We need to preserve wrapping flags to allow better folds.
The cases with geps may be non-intuitive, but that appears to agree with Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JQcqw7
We create 'nsw' ops independent from the original wrapping on the sub.
This is a retry of 324a53205. I cautiously reverted that at 6aa3fc4
because the rules about gep math were not clear. Since then, we
have added this line to LangRef for gep inbounds:
"The successive addition of offsets (without adding the base address)
does not wrap the pointer index type in a signed sense (nsw)."
See D90708 and post-commit comments on the revert patch for more details.
There might be some demanded/known bits way to generalize this,
but I'm not seeing it right now.
This came up as a regression when I was looking at a different
demanded bits improvement.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/5fl
Name: general
Pre: ((-1 << countTrailingZeros(C1)) & C2) == 0
%a1 = add i8 %x, C1
%a2 = and i8 %x, C2
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, ~C2
Name: test 1
%a1 = add i8 %x, 192
%a2 = and i8 %x, 10
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, -11
Name: test 2
%a1 = add i8 %x, -108
%a2 = and i8 %x, 3
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, -4
This was supposed to be an NFC cleanup, but there's
a real logic difference (did not drop 'nsw') visible
in some tests in addition to an efficiency improvement.
This is because in the case where we have 2 GEPs,
the code was *always* swapping the operands and
negating the result. But if we have 2 GEPs, we
should *never* need swapping/negation AFAICT.
This is part of improving flags propagation noticed
with PR47430.
This was the most obvious regression in
f5df5cd5586ae9cfb2d9e53704dfc76f47aff149.f5df5cd5586ae9cfb2d9e53704dfc76f47aff149
We really don't want to do this if the original/outermost subtraction
isn't a negation, and therefore doesn't go away - just sinking negation
isn't a win. We are actually appear to be missing folds so hoist it.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/tiVe
This reverts commit ac70b37a00
which reverted commit 8aeb2fe13a
because codegen tests got broken and i needed time to investigate.
This shows some regressions in tests, but they are all around GEP's,
so i'm not really sure how important those are.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/1Gn
The -reassociate pass tends to transform this kind of pattern into
something that is worse for vectorization and codegen. See PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
Follows-up the FP version of the same transform:
rGa0ce2338a083
While we can do that, it doesn't increase instruction count,
if the old `sub` sticks around then the transform is not only
not a unlikely win, but a likely regression, since we likely
now extended live range and use count of both of the `sub` operands,
as opposed to just the result of `sub`.
As Kostya Serebryany notes in post-commit review in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408#1998112
this indeed can degrade final assembly,
increase register pressure, and spilling.
This isn't what we want here,
so at least for now let's guard it with an use check.
Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.
Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`
This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
Followup to D72978. This moves existing negation handling in
InstCombine into freelyNegateValue(), which make it composable.
In particular, root negations of div/zext/sext/ashr/lshr/sub can
now always be performed through a shl/trunc as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73288
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44529. We already have
a combine to sink a negation through a left-shift, but it currently
only works if the shift operand is negatable without creating any
instructions. This patch introduces freelyNegateValue() as a more
powerful extension of dyn_castNegVal(), which allows negating a
value as long as this doesn't end up increasing instruction count.
Specifically, this patch adds support for negating A-B to B-A.
This mechanism could in the future be extended to handle general
negation chains that a) start at a proper 0-X negation and b) only
require one operand to be freely negatable. This would end up as a
weaker form of D68408 aimed at the most obviously profitable subset
that eliminates a negation entirely.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72978
Summary:
Currently when computing a GEP offset using the function EmitGEPOffset
for the following instruction
getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %p, i64 %offs
we get
mul nuw i64 %offs, 4
Unfortunately we cannot assume that unsigned wrapping won't happen
here because %offs is allowed to be negative.
Making such assumptions can lead to miscompilations: see the new test
test24_neg_offs in InstCombine/icmp.ll. Without the patch InstCombine
would generate the following comparison:
icmp eq i64 %offs, 4611686018427387902; 0x3ffffffffffffffe
Whereas the correct value to compare with is -2.
This patch replaces the NUW flag with NSW in the multiplication
instructions generated by EmitGEPOffset and adjusts the test suite.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42699
Reviewers: chandlerc, craig.topper, ostannard, lebedev.ri, spatel, efriedma, nlopes, aqjune
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: reames, lebedev.ri, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68342
llvm-svn: 375089
(X | C1) + C2 --> (X | C1) ^ C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
I verified the correctness using Alive:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/YNV
This transform enables the following transform that already exists in
instcombine:
(X | Y) ^ Y --> X & ~Y
As a result, the full expected transform is:
(X | C1) + C2 --> X & ~C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
There already exists the transform in the sub case:
(X | Y) - Y --> X & ~Y
However this does not trigger in the case where Y is constant due to an earlier
transform:
X - (-C) --> X + C
With this new add fold, both the add and sub constant cases are handled.
Patch by Chris Dawson.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61517
llvm-svn: 360185
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is D59386 for the signed add case. The computeConstantRange()
result is now intersected into the existing known bits information,
allowing to detect additional no-overflow/always-overflow conditions
(though the latter isn't used yet).
This (finally...) covers the motivating case from D59071.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60420
llvm-svn: 358014
Add support for min/max flavor selects in computeConstantRange(),
which allows us to fold comparisons of a min/max against a constant
in InstSimplify. This fixes an infinite InstCombine loop, with the
test case taken from D59378.
Relative to the previous iteration, this contains some adjustments for
AMDGPU med3 tests: The AMDGPU target runs InstSimplify prior to codegen,
which ends up constant folding some existing med3 tests after this
change. To preserve these tests a hidden -amdgpu-scalar-ir-passes option
is added, which allows disabling scalar IR passes (that use InstSimplify)
for testing purposes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59506
llvm-svn: 357870
This is D59450, but for signed sub. This case is not NFC, because
the overflow logic in ConstantRange is more powerful than the existing
check. This resolves the TODO in the function.
I've added two tests to show that this indeed catches more cases than
the previous logic, but the main correctness test coverage here is in
the existing ConstantRange unit tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59617
llvm-svn: 356685
Summary: This restores the combine that was reverted in r341883. The infinite loop from the failing test no longer occurs due to changes from r342163.
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52070
llvm-svn: 342797
Summary:
Revert min/max changes in rL341674 dues to high compile times causing timeouts (PR38897).
Checking in to unblock failing builds. Patch available for post-commit review and re-revert once resolved.
Working on a smaller reproducer for PR38897.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51897
llvm-svn: 341883
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
isKnownNegation() is currently proposed as part of D48754,
but it could be used to make InstSimplify stronger independently
of any abs() improvements.
llvm-svn: 336822
Using cst_pred_ty in the definition allows us to match vectors with undef elements.
This is a continuation of an effort to make all pattern matchers allow undef elements in vectors:
rL325437
rL325466
D43792
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44076
llvm-svn: 326823
Dávid Bolvanský