to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This is matching the equivalent of the DAG expansion,
so it should never end up with worse perf than the
original code even if the target doesn't have a rotate
instruction.
llvm-svn: 350672
There are potential improvements to the structure of this API
raised by D54994, but remove some cosmetic blemishes before
making any functional changes.
llvm-svn: 348149
The original patch was committed here:
rL344609
...and reverted:
rL344612
...because it did not properly check/test data types before calling
ComputeNumSignBits().
The tests that caused bot failures for the previous commit are
over-reaching front-end tests that run the entire -O optimizer
pipeline:
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector.c
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector2.c
I've added a negative test here to ensure coverage for that case.
The new early exit check also tests the type of the 'B' parameter,
so we don't waste time on matching if either value is unsuitable.
Original commit message:
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 345149
I noticed a missing check and added it at rL344610, but there actually
are codegen tests that will fail without that, so I'll edit those and
submit a fixed patch with more tests.
llvm-svn: 344612
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 344609
This allows the xor to be removed completely.
This might help with recomitting r341674, but seems good regardless.
Coincidentally fixes PR38915.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51964
llvm-svn: 342163
If the ~X wasn't able to simplify above the max/min, we might be able to simplify it by moving it below the max/min.
I had to modify the ~(min/max ~X, Y) transform to prevent getting stuck in a loop when we saw the new ~(max/min X, ~Y) before the ~Y had been folded away to remove the new not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51398
llvm-svn: 341674
This fold is needed to avoid a regression when we try
to recommit rL300977.
We can't see the most basic win currently because
demanded bits changes the patterns:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/plpp
llvm-svn: 341559
I'm probably missing some way to use m_Deferred to remove the code
duplication, but that can be a follow-up.
The improvement in demand_shrink_nsw.ll is an example of missing
the fold because the pattern matching was deficient. I didn't try
to follow the bits in that test, but Alive says it's correct:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ugc
llvm-svn: 341426
This is just a cleanup step. The TODO comments show
what is wrong with the 'and' version of the fold.
Fixing this should be part of recommitting:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341405
The fold was implemented for the general case but use-limitation,
but the later constant version which didn't check uses was only
matching splat constants.
llvm-svn: 341292
This is no-outwardly-visible-change intended, so no test.
But the code is smaller and more efficient. The check for
a 'not' op is intended to avoid the expensive value tracking
call when it should not be necessary, and it might prevent
infinite looping when we resurrect:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341280
I'm assuming its easier to make sure the RHS of an XOR is all ones than it is to check for the many select patterns we have. So lets check that first. Same with the one use check.
llvm-svn: 340321
Summary:
This comes with `Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change` (D50250):
```
signed char test(unsigned int x) { return x; }
```
`clang++ -fsanitize=implicit-conversion -S -emit-llvm -o - /tmp/test.cpp -O3`
* Old: {F6904292}
* With this patch: {F6904294}
General pattern:
X & Y
Where `Y` is checking that all the high bits (covered by a mask `4294967168`)
are uniform, i.e. `%arg & 4294967168` can be either `4294967168` or `0`
Pattern can be one of:
%t = add i32 %arg, 128
%r = icmp ult i32 %t, 256
Or
%t0 = shl i32 %arg, 24
%t1 = ashr i32 %t0, 24
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
Or
%t0 = trunc i32 %arg to i8
%t1 = sext i8 %t0 to i32
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
This pattern is a signed truncation check.
And `X` is checking that some bit in that same mask is zero.
I.e. can be one of:
%r = icmp sgt i32 %arg, -1
Or
%t = and i32 %arg, 2147483648
%r = icmp eq i32 %t, 0
Since we are checking that all the bits in that mask are the same,
and a particular bit is zero, what we are really checking is that all the
masked bits are zero.
So this should be transformed to:
%r = icmp ult i32 %arg, 128
The transform itself ended up being rather horrible, even though i omitted some cases.
Surely there is some infrastructure that can help clean this up that i missed?
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3Ou
The initial commit (rL339610)
was reverted, since the first assert was being triggered.
The @positive_with_extra_and test now has coverage for that case.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, erichkeane, vsk, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50465
llvm-svn: 339621
At least one buildbot was able to actually trigger that assert
on the top of the function. Will investigate.
This reverts commit r339610.
llvm-svn: 339612
Summary:
This comes with `Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change` (D50250):
```
signed char test(unsigned int x) { return x; }
```
`clang++ -fsanitize=implicit-conversion -S -emit-llvm -o - /tmp/test.cpp -O3`
* Old: {F6904292}
* With this patch: {F6904294}
General pattern:
X & Y
Where `Y` is checking that all the high bits (covered by a mask `4294967168`)
are uniform, i.e. `%arg & 4294967168` can be either `4294967168` or `0`
Pattern can be one of:
%t = add i32 %arg, 128
%r = icmp ult i32 %t, 256
Or
%t0 = shl i32 %arg, 24
%t1 = ashr i32 %t0, 24
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
Or
%t0 = trunc i32 %arg to i8
%t1 = sext i8 %t0 to i32
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
This pattern is a signed truncation check.
And `X` is checking that some bit in that same mask is zero.
