Ideally we'd fold this with generic DAGCombiner, but that only works for !isTruncateFree cases - we might be able to adapt IsDesirableToPromoteOp to find truncated src ops in the future, but for now just use this peephole.
Noticed in Issue #55138
Calling hasOneUse can be expensive on nodes with multiple results.
Especially when some results are Chains. By checking the opcode first,
we can avoid walking the uses if it isn't an interesting node,
and thus avoid calling hasOneUse on a node that might have many uses.
Found by profiling the IR given in D123857.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123881
Checking opcode is cheap. hasOneUse might not be if the node has
multiple results. By checking the opcode we can rule out nodes
with multiple results we aren't interested in.
unsinged int 0 will be convert to float/double -0.0 when the rounding
mode is set to 'FE_DOWNWARD'. Using FILD instruction instead of SSE
instructions on 32-bit target if the strictfp is enabled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123660
extract_subvector(insert_subvector(V,X,C1),C1) -> insert_subvector(extract_subvector(V,C1),X,0)
More aggressively attempt to reduce the width of an extract_subvector source - we currently only do this if we're inserting into a zero vector (i.e. canonicalizing to the AVX implicit zero upper elts pattern).
But if we're extracting from the same point as the inner insert_subvector then the fold is still relatively trivial - we can probably do even better if we can ensure the subvector isn't badly split.
When we fold vselect(cond, pshufb(x), pshufb(y)) -> or(pshufb(x), pshufb(y)), ensure we convert all undef elements to zero elements - this should help us expose more known zero elements for deeper chains of these cases.
Noticed while triaging Issue #54819
smin(x, 0):
(select (x < 0), x, 0) -> ((x >> (size_in_bits(x)-1))) & x
smax(x, 0):
(select (x > 0), x, 0) -> (~(x >> (size_in_bits(x)-1))) & x
The comparison is testing for a positive value, we have to invert the sign
bit mask, so only do that transform if the target has a bitwise 'and not'
instruction (the invert is free).
The transform is performed only when CMP has a single user to avoid
increasing total instruction number.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/euUnNmhttps://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/37339J
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123109
Use the same enum as the other atomic instructions for consistency, in
preparation for addition of another strategy.
Introduce a new "Expand" option, since the store expansion does not
use cmpxchg. Alternatively, the existing CmpXChg strategy could be
renamed to Expand.
Without VBMI, we are better off permuting v16i32 sub-lanes, even though its a variable shuffle, if it allows us to then shuffle v64i8 inlane repeated masks (PSHUFB etc.)
Fixes#54658
As noticed on PR39174, if we're extracting a single non-constant bit index, then try to use BT+SETCC instead to avoid messing around moving the shift amount to the ECX register, using slow x86 shift ops etc.
Recommitted with a fix to ensure we zext/trunc the SETCC result to the original type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122891
As noticed on PR39174, if we're extracting a single non-constant bit index, then try to use BT+SETCC instead to avoid messing around moving the shift amount to the ECX register, using slow x86 shift ops etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122891
This inverts a fold recently added to IR with:
3491f2f4b0
We can put -bidirectional on the Alive2 examples to show that
the reverse transforms work:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/8iVQwB
The motivation for the IR change was to improve matching to
'fabs' in IR (see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/38828 ),
but it regressed x86 codegen for 'not-quite-fabs' patterns like
(X > -X) ? X : -X.
Ie, when there is no fast-math (nsz), the cmp+select is not a proper
fabs operation, but it does map nicely to the unusual NAN semantics
of MINSS/MAXSS.
I drafted this as a target-independent fold, but it doesn't appear to
help any other targets and seems to cause regressions for SystemZ at
least.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122726
As mentioned on D122482, if we've generated a masked overflow test see if we can fold it to X86ISD::BT to feed a X86ISD::ADC/SBB
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122572
If we're not relying on the flag result, we can fold the constants together into the RHS immediate operand and set the LHS operand to zero, simplifying for further folds.
