llvm-svn: 12919

  if (C)
    V1 |= V2;

into:
  Vx = V1 | V2;
  V1 = select C, V1, Vx

when the expression can be evaluated unconditionally and is *cheap* to
execute.  This limited form of if conversion is quite handy in lots of cases.
For example, it turns this testcase into straight-line code:

int in0 ; int in1 ; int in2 ; int in3 ;
int in4 ; int in5 ; int in6 ; int in7 ;
int in8 ; int in9 ; int in10; int in11;
int in12; int in13; int in14; int in15;
long output;

void mux(void) {
  output =
      (in0   ?  0x00000001 : 0) | (in1   ?  0x00000002 : 0) |
      (in2   ?  0x00000004 : 0) | (in3   ?  0x00000008 : 0) |
      (in4   ?  0x00000010 : 0) | (in5   ?  0x00000020 : 0) |
      (in6   ?  0x00000040 : 0) | (in7   ?  0x00000080 : 0) |
      (in8   ?  0x00000100 : 0) | (in9   ?  0x00000200 : 0) |
      (in10  ?  0x00000400 : 0) | (in11  ?  0x00000800 : 0) |
      (in12  ?  0x00001000 : 0) | (in13  ?  0x00002000 : 0) |
      (in14  ?  0x00004000 : 0) | (in15  ?  0x00008000 : 0) ;
}

llvm-svn: 12798

llvm-svn: 12779

llvm-svn: 12618

This actually causes us to turn code like:

  return C ? A : B;

into a select instruction.

llvm-svn: 12617

llvm-svn: 12597

this and the other patches 253.perlbmk links again.

llvm-svn: 12565

pass can eliminate many nasty cases of them, start generating them in the optimizers

llvm-svn: 12545

With this fix we now successfully extract all 149 loops from 256.bzip2 without
crashing or miscompiling the program!

llvm-svn: 12493

llvm-svn: 12489

llvm-svn: 12487

llvm-svn: 12486

1. Names were not put on the new arguments created (ok, this just helps sanity :)
2. Fix outgoing pointer values
3. Do not insert stores for values that had not been computed
4. Fix some wierd problems with the outset calculation

This fixes CodeExtractor/2004-03-14-DominanceProblem.ll, making the extractor
work on at least one simple case!

llvm-svn: 12484

exposed the fact that the header was not self-contained.  There is a reason
we do things :)

llvm-svn: 12481

llvm-svn: 12465

llvm-svn: 12456

llvm-svn: 12441

llvm-svn: 12406

Simplify the input/output finder.  All elements of a basic block are
instructions.  Any used arguments are also inputs.  An instruction can only
be used by another instruction.

llvm-svn: 12405

* Don't insert a branch to the switch instruction after the call, just
  make it a single block.
* Insert the new alloca instructions in the entry block of the original
  function instead of having them execute dynamically
* Don't make the default edge of the switch instruction go back to the switch.
  The loop extractor shouldn't create new loops!
* Give meaningful names to the alloca slots and the reload instructions
* Some minor code simplifications

llvm-svn: 12402

This also implements a two minor improvements:
  * Don't insert live-out stores IN the region, insert them on the code path
    that exits the region
  * If the region is exited to the same block from multiple paths, share the
    switch statement entry, live-out store code, and the basic block.

llvm-svn: 12401

a member of the class.  While we're at it, turn the collection into a set
instead of a vector to improve efficiency and make queries simpler.

llvm-svn: 12400

llvm-svn: 12382

curly braceage

llvm-svn: 12378

llvm-svn: 12372

llvm-svn: 12368

llvm-svn: 12319

llvm-svn: 12070

llvm-svn: 12068

* Add comments to ExtractLoop()

llvm-svn: 12053

... which tickled the lowerinvoke pass because it used the BCE routines.

llvm-svn: 12012

and br->br code and generalizing it.  This allows us to compile code like this:

int test(Instruction *I) {
  if (isa<CastInst>(I))
    return foo(7);
  else if (isa<BranchInst>(I))
    return foo(123);
  else if (isa<UnwindInst>(I))
    return foo(1241);
  else if (isa<SetCondInst>(I))
    return foo(1);
  else if (isa<VAArgInst>(I))
    return foo(42);
  return foo(-1);
}

into:

int %_Z4testPN4llvm11InstructionE("struct.llvm::Instruction"* %I) {
entry:
        %tmp.1.i.i.i.i.i.i.i = getelementptr "struct.llvm::Instruction"* %I, long 0, ubyte 4            ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
        %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i = load uint* %tmp.1.i.i.i.i.i.i.i          ; <uint> [#uses=2]
        %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i = seteq uint %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i, 27                ; <bool> [#uses=0]
        switch uint %tmp.2.i.i.i.i.i.i.i, label %endif.0 [
                 uint 27, label %then.0
                 uint 2, label %then.1
                 uint 5, label %then.2
                 uint 14, label %then.3
                 uint 15, label %then.3
                 uint 16, label %then.3
                 uint 17, label %then.3
                 uint 18, label %then.3
                 uint 19, label %then.3
                 uint 32, label %then.4
        ]
...

