mirror of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
synced 2025-05-11 10:56:07 +00:00
c416e99d42
Clang has logic to lower certain conditional expressions directly into
llvm select instructions. However, it does not emit the correct profile
counter increment as it does this: it emits an unconditional increment
of the counter for the 'then branch', even if the value selected is from
the 'else branch' (this is PR32019).
That means, given the following snippet, we would report that "0" is
selected twice, and that "1" is never selected:
int f1(int x) {
return x ? 0 : 1;
^2 ^0
}
f1(0);
f1(1);
Fix the problem by using the instrprof_increment_step intrinsic to do
the proper increment.
llvm-svn: 296231
IRgen optimization opportunities. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// The common pattern of -- short x; // or char, etc (x == 10) -- generates an zext/sext of x which can easily be avoided. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// Bitfields accesses can be shifted to simplify masking and sign extension. For example, if the bitfield width is 8 and it is appropriately aligned then is is a lot shorter to just load the char directly. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// It may be worth avoiding creation of alloca's for formal arguments for the common situation where the argument is never written to or has its address taken. The idea would be to begin generating code by using the argument directly and if its address is taken or it is stored to then generate the alloca and patch up the existing code. In theory, the same optimization could be a win for block local variables as long as the declaration dominates all statements in the block. NOTE: The main case we care about this for is for -O0 -g compile time performance, and in that scenario we will need to emit the alloca anyway currently to emit proper debug info. So this is blocked by being able to emit debug information which refers to an LLVM temporary, not an alloca. //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===// We should try and avoid generating basic blocks which only contain jumps. At -O0, this penalizes us all the way from IRgen (malloc & instruction overhead), all the way down through code generation and assembly time. On 176.gcc:expr.ll, it looks like over 12% of basic blocks are just direct branches! //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//