|
@@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ The Basics
|
|
perform badly with confronted with such structures. The only exception to
|
|
perform badly with confronted with such structures. The only exception to
|
|
this guidance is that a unified return block with high in-degree is fine.
|
|
this guidance is that a unified return block with high in-degree is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Use of allocas
|
|
|
|
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+An alloca instruction can be used to represent a function scoped stack slot,
|
|
|
|
+but can also represent dynamic frame expansion. When representing function
|
|
|
|
+scoped variables or locations, placing alloca instructions at the beginning of
|
|
|
|
+the entry block should be preferred. In particular, place them before any
|
|
|
|
+call instructions. Call instructions might get inlined and replaced with
|
|
|
|
+multiple basic blocks. The end result is that a following alloca instruction
|
|
|
|
+would no longer be in the entry basic block afterward.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+The SROA (Scalar Replacement Of Aggregates) and Mem2Reg passes only attempt
|
|
|
|
+to eliminate alloca instructions that are in the entry basic block. Given
|
|
|
|
+SSA is the canonical form expected by much of the optimizer; if allocas can
|
|
|
|
+not be eliminated by Mem2Reg or SROA, the optimizer is likely to be less
|
|
|
|
+effective than it could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avoid loads and stores of large aggregate type
|
|
Avoid loads and stores of large aggregate type
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
@@ -79,6 +95,31 @@ operations for safety. If your source language provides information about
|
|
the range of the index, you may wish to manually extend indices to machine
|
|
the range of the index, you may wish to manually extend indices to machine
|
|
register width using a zext instruction.
|
|
register width using a zext instruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+When to specify alignment
|
|
|
|
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
+LLVM will always generate correct code if you don’t specify alignment, but may
|
|
|
|
+generate inefficient code. For example, if you are targeting MIPS (or older
|
|
|
|
+ARM ISAs) then the hardware does not handle unaligned loads and stores, and
|
|
|
|
+so you will enter a trap-and-emulate path if you do a load or store with
|
|
|
|
+lower-than-natural alignment. To avoid this, LLVM will emit a slower
|
|
|
|
+sequence of loads, shifts and masks (or load-right + load-left on MIPS) for
|
|
|
|
+all cases where the load / store does not have a sufficiently high alignment
|
|
|
|
+in the IR.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+The alignment is used to guarantee the alignment on allocas and globals,
|
|
|
|
+though in most cases this is unnecessary (most targets have a sufficiently
|
|
|
|
+high default alignment that they’ll be fine). It is also used to provide a
|
|
|
|
+contract to the back end saying ‘either this load/store has this alignment, or
|
|
|
|
+it is undefined behavior’. This means that the back end is free to emit
|
|
|
|
+instructions that rely on that alignment (and mid-level optimizers are free to
|
|
|
|
+perform transforms that require that alignment). For x86, it doesn’t make
|
|
|
|
+much difference, as almost all instructions are alignment-independent. For
|
|
|
|
+MIPS, it can make a big difference.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Note that if your loads and stores are atomic, the backend will be unable to
|
|
|
|
+lower an under aligned access into a sequence of natively aligned accesses.
|
|
|
|
+As a result, alignment is mandatory for atomic loads and stores.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
Other Things to Consider
|
|
Other Things to Consider
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|