[PATCH] D64090: [Codegen][X86][AArch64][ARM][PowerPC] Inc-of-add vs sub-of-not (PR42457)

Eli Friedman via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jul 2 14:55:46 PDT 2019


efriedma added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/ARM/inc-of-add.ll:528
+; THUMB6-NEXT:    sbcs r3, r4
+; THUMB6-NEXT:    pop {r4, r5, r7, pc}
 ;
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> efriedma wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > efriedma wrote:
> > > > Before we treat vectors differently from scalars, should we check the vector is actually legal?
> > > > 
> > > > In this case, we actually save an instruction (Thumb1 doesn't support adc with immediate), but that seems unintended.
> > > I have tried `VT.isScalarInteger() || !isTypeLegal(VT);` on ARM and PPC, and the diff says it's worse in total.
> > > Could you be a bit more specific as to what you envision?
> > > 
> > On targets where a vector is going to be scalarized, we should give the same result for the vector type and the scalarized type.  For example, we should give `<2 x i64>` and `i64`  the same treatment on ARM without NEON.
> > 
> > If that's making code worse for some vector testcases, maybe we aren't making the correct choice for some scalar types.  For example, it looks like we should prefer not+sub for i64 on Thumb1.
> Ok, i'm feeling dumber than usual at the moment.
> How should that all look? Could you **please** be a bit more specific?
> ```
> bool ARMTargetLowering::preferIncOfAddToSubOfNot(EVT VT,
>                                                  CombineLevel Level) const {
>   return VT.isScalarInteger() || Level >= AfterLegalizeVectorOps;
> }
> ```
> ^ does nothing.
Maybe something along the lines of:

```
if (!Subtarget->hasNEON()) {
  if (Thumb1Only())
    return VT.getScalarSizeInBits() <= 32;
  return true;
}
return VT.isScalarInteger();
```

That might not do the right thing for some edge cases with really weird types, but I think it should be roughly correct.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64090/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64090





More information about the llvm-commits mailing list