(-(X & 1)) & Y --> (X & 1) == 0 ? 0 : Y
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/rhpH3i
This is noted as a missing IR canonicalization in issue #55618.
We already managed to fix codegen to the expected form.
When the mask is a power-of-2 constant and op0 is a shifted-power-of-2
constant, test if the shift amount equals the offset bit index:
(ShiftC << X) & C --> X == (log2(C) - log2(ShiftC)) ? C : 0
(ShiftC >> X) & C --> X == (log2(ShiftC) - log2(C)) ? C : 0
This is an alternate to D127610 with a more general pattern.
We match only shift+and instead of the trailing xor, so we see a few
more tests diffs. I think we discussed this initially in D126617.
Here are proofs for shifts in both directions:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/CFrLs4
The test diffs look equal or better for IR, and this makes the
patterns more uniform in IR. The backend can partially invert this
in both cases if that is profitable. It is not trivially reversible,
however, so if we find perf regressions that are not easy to undo,
then we may want to revert this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127801
This shows narrowing improvements on the logic tests
(transforms recently added with e247b0e5c9).
This is not a complete fix. That would require adding
folds to visitOr/visitXor. But it enables the expected
transforms for the basic patterns in the affected tests.
The 1st try ( afa192cfb6 ) was reverted because it could
cause an infinite loop with constant expressions.
A test for that and an extra condition to enable the transform
are added now. I also added code comments to better describe
the transform and the existing, related transform.
Original commit message:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hRy3rE
As shown in D123408, we can produce this pattern when moving
casts around, and we already have a related fold for a binop
with a constant operand.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hRy3rE
As shown in D123408, we can produce this pattern when moving
cast around, and we already have a related fold for a binop
with a constant operand.
(C2 >> X) >> C1 --> (C2 >> C1) >> X
The shift-left form of this transform has existed since:
16f18ed7b5
...but it applies to matching shift right opcodes too:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/c5eQms
These two are equivalent,
and i *think* the `and` form is more-ish canonical.
General proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/RrF5s6
If constant on the (outer) `xor` is an `undef`,
the whole lane is dead: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/mu4Sh2
However, if the constant on the (inner) `or` is an `undef`,
we must sanitize it first: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/MHYJL7
I guess, producing a zero `and`-mask is optimal in that case.
alive-tv is happy about the entirety of `xor-of-or.ll`.
~(iN X s>> (N-1)) & Y --> (X s< 0) ? 0 : Y
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JKlQ9x
This is similar to D111410 / 727e642e97 ,
but it includes a 'not' of the signbit and so it
saves an instruction in the basic pattern.
DAGCombiner or target-specific folds can expand
this back into bit-hacks.
The diffs in the logical-select tests are not true
regressions - running early-cse and another round
of instcombine is expected in a normal opt pipeline,
and that reduces back to a minimal form as shown
in the duplicated PhaseOrdering test.
I have no understanding of the SystemZ diffs, so
I made the minimal edits suggested by FileCheck to
make that test pass again. That whole test file is
wrong though. It is running the entire optimizer (-O2)
to check IR, and then topping that by even running
codegen and checking asm. It needs to be split up.
Fixes#52631
The 1st test corresponds to a minimally optimized (mem2reg)
version of the example in:
issue #52631
The 2nd test copies an existing instcombine test with the
same pattern. If we canonicalize differently, we can miss
reducing to minimal form in a single invocation of
-instcombine, but that should not escape the normal opt
pipeline.
This is a generalization/extension of the existing and/or
folds noted with TODO comments. Those have a one-use
constraint that is not necessary.
Potential follow-ups are noted by the TODO comments in
the new function. We can also call this function from
other binop visit* functions, but we need to add tests
first.
This solves:
https://llvm.org/PR52543https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NWuCR5
(iN X s>> (N-1)) & Y --> (X < 0) ? Y : 0
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/qeYhdz
I was looking at a missing abs() transform and found my way to this
generalization of an existing fold that was added with D67799.
As discussed in that review, we want to make sure codegen handles
this difference well, and for all of the targets/types that I
spot-checked, it looks good.
I am leaving the existing fold in place in this commit because
it covers a potentially missing icmp fold, but I plan to remove
that as a follow-up commit as suggested during review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111410
This is a patch that disables the poison-unsafe select -> and/or i1 folding.
It has been blocking D72396 and also has been the source of a few miscompilations
described in llvm.org/pr49688 .
D99674 conditionally blocked this folding and successfully fixed the latter one.
The former one was still blocked, and this patch addresses it.
Note that a few test functions that has `_logical` suffix are now deoptimized.
These are created by @nikic to check the impact of disabling this optimization
by copying existing original functions and replacing and/or with select.
I can see that most of these are poison-unsafe; they can be revived by introducing
freeze instruction. I left comments at fcmp + select optimizations (or-fcmp.ll, and-fcmp.ll)
because I think they are good targets for freeze fix.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101191
This replicates existing and/or tests to also test variants using
select. This should help us get a more accurate view on which
optimizations we're missing if we disable the select -> and/or
fold.
There are 1-2 potential follow-up NFC commits to reduce
this further on the way to generalizing this for vectors.
The operand replacing path should be dead code because demanded
bits handles that more generally (D91415).
I noticed an add example like the one from D91343, so here's a similar patch.
The logic is based on existing code for the single-use demanded bits fold.
But I only matched a constant instead of using compute known bits on the
operands because that was the motivating patterni that I noticed.
I think this will allow removing a special-case (but incomplete) dedicated
fold within visitAnd(), but I need to untangle the existing code to be sure.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/V6fP
Name: add with low mask
Pre: (C1 & (-1 u>> countLeadingZeros(C2))) == 0
%a = add i8 %x, C1
%r = and i8 %a, C2
=>
%r = and i8 %x, C2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91415
Sanjay Patel