This patch simplifies the examples from D31509 and D31927 (PR30630) and catches
the basic identity shuffle tests that Zvi recently added.
I'm not sure if we have something like this in DAGCombiner, but we should?
It's worth noting that "MaxRecurse / RecursionLimit" is only 3 on entry at the moment.
We might want to bump that up if there are longer shuffle chains like this in the wild.
For now, we're ignoring shuffles that have undef mask elements because it's not
clear how those should be handled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31960
llvm-svn: 300714
InstSimplify returned the wrong type when simplifying a vector GEP
and we ended up crashing when trying to replace all uses with the
new value. Fixes PR32697.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32180
llvm-svn: 300693
Summary:
Add a hook for simplification of shufflevector's with the following rules:
- Constant folding - NFC, as it was already being done by the default handler.
- If only one of the operands is constant, constant fold the shuffle if the
mask does not select elements from the variable operand - to show the hook is firing and affecting the test-cases.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, sanjoy, nlopes, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31525
llvm-svn: 299393
The change to InstCombine in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
...exposes this missing fold in InstSimplify, so adding this
first to avoid a regression.
llvm-svn: 295573
A program may contain llvm.assume info that disagrees with other analysis.
This may be caused by UB in the program, so we must not crash because of that.
As noted in the code comments:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31809
...we can do better, but this at least avoids the assert/crash in the bug report.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29395
llvm-svn: 293773
Summary:
Previously we assumed that the result of sqrt(x) always had 0 as its
sign bit. But sqrt(-0) == -0.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28928
llvm-svn: 293115
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
As Eli noted in the post-commit thread for r288833, the use of
swapOperands() may not be allowed in InstSimplify, so I'm
removing those calls here pending further review.
The swap mutates the icmp, and there doesn't appear to be precedent
for instruction mutation in InstSimplify.
I didn't actually have any tests for those cases, so I'm adding
a few here.
llvm-svn: 288855
All of these (and a few more) are already handled by InstCombine,
but we shouldn't have to wait until then to simplify these because
they're cheap to deal with here in InstSimplify.
This is the 'and' sibling of the earlier 'or' patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL288833
llvm-svn: 288841
All of these (and a few more) are already handled by InstCombine,
but we shouldn't have to wait until then to simplify these because
they're cheap to deal with here in InstSimplify.
llvm-svn: 288833
Summary:
Extends InstSimplify to handle both `x >=u x >> y` and `x >=u x udiv y`.
This is a folloup of rL258422 and
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/30917 where llvm failed to
optimize away the bounds checking in a binary search.
Patch by Arthur Silva!
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25941
llvm-svn: 285228
0 - X --> X, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value
0 - X --> 0, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value and the sub is NSW
I noticed this pattern might be created in the backend after the change from D25485,
so we'll want to add a similar fold for the DAG.
The use of computeKnownBits in InstSimplify may be something to investigate if the
compile time of InstSimplify is noticeable. We could replace computeKnownBits with
specific pattern matchers or limit the recursion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25785
llvm-svn: 284649
Sanjay Patel