As well as handling the cases in 176.gcc and many other programs more effectively.

llvm-svn: 11964

llvm-svn: 11939

function, as long as the loop isn't the only one in that function. This should
help debugging passes easier with BugPoint.

llvm-svn: 11936

a new function, taking care of inputs and outputs.

llvm-svn: 11935

   if (X == 0 || X == 2)

...where the comparisons and branches are in different blocks... into a switch
instruction.  This comes up a lot in various programs, and works well with
the switch/switch merging code I checked earlier.  For example, this testcase:

int switchtest(int C) {
  return C == 0 ? f(123) :
         C == 1 ? f(3123) :
         C == 4 ? f(312) :
         C == 5 ? f(1234): f(444);
}

is converted into this:
        switch int %C, label %cond_false.3 [
                 int 0, label %cond_true.0
                 int 1, label %cond_true.1
                 int 4, label %cond_true.2
                 int 5, label %cond_true.3
        ]

instead of a whole bunch of conditional branches.

Admittedly the code is ugly, and incomplete.  To be complete, we need to add
br -> switch merging and switch -> br merging.  For example, this testcase:

struct foo { int Q, R, Z; };
#define A (X->Q+X->R * 123)
int test(struct foo *X) {
  return A  == 123 ? X1() :
        A == 12321 ? X2():
        (A == 111 || A == 222) ? X3() :
        A == 875 ? X4() : X5();
}

Gets compiled to this:
        switch int %tmp.7, label %cond_false.2 [
                 int 123, label %cond_true.0
                 int 12321, label %cond_true.1
                 int 111, label %cond_true.2
                 int 222, label %cond_true.2
        ]
...
cond_false.2:           ; preds = %entry
        %tmp.52 = seteq int %tmp.7, 875         ; <bool> [#uses=1]
        br bool %tmp.52, label %cond_true.3, label %cond_false.3

where the branch could be folded into the switch.

This kind of thing occurs *ALL OF THE TIME*, especially in programs like
176.gcc, which is a horrible mess of code.  It contains stuff like *shudder*:

#define SWITCH_TAKES_ARG(CHAR) \
  (   (CHAR) == 'D' \
   || (CHAR) == 'U' \
   || (CHAR) == 'o' \
   || (CHAR) == 'e' \
   || (CHAR) == 'u' \
   || (CHAR) == 'I' \
   || (CHAR) == 'm' \
   || (CHAR) == 'L' \
   || (CHAR) == 'A' \
   || (CHAR) == 'h' \
   || (CHAR) == 'z')

and

#define CONST_OK_FOR_LETTER_P(VALUE, C)                 \
  ((C) == 'I' ? SMALL_INTVAL (VALUE)                    \
   : (C) == 'J' ? SMALL_INTVAL (-(VALUE))               \
   : (C) == 'K' ? (unsigned)(VALUE) < 32                \
   : (C) == 'L' ? ((VALUE) & 0xffff) == 0               \
   : (C) == 'M' ? integer_ok_for_set (VALUE)            \
   : (C) == 'N' ? (VALUE) < 0                           \
   : (C) == 'O' ? (VALUE) == 0                          \
   : (C) == 'P' ? (VALUE) >= 0                          \
   : 0)

and

#define LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(X,OLDX,MODE,WIN)                     \
{                                                               \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (XEXP (X, 1))) \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 0),                   \
                   copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, XEXP (X, 1)));     \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P (XEXP (X, 0))) \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 1),                   \
                   copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, XEXP (X, 0)));     \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == MULT)   \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 1),                   \
                   force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), 0));             \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 1)) == MULT)   \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, SImode, XEXP (X, 0),                   \
                   force_operand (XEXP (X, 1), 0));             \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == PLUS)   \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, Pmode, force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), NULL_RTX),\
                   XEXP (X, 1));                                \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 1)) == PLUS)   \
    (X) = gen_rtx (PLUS, Pmode, XEXP (X, 0),                    \
                   force_operand (XEXP (X, 1), NULL_RTX));      \
  if (GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF || GET_CODE (X) == CONST       \
           || GET_CODE (X) == LABEL_REF)                        \
    (X) = legitimize_address (flag_pic, X, 0, 0);               \
  if (memory_address_p (MODE, X))                               \
    goto WIN; }

and others.  These macros get used multiple times of course.  These are such
lovely candidates for macros, aren't they?  :)

This code also nicely handles LLVM constructs that look like this:

  if (isa<CastInst>(I))
   ...
  else if (isa<BranchInst>(I))
   ...
  else if (isa<SetCondInst>(I))
   ...
  else if (isa<UnwindInst>(I))
   ...
  else if (isa<VAArgInst>(I))
   ...

where the isa can obviously be a dyn_cast as well.  Switch instructions are a
good thing.

llvm-svn: 11870

llvm-svn: 11799

This case occurs many times in various benchmarks, especially when combined
with the previous patch.  This allows it to get stuff like:
  if (X == 4 || X == 3)
    if (X == 5 || X == 8)

and

switch (X) {
case 4: case 5: case 6:
  if (X == 4 || X == 5)

llvm-svn: 11797

llvm-svn: 11793

This turns code like this:
  if (X == 4 | X == 7)
and
  if (X != 4 & X != 7)
into switch instructions.

llvm-svn: 11792