[PATCH][FastISel] Let the target decide first if it wants to materialize a constant.

[Juergen Ributzka]

Ok, let me revert all changes and see if that fixes it.

-Juergen

On Aug 14, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> I don't think r215597 is the culprit.  All tests previously failing are
> continuing to fail.
> 
>> I know. I have the same issue here with the list too … takes forever
>> today.
>> 
>> -Juergen
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I see the revert (what's up with the slow list today?).  I'll have an
>>> answer in a bit.  I need to step out for an hour, so we should know by
>>> 1p
>>> PT.
>>> 
>>> Chad
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Dang, that might have been the other commit I made after this to extend
>>>> the addressing modes for AArch64.
>>>> Let me revert that commit first. How long will it take to see the
>>>> results
>>>> of the revert?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Juergen
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Juergen,
>>>>> Also, I'm seeing a large number of spec2K and spec2K6 failures after
>>>>> this
>>>>> flurry of commits.  I'm not exactly sure which one to blame, but we
>>>>> should
>>>>> consider reverting to fix the nightlies as well as allow for proper
>>>>> review.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chad
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, this was in my list of things to look at but it seems like you
>>>>>> went ahead and committed it without actually waiting for feedback?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -eric
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> ping :D
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi @ll,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to change the order in which FastISel tries to materialize a
>>>>>>>> constant.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Originally it would try to use a simple target-independent
>>>>>>>> approach,
>>>>>>>> which can lead to the generation of inefficient code.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On X86 this would result in the use of movabsq to materialize any
>>>>>>>> 64bit
>>>>>>>> integer constant - even for simple and small values such as 0 and
>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>> Also
>>>>>>>> some very funny floating-point materialization could be observed
>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On AArch64 it would materialize the constant 0 in a register even
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> architecture has an actual "zero" register.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On ARM it would generate unnecessary mov instructions or not use
>>>>>>>> mvn,
>>>>>>>> etc
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to simply change the order and always asks the target first
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> it likes to materialize the constant. The patches a pretty simple
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> straight forward, but since it changes the way how FastISel works
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> respect to constants I wanted everyone affected by it to have at
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> a quick look first.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <0001-FastISel-AArch64-Cleanup-constant-materialization-co.patch><0002-FastISel-ARM-Fix-a-bug-in-the-integer-materializatio.patch><0003-FastISel-ARM-Use-MOVT-MOVW-if-the-subtarget-requests.patch><0004-FastISel-X86-Refactor-constant-materialization.-NFCI.patch><0005-FastISel-Let-the-target-decide-first-if-it-wants-to-.patch><0006-FastISel-AArch64-Make-use-of-the-zero-register-when-.patch><0007-FastISel-X86-Emit-more-efficient-instructions-for-in.patch><0008-FastISel-X86-Use-XOR-to-materialize-the-0-value.patch>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>>>>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>