I/O port instructions on x86.  The specific code sequence is tailored to
the parameters and return value of the intrinsic call.
Added the ability for implicit defintions to be printed in the Instruction
Printer.
Added the ability for RawFrm instruction to print implict uses and
defintions with correct comma output.  This required adjustment to some
methods so that a leading comma would or would not be printed.

llvm-svn: 12782

llvm-svn: 12766

llvm-svn: 12765

llvm-svn: 12764

llvm-svn: 12760

llvm-svn: 12759

llvm-svn: 12758

function prologues, and fix an off-by-one in visitCallInst that was
putting call args into the wrong registers.

llvm-svn: 12757

trying to get incoming args off the stack, instead of the %i0...%i6 regs,
which is wrong.

llvm-svn: 12756

have no good way of handling this until the code generator is improved.
We should probably just emit V9 instructions in the meantime.

llvm-svn: 12745

llvm-svn: 12744

llvm-svn: 12743

llvm-svn: 12742

llvm-svn: 12741

llvm-svn: 12740

llvm-svn: 12739

llvm-svn: 12737

llvm-svn: 12736

llvm-svn: 12735

llvm-svn: 12734

llvm-svn: 12733

Preliminary support for division. It's gross because you have to initialize
the "Y" register, which is the top 32 bits of the thing you're dividing.

llvm-svn: 12732

llvm-svn: 12731

llvm-svn: 12730

Fill in addPassesToJITCompile method.

llvm-svn: 12729

llvm-svn: 12728

ld/st instructions - doesn't seem to work yet, but I think it's
just a typo or something somewhere.

llvm-svn: 12727

llvm-svn: 12726

Don't put NOPs in delay slots at all. We'll have a fix-up pass later.

llvm-svn: 12725

file based off InstSelectSimple.cpp, slowly being replaced by generated code from the really simple X86 instruction selector tablegen backend

llvm-svn: 12715

Tablgen files for really simple instruction selector

llvm-svn: 12714

llvm-svn: 12711

llvm-svn: 12710

Enable folding of long seteq/setne comparisons into branches and select instructions
Implement unfolded long relational comparisons against a constants a bit more efficiently

Folding comparisons changes code that looks like this:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %ECX, %EAX
        or %ECX, %EDX
        sete %CL
        test %CL, %CL
        je .LBB2 # PC rel: F

into code that looks like this:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %ECX, %EAX
        or %ECX, %EDX
        jne .LBB2 # PC rel: F

This speeds up 186.crafty by 6% with llc-ls.

llvm-svn: 12702

comparing a long against zero got us this:

        sub %ESP, 8
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4], %ESI
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP], %EDI
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 12]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 16]
        mov %ECX, 0
        mov %ESI, 0
        mov %EDI, %EAX
        xor %EDI, %ECX
        mov %ECX, %EDX
        xor %ECX, %ESI
        or %EDI, %ECX
        sete %CL
        test %CL, %CL
        je .LBB2 # PC rel: F

Now it gets us this:

        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %ECX, %EAX
        or %ECX, %EDX
        sete %CL
        test %CL, %CL
        je .LBB2 # PC rel: F

llvm-svn: 12696

example, multiplying X*(1 + (1LL << 32)) now produces:

test:
        mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %EAX, %ECX
        add %EDX, %ECX
        ret

[[[Note to Alkis: why isn't linear scan generating this code??  This might be a
 problem with your intervals being too conservative:

test:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EDX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        add %EDX, %EAX
        ret

end note]]]

Whereas GCC produces this:

T:
        sub     %esp, 12
        mov     %edx, DWORD PTR [%esp+16]
        mov     DWORD PTR [%esp+8], %edi
        mov     %ecx, DWORD PTR [%esp+20]
        xor     %edi, %edi
        mov     DWORD PTR [%esp], %ebx
        mov     %ebx, %edi
        mov     %eax, %edx
        mov     DWORD PTR [%esp+4], %esi
        add     %ebx, %edx
        mov     %edi, DWORD PTR [%esp+8]
        lea     %edx, [%ecx+%ebx]
        mov     %esi, DWORD PTR [%esp+4]
        mov     %ebx, DWORD PTR [%esp]
        add     %esp, 12
        ret

I'm not sure example what GCC is smoking here, but it looks like it has just
confused itself with a bunch of stack slots or something.  The intel compiler
is better, but still not good:

T:
        movl      4(%esp), %edx                                 #2.11
        movl      8(%esp), %eax                                 #2.11
        lea       (%eax,%edx), %ecx                             #3.12
        movl      $1, %eax                                      #3.12
        mull      %edx                                          #3.12
        addl      %ecx, %edx                                    #3.12
        ret                                                     #3.12

llvm-svn: 12693

long %test(long %X) {
        %Y = mul long %X, 123
        ret long %Y
}

we used to generate:

test:
        sub %ESP, 12
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8], %ESI
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4], %EDI
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP], %EBX
        mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 16]
        mov %ESI, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 20]
        mov %EDI, 123
        mov %EBX, 0
        mov %EAX, %ECX
        mul %EDI
        imul %ESI, %EDI
        add %ESI, %EDX
        imul %ECX, %EBX
        add %ESI, %ECX
        mov %EDX, %ESI
        mov %EBX, DWORD PTR [%ESP]
        mov %EDI, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %ESI, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        add %ESP, 12
        ret

Now we emit:
test:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %EDX, 123
        mul %EDX
        imul %ECX, %ECX, 123
        add %ECX, %EDX
        mov %EDX, %ECX
        ret

Which, incidently, is substantially nicer than what GCC manages:
T:
        sub     %esp, 8
        mov     %eax, 123
        mov     DWORD PTR [%esp], %ebx
        mov     %ebx, DWORD PTR [%esp+16]
        mov     DWORD PTR [%esp+4], %esi
        mov     %esi, DWORD PTR [%esp+12]
        imul    %ecx, %ebx, 123
        mov     %ebx, DWORD PTR [%esp]
        mul     %esi
        mov     %esi, DWORD PTR [%esp+4]
        add     %esp, 8
        lea     %edx, [%ecx+%edx]
        ret

llvm-svn: 12692

On this testcase:

long %test(long %X) {
        %Y = shr long %X, ubyte 32
        ret long %Y
}

instead of:
t:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        sar %EAX, 0
        mov %EDX, 0
        ret


we now emit:
test:
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4]
        mov %EAX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 8]
        mov %EDX, 0
        ret

llvm-svn: 12688

llvm-svn: 12687

For example, on this instruction:

        call void %test(long 1234)

Instead of this:
        mov %EAX, 1234
        mov %ECX, 0
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP], %EAX
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4], %ECX
        call test

We now emit this:
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP], 1234
        mov DWORD PTR [%ESP + 4], 0
        call test

llvm-svn: 12686