This patch exploits rldimi instruction for patterns like or %a, 0b000011110000, which saves number of instructions in some cases, compared with li-ori-sldi-or.
Details
- Reviewers
jsji nemanjai steven.zhang shchenz - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rGc12722cde832: [PowerPC] Exploit RLDIMI for OR with large immediates
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
This is a good idea, thanks for working on it. Just needs a slight tweak.
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
4552 | s/sequent/consecutive | |
4556 | There are probably some more conditions under which you don't want to do this. What comes to mind is checking for a single use of the input to the OR (since rldimi is destructive) and that the output is not used in a SETCC to compare against zero. Here's a test case: long test(long a, long b) { return ((a | 4294967296L) > 0) ? a : b; } Prior to this patch, the codegen is: li 5, 1 sldi 5, 5, 32 or. 5, 3, 5 isel 3, 3, 4, 1 With this patch, the codegen is: li 5, -1 mr 6, 3 rldimi. 6, 5, 32, 31 isel 3, 3, 4, 1 At first glance, the new codegen looks no worse. However it is worse for two reasons:
|
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
4556 | Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure about: after checking the input has only one use, is it still profitable to use or. instead of rldimi. for comparison against zero? Like: long test(long a, long b, long c) { return ((a | 4294967296L) > 0) ? c : b; } # Original result li 6, 1 sldi 6, 6, 32 or. 3, 3, 6 isel 3, 5, 4, 1 blr # After patch li 6, -1 rldimi. 3, 6, 32, 31 isel 3, 5, 4, 1 blr |
LGTM. Please add a test case where the input value has multiple uses for a test of where we don't do this even when the constant is conducive to doing it. I don't think such an addition requires another review.
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
4556 | Well, we could check something like N->use_begin()->getOpcode() == ISD::SETCC, but I don't think it is necessary. The cracked rldimi. is no worse than the increased path length of the or. sequence. |
s/sequent/consecutive
(in other places as well)