I.e. can be one of:
%r = icmp sgt i32 %arg, -1
Or
%t = and i32 %arg, 2147483648
%r = icmp eq i32 %t, 0
Since we are checking that all the bits in that mask are the same,
and a particular bit is zero, what we are really checking is that all the
masked bits are zero.
So this should be transformed to:
%r = icmp ult i32 %arg, 128
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3Ou
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, erichkeane, vsk, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50465
llvm-svn: 339610
Summary: computeKnownBits is expensive. The cases that would be detected by the computeKnownBits portion of haveNoCommonBitsSet were already handled by the earlier call to SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50604
llvm-svn: 339531
Summary:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IT3
Comes up in the [most ugliest] `signed int` -> `signed char` case of
`-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250)
Previously, we were stuck with `not`: {F6867736}
But now we are able to completely get rid of it: {F6867737}
(FIXME: why are we loosing the metadata? that seems wrong/strange.)
Here, we only want to do that it we will be able to completely
get rid of that 'not'.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: vsk, erichkeane, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50301
llvm-svn: 339243
This fold was written in an odd way and tried to avoid
an endless loop by bailing out on all constants instead
of the supposedly problematic case of -1. But (X & -1)
should always be simplified before we reach here, so I'm
not sure how that is a problem.
There were no tests for the commuted patterns, so I added
those at rL338364.
llvm-svn: 338367
The tests with constants show a missing optimization.
Analysis for adds is better than subs, so this can also
help with other transforms. And codegen is better with
adds for targets like x86 (destructive ops, no sub-from).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/llK
llvm-svn: 338118
This bug was created by rL335258 because we used to always call instsimplify
after trying the associative folds. After that change it became possible
for subsequent folds to encounter unsimplified code (and potentially assert
because of it).
Instead of carrying changed state through instcombine, we can just return
immediately. This allows instsimplify to run, so we can continue assuming
that easy folds have already occurred.
llvm-svn: 336965
This is outwardly NFC from what I can tell, but it should be more efficient
to simplify first (despite the name, SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative does
not actually simplify as InstSimplify does - it creates/morphs instructions).
This should make it easier to refactor duplicated code that runs for all binops.
llvm-svn: 335258
The bug report:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36036
...requests a DAG change for this, but an IR canonicalization
probably handles most cases. If we still want to match this
pattern in the backend, there's a proposal for that too:
D47831
Alive proofs including nsw/nuw cases that were first noted in:
D46988
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Kmp
This patch is largely copied from the existing code that was
initially added with:
D40984
...but I didn't see much gain from trying to share code.
llvm-svn: 334137
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
As noted in the review thread for rL333782, we could have
made a bug harder to hit if we were simplifying instructions
before trying other folds.
The shuffle transform in question isn't ever a simplification;
it's just a canonicalization. So I've renamed that to make that
clearer.
This is NFCI at this point, but I've regenerated the test file
to show the cosmetic value naming difference of using
instcombine's RAUW vs. the builder.
Possible follow-ups:
1. Move reassociation folds after simplifies too.
2. Refactor common code; we shouldn't have so much repetition.
llvm-svn: 333820
In post-commit review, Eric Christopher notes that many
new MSan warnings are being observed with this patch.
The probable reason is: if 'y' is undef here and we could
evaluate it twice and get different results.
We can't increase the number of uses of a value.
llvm-svn: 333631
Summary:
Finally fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]].
Now that the backend is all done, we can finally fold it!
The canonical unfolded masked merge pattern is
```(x & m) | (y & ~m)```
There is a second, equivalent variant:
```(x | ~m) & (y | m)```
Only one of them (the or-of-and's i think) is canonical.
And if the mask is not a constant, we should fold it to:
```((x ^ y) & M) ^ y```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ndQw
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nicholas, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46814
llvm-svn: 333106
According to alive this is valid. I'm hoping to use this to make an assumption that the sign bit is zero after this sequence. The only way it wouldn't be is if the input was INT__MIN, but by preserving the flags we can make doing this to INT_MIN UB.
The nuw flags is weird because it creates such a contradiction that the original number would have to be positive meaning we could remove the select entirely, but we don't get that far.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46988
llvm-svn: 332623
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Summary:
As discussed in D45733, we want to do this in InstCombine.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LGk
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: chandlerc, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45867
llvm-svn: 331205
Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`,
We should canonicalize the pattern to non-inverted mask.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Yol
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45664
llvm-svn: 331112
Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.
The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.
The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.
Surprisingly, `$ ninja check-llvm` still passes with this.
But i expect the bots will disagree..
The motivational unittest is included.
I'd like to use this in D45664.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, arsenm, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: xbolva00, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45828
llvm-svn: 331085
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
Summary:
In order to get the whole fold as specified in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]],
let's first handle the simple straight-forward things.
Let's start with the `and` -> `or` simplification.
The one obvious thing missing here: the constant mask is not handled.
I have an idea how to handle it, but it will require some thinking,
and is not strictly required here, so i've left that for later.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Pkmg
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, eli.friedman, jingyue
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Was reviewed as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D45631
llvm-svn: 330103
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
Chandler Carruth