SHLD/SHRD are VectorPath (microcode) instructions known to have poor latency on certain architectures. While generating SHLD/SHRD instructions is acceptable when optimizing for size, optimizing for speed on these platforms should be implemented using alternative sequences of instructions composed of add, adc, shr, shl, or and lea which are directPath instructions. These alternative instructions not only have a lower latency but they also increase the decode bandwidth by allowing simultaneous decoding of a third directPath instruction.

AMD's processors family K7, K8, K10, K12, K15 and K16 are known to have SHLD/SHRD instructions with very poor latency. Optimization guides for these processors recommend using an alternative sequence of instructions. For these AMD's processors, I disabled folding (or (x << c) | (y >> (64 - c))) when we are not optimizing for size.

It might be beneficial to disable this folding for some of the Intel's processors. However, since I couldn't find specific recommendations regarding using SHLD/SHRD instructions on Intel's processors, I haven't disabled this peephole for Intel.



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@195383 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.cpp b/lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.cpp
index 05db662b2c..fa04c38a85 100644
--- a/lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.cpp
+++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.cpp
@@ -263,6 +263,15 @@ void X86Subtarget::AutoDetectSubtargetFeatures() {
       ToggleFeature(X86::FeatureSlowBTMem);
     }
 
+    // Determine if SHLD/SHRD instructions have higher latency then the
+    // equivalent series of shifts/or instructions. 
+    // FIXME: Add Intel's processors that have SHLD instructions with very
+    // poor latency. 
+    if (IsAMD) {
+      IsSHLDSlow = true;
+      ToggleFeature(X86::FeatureSlowSHLD);
+    }
+
     // If it's an Intel chip since Nehalem and not an Atom chip, unaligned
     // memory access is fast. We hard code model numbers here because they
     // aren't strictly increasing for Intel chips it seems.
@@ -514,6 +523,7 @@ void X86Subtarget::initializeEnvironment() {
   HasPRFCHW = false;
   HasRDSEED = false;
   IsBTMemSlow = false;
+  IsSHLDSlow = false;
   IsUAMemFast = false;
   HasVectorUAMem = false;
   HasCmpxchg16b = false;