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

[Chandler Carruth]

I've not yet looked at the code, but just to give you somewhat raw numbers:

Across all of our benchmarks there was overall change outside of the noise.
There is one benchmark that may have been improved, but I'm not 100%
certain it'll be reproducible as opposed to a fluke run.

While this isn't fantastic news, on the flip side, nothing regressed, so
that's a really good sign. Also, no size regressions to speak of (0.02%?
yea, no one will care).

>From a performance stance I think this patch looks fine if you guys are
seeing significant improvements.


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>wrote:

> 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/20140121/2ddf10a8/attachment.html>