This was reverted because of a reported problem. It turned out this patch didn't introduce said problem, it just exposed it more widely. 15a4233 fixes the root issue, so this simple a) rebases over that, and b) adds a much more extensive comment explaining why that weakened assert is correct.
Original commit message follows:
Follow up to D99912, specifically the revert, fix, and reapply thereof.
This generalizes the invertible recurrence logic in two ways:
* By allowing mismatching operand numbers of the phi, we can recurse through a pair of phi recurrences whose operand orders have not been canonicalized.
* By allowing recurrences through operand 1, we can invert these odd (but legal) recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100884
Follow up to D99912, specifically the revert, fix, and reapply thereof.
This generalizes the invertible recurrence logic in two ways:
* By allowing mismatching operand numbers of the phi, we can recurse through a pair of phi recurrences whose operand orders have not been canonicalized.
* By allowing recurrences through operand 1, we can invert these odd (but legal) recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100884
I'd reverted this in commit 3b6acb1797 due to buildbot failures. This patch contains the fix for said issue. I'd forgotten to handle the case where two phis in the same block have different operand order. We canonicalize away from this, but it's still valid IR. The tests included in this change (as opposed to simply having test output changed), crashed without the fix.
Original commit message follows...
This extends the phi handling in isKnownNonEqual with a special case based on invertible recurrences. If we can prove the recurrence is invertible (which many common ones are), we can recurse through the start operands of the recurrence skipping the phi cycle.
(Side note: Instcombine currently does not push back through these cases. I will implement that in a follow up change w/separate review.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99912
This extends the phi handling in isKnownNonEqual with a special case based on invertible recurrences. If we can prove the recurrence is invertible (which many common ones are), we can recurse through the start operands of the recurrence skipping the phi cycle.
(Side note: Instcombine currently does not push back through these cases. I will implement that in a follow up change w/separate review.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99912
Handle (x << s) != (y << s) where x != y and the shifts are
non-wrapping. Once again, this establishes parity with the
corresponing mul fold that already exists. The shift case is
more powerful because we don't need to guard against multiplies
by zero.
This handles the pattern X != X << C for non-zero X and C and a
non-overflowing shift. This establishes parity with the corresponing
fold for multiplies.
loop:
%cmp.0 = phi i32 [ 3, %entry ], [ %inc, %loop ]
%pos.0 = phi i32 [ 1, %entry ], [ %cmp.0, %loop ]
...
%inc = add i32 %cmp.0, 1
br label %loop
On above example, %pos.0 uses previous iteration's %cmp.0 with backedge
according to PHI's instruction's defintion. If the %inc is not same among
iterations, we can say the two PHIs are not same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98422
X != X * C is true if:
* C is not 0 or 1
* X is not 0
* mul is nsw or nuw
Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uwF29z
This is motivated by one of the cases in D98422.
Confusingly, BinaryOperator is not an Operator,
OverflowingBinaryOperator is... We were implicitly assuming that
the multiply is an Instruction here.
This fixes the assertion failure reported in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92726#2472827.
Build on the work started in 8f07629, and add the multiply case. In the process, more clearly describe the requirement for the operation we're looking through.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92726
The basic idea is that by looking through operand instructions which don't change the equality result that we can push the existing known bits comparison down past instructions which would obscure them.
We have analogous handling in InstSimplify for most - though weirdly not all - of these cases starting from an icmp root. It's a bit unfortunate to duplicate logic, but since my actual goal is to extend BasicAA, the icmp logic doesn't help. (And just makes it hard to test here.) The BasicAA change will be posted separately for review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92698
isKnownNonEqual(A, B) returns true if it can be determined that A != B.
At the moment it only knows two facts, that a non-wrapping add of nonzero to a value cannot be that value:
A + B != A [where B != 0, addition is nsw or nuw]
and that contradictory known bits imply two values are not equal.
This patch also hooks this up to InstSimplify; InstSimplify had a peephole for the first fact but not the second so this teaches InstSimplify a new trick too (alas no measured performance impact!)
llvm-svn: 251012
Philip Reames