[LLVMdev] A question about everyone's favorite constructs: NSW and NUW

[Quentin Colombet]

Hi Chandler,

Here is an updated patch, that I plan to submit for review.
In particular, it has the rollback mechanism when the addressing mode is not profitable.

Could you run some benchmarks with it?

Thanks,
-Quentin

On Jan 7, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
> I agree with Andy and Jim.
> Actually, I have prototyped a compiler that does exactly this kind of promotion in CodeGenPrepare.
> Basically, I have updated the addressing mode matcher so that it moves a sext that is in a way of an addressing mode (i.e., it promotes the operand of the sext, let us call this operand def, if it is legal to do so, and sign extends the operands of def). When the matcher does not manage to absorb more computation after promoting def, it can revert the promotion.
> 
> I am currently benchmarking this solution and I’ll update this thread with the results.
> 
> Very cool. Could you share the patch? I can also run some benchmarks.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140120/6fd40564/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sext_with_restore_x86.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 48380 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140120/6fd40564/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140120/6fd40564/attachment-0001.html>