By morphing the instruction rather than deleting and creating a new one,
we retain fast-math-flags and potentially other metadata (profile info?).
llvm-svn: 346331
The sibling fold for 'oge' --> 'ord' was already here,
but this half was missing.
The result of fabs() must be positive or nan, so asking
if the result is negative or nan is the same as asking
if the result is nan.
This is another step towards fixing:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
llvm-svn: 346321
As shown, this is used to eliminate redundant code in InstCombine,
and there are more cases where we should be using this pattern, but
we're currently unintentionally dropping flags.
llvm-svn: 346282
This is another part of solving PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
This might be enough to fix that particular issue, but as noted
with the FIXME, we're still dropping FMF on other folds around here.
llvm-svn: 346234
As stated in IEEE-754 and discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...the sign of zero does not affect any FP compare predicate.
Known regressions were fixed with:
rL346097 (D54001)
rL346143
The transform will help reduce pattern-matching complexity to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
...as well as improve CSE and codegen (a zero constant is almost always
easier to produce than 0x80..00).
llvm-svn: 346147
The 'OLT' case was updated at rL266175, so I assume it was just an
oversight that 'UGE' was not included because that patch handled
both predicates in InstSimplify.
llvm-svn: 345727
Summary:
This is a continuation of the fix for PR34627 "InstCombine assertion at vector gep/icmp folding". (I just realized bugpoint had fuzzed the original test for me, so I had fixed another trigger of the same assert in adjacent code in InstCombine.)
This patch avoids optimizing an icmp (to look only at the base pointers) when the resulting icmp would have a different type.
The patch adds a testcase and also cleans up and shrinks the pre-existing test for the adjacent assert trigger.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, majnemer, spatel
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52494
llvm-svn: 343486
When C is not zero and infinites are not allowed (C / X) > 0 is a sign
test. Depending on the sign of C, the predicate must be swapped.
E.g.:
foo(double X) {
if ((-2.0 / X) <= 0) ...
}
=>
foo(double X) {
if (X >= 0) ...
}
Patch by: @marels (Martin Elshuber)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51942
llvm-svn: 343228
Summary:
Same as to D52146.
`((1 << y)+(-1))` is simply non-canoniacal version of `~(-1 << y)`: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0vl
We can not canonicalize it due to the extra uses. But we can handle it here.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52147
llvm-svn: 342547
Summary:
Two folds are happening here:
1. https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oaFX
2. And then `foldICmpWithHighBitMask()` (D52001): https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wsP4
This change doesn't just add the handling for eq/ne predicates,
it actually builds upon the previous `foldICmpWithLowBitMaskedVal()` work,
so **all** the 16 fold variants* are immediately supported.
I'm indeed only testing these two predicates.
I do not feel like re-proving all 16 folds*, because they were already proven
for the general case of constant with all-ones in low bits. So as long as
the mask produces all-ones in low bits, i'm pretty sure the fold is valid.
But required, i can re-prove, let me know.
* eq/ne are commutative - 4 folds; ult/ule/ugt/uge - are not commutative (the commuted variant is InstSimplified), 4 folds; slt/sle/sgt/sge are not commutative - 4 folds. 12 folds in total.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52146
llvm-svn: 342546
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only n bits wide (where n is a variable.)
There are many ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
More complicated, canonical pattern:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/uhA
We do need to have two `switch()`'es like this,
to not mismatch the swappable predicates.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52001
llvm-svn: 342173
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only `n` bits wide (where `n` is a variable.)
There are **many** ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
Let's handle the second variant first, since it is much simpler.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LYjYhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51985
llvm-svn: 342067
Name: op_ugt_sum
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, %a
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
Name: sum_ult_op
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ult i8 %a, %x
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZRxI
AFAICT, this doesn't interfere with any add-saturation patterns
because those have >1 use for the 'add'. But this should be
better for IR analysis and codegen in the basic cases.
This is another fold inspired by PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 342004
These are the folds in Alive;
Name: xor_ult
Pre: isPowerOf2(-C1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ult i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, ~C1
Name: xor_ugt
Pre: isPowerOf2(C1+1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vty
The ugt case in its simplest form was already handled by DemandedBits,
but that's not ideal as shown in the multi-use test.
I'm not sure if these are all of the symmetrical folds, but I adjusted
the existing code for one of the folds to try to show the similarities.
There's no obvious connection, but this is another preliminary step
for PR14613...
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 341997
There were two combines not covered by the check before now, neither of which
actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687) when we just
didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been diligently maintained
since.
llvm-svn: 341831
Summary:
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38149 | PR38149 ]]
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158957 and later,
the IR for 'check for [no] signed truncation' pattern can be improved:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gBf
^ that pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in signed case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
Proofs for this transform: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
This transform is surprisingly frustrating.
This does not deal with non-splat shift amounts, or with undef shift amounts.
I've outlined what i think the solution should be:
```
// Potential handling of non-splats: for each element:
// * if both are undef, replace with constant 0.
// Because (1<<0) is OK and is 1, and ((1<<0)>>1) is also OK and is 0.
// * if both are not undef, and are different, bailout.
// * else, only one is undef, then pick the non-undef one.
```
The DAGCombine will reverse this transform, see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49266
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49320
llvm-svn: 337190
All predicates are handled.
There does not seem to be any other possible folds here.
There are some more folds possible with inverted mask though.
llvm-svn: 337112
Sanjay Patel