmplw cr7, r2, r3
    487         mfcr r2
    488         rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
    489         xori r3, r2, 1
    490         blr 
    491 
    492 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    493 
    494 We compile some FP comparisons into an mfcr with two rlwinms and an or.  For
    495 example:
    496 #include <math.h>
    497 int test(double x, double y) { return islessequal(x, y);}
    498 int test2(double x, double y) {  return islessgreater(x, y);}
    499 int test3(double x, double y) {  return !islessequal(x, y);}
    500 
    501 Compiles into (all three are similar, but the bits differ):
    502 
    503 _test:
    504 	fcmpu cr7, f1, f2
    505 	mfcr r2
    506 	rlwinm r3, r2, 29, 31, 31
    507 	rlwinm r2, r2, 31, 31, 31
    508 	or r3, r2, r3
    509 	blr 
    510 
    511 GCC compiles this into:
    512 
    513  _test:
    514 	fcmpu cr7,f1,f2
    515 	cror 30,28,30
    516 	mfcr r3
    517 	rlwinm r3,r3,31,1
    518 	blr
    519         
    520 which is more efficient and can use mfocr.  See PR642 for some more context.
    521 
    522 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    523 
    524 void foo(float *data, float d) {
    525    long i;
    526    for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++)
    527       data[i] = d;
    528 }
    529 void foo2(float *data, float d) {
    530    long i;
    531    data--;
    532    for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++) {
    533       data[1] = d;
    534       data++;
    535    }
    536 }
    537 
    538 These compile to:
    539 
    540 _foo:
    541 	li r2, 0
    542 LBB1_1:	; bb
    543 	addi r4, r2, 4
    544 	stfsx f1, r3, r2
    545 	cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
    546 	mr r2, r4
    547 	bne cr0, LBB1_1	; bb
    548 	blr 
    549 _foo2:
    550 	li r2, 0
    551 LBB2_1:	; bb
    552 	addi r4, r2, 4
    553 	stfsx f1, r3, r2
    554 	cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
    555 	mr r2, r4
    556 	bne cr0, LBB2_1	; bb
    557 	blr 
    558 
    559 The 'mr' could be eliminated to folding the add into the cmp better.
    560 
    561 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    562 Codegen for the following (low-probability) case deteriorated considerably 
    563 when the correctness fixes for unordered comparisons went in (PR 642, 58871).
    564 It should be possible to recover the code quality described in the comments.
    565 
    566 ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32  | grep or | count 3
    567 ; This should produce one 'or' or 'cror' instruction per function.
    568 
    569 ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32  | grep mfcr | count 3
    570 ; PR2964
    571 
    572 define i32 @test(double %x, double %y) nounwind  {
    573 entry:
    574 	%tmp3 = fcmp ole double %x, %y		; <i1> [#uses=1]
    575 	%tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32		; <i32> [#uses=1]
    576 	ret i32 %tmp345
    577 }
    578 
    579 define i32 @test2(double %x, double %y) nounwind  {
    580 entry:
    581 	%tmp3 = fcmp one double %x, %y		; <i1> [#uses=1]
    582 	%tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32		; <i32> [#uses=1]
    583 	ret i32 %tmp345
    584 }
    585 
    586 define i32 @test3(double %x, double %y) nounwind  {
    587 entry:
    588 	%tmp3 = fcmp ugt double %x, %y		; <i1> [#uses=1]
    589 	%tmp34 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32		; <i32> [#uses=1]
    590 	ret i32 %tmp34
    591 }
    592 
    593 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    594 for the following code:
    595 
    596 void foo (float *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, int n) {
    597       a[n] = b[n]  * 2.321;
    598 }
    599 
    600 we load b[n] to GPR, then move it VSX register and convert it float. We should 
    601 use vsx scalar integer load instructions to avoid direct moves
    602 
    603 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    604 ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | not grep fneg
    605 
    606 ; This could generate FSEL with appropriate flags (FSEL is not IEEE-safe, and 
    607 ; should not be generated except with -enable-finite-only-fp-math or the like).
    608 ; With the correctness fixes for PR642 (58871) LowerSELECT_CC would need to
    609 ; recognize a more elaborate tree than a simple SETxx.
    610 
    611 define double @test_FNEG_sel(double %A, double %B, double %C) {
    612         %D = fsub double -0.000000e+00, %A               ; <double> [#uses=1]
    613         %Cond = fcmp ugt double %D, -0.000000e+00               ; <i1> [#uses=1]
    614         %E = select i1 %Cond, double %B, double %C              ; <double> [#uses=1]
    615         ret double %E
    616 }
    617 
    618 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    619 The save/restore sequence for CR in prolog/epilog is terrible:
    620 - Each CR subreg is saved individually, rather than doing one save as a unit.
    621 - On Darwin, the save is done after the decrement of SP, which means the offset
    622 from SP of the save slot can be too big for a store instruction, which means we
    623 need an additional register (currently hacked in 96015+96020; the solution there
    624 is correct, but poor).
    625 - On SVR4 the same thing can happen, and I don't think saving before the SP
    626 decrement is safe on that target, as there is no red zone.  This is currently
    627 broken AFAIK, although it's not a target I can exercise.
    628 The following demonstrates the problem:
    629 extern void bar(char *p);
    630 void foo() {
    631   char x[100000];
    632   bar(x);
    633   __asm__("" ::: "cr2");
    634 }
    635 
    636 //===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
    637 Naming convention for instruction formats is very haphazard.
    638 We have agreed on a naming scheme as follows:
    639 
    640 <INST_form>{_<OP_type><OP_len>}+
    641 
    642 Where:
    643 INST_form is the instruction format (X-form, etc.)
    644 OP_type is the operand type - one of OPC (opcode), RD (register destination),
    645                               RS (register source),
    646                               RDp (destination register pair),
    647                               RSp (source register pair), IM (immediate),
    648                               XO (extended opcode)
    649 OP_len is the length of the operand in bits
    650 
    651 VSX register operands would be of length 6 (split across two fields),
    652 condition register fields of length 3.
    653 We would not need denote reserved fields in names of instruction formats.
    654 
    655 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
    656 
    657 Instruction fusion was introduced in ISA 2.06 and more opportunities added in
    658 ISA 2.07.  LLVM needs to add infrastructure to recognize fusion opportunities
    659 and force instruction pairs to be scheduled together.
    660 
    661