We could do something similar if the flag result is in use and the constant fold doesn't affect it, but I don't have any real test cases for this yet.
As suggested by @davezarzycki on Issue #35256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122482
This is used for f16 emulation. We emulate f16 for SSE2 targets and
above. Refactoring makes the future code to be more clean.
Reviewed By: LuoYuanke
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122475
As suggested on PR35908, if we are adding/subtracting an extracted bit, attempt to use BT instead to fold the op and use a ADC/SBB op.
Reapply with extra type legality checks - LowerAndToBT was originally only used during lowering, now that it can occur earlier we might encounter illegal types that we can either promote to i32 or just bail.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122084
AVX512 has excellent broadcast ops for everything but vXi1 bool vectors - so if we're broadcasting a comparison result, see if we can broadcast the comparison operands instead.
Ensure we don't attempt to fold to illegal types to ADC/SBB nodes.
After D122084 its possible for ADD(X,AND(SRL(Y,Z),1) patterns to be matched before type legalization.
As suggested on PR35908, if we are adding/subtracting an extracted bit, attempt to use BT instead to fold the op and use a ADC/SBB op.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122084
Split combineAddOrSubToADCOrSBB into wrapper (which handles ADDs with commuted args) and the real combine, which no longer has to account for commutation.
I'm intending to extend combineAddOrSubToADCOrSBB to detect patterns other than just X86ISD::SETCC, so we need to detect all patterns without detecting them as part of a commutation swap.
Rename hasCMPXCHG16B() to canUseCMPXCHG16B() to make it less like other
feature functions. Add a similar canUseCMPXCHG8B() that aliases
hasCX8() to keep similar naming.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121978
If a X86ISD::BLENDV op appears before legalization (in this test case due to the icmp_slt x, 0) its constant mask was being treated as a vselect mask (mask != 0) instead of blendv (mask < 0)
This just prevents constant folding entirely for non-VSELECT ops.
We can use MOVMSK+TEST/BT to extract individual bool elements even if the index isn't constant
This relies on combineBitcastvxi1 so some AVX512 cases still aren't optimized as they avoid MOVMSK usage.
-Rename Mode*Bit to Is*Bit to match X86Subtarget.
-Rename FeatureLAHFSAHF to FeatureLAFHSAFH64 to match X86Subtarget.
-Use consistent capitalization
Reviewed By: skan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121975
This replaces the attempt in 20af71f8ec to use combineToExtendBoolVectorInReg to create X86ISD::BLENDV masks directly, instead we use it to canonicalize the iX bitcast to a sign-extended mask and then truncate it back to vXi1 prior to legalization breaking it apart.
Fixes#53760
If we're comparing a value against zero, strip away any zero-extension and perform the comparison on the pre-extended value
Fixes#38308
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121472
If the SETCC fp-condcode is supported on SSE as a single CMPPS/PD op then we can use convertIntLogicToFPLogic to reduce EFLAGS and XMM->GPR traffic like we do for AVX targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121210
If the shift amount has been zero-extended, peek through as this might help us further canonicalize the shift amount.
Fixes regression mentioned in rG147cfcbef1255ba2b4875b76708dab1a685085f5
This completes the removal of uses of SelectionDAG::getSplatValue started in D119090 - by avoiding extracting the splatted element we make it a lot easier to zero-extend the bottom 64-bits of the shift amount and fixes issues we had on 32-bit targets where i64 isn't legal.
I've removed the old version of getTargetVShiftNode that took the scalar shift amount argument and LowerRotate can finally efficiently handle vXi16 rotates-by-scalar (using the same code as general funnel-shifts).
The only regression we see is in the X86-AVX2 PR52719 test case in vector-shift-ashr-256.ll - this is now hitting the same problem as the X86-AVX1 case (failure to simplify a multi-use X86ISD::VBROADCAST_LOAD) which I intend to address in a follow up patch.
For i16/32/64 vectors, if the upper bits are known to be zero, then we can try to truncate to vXi8 (if its worth it) and perform this as a PSADBW to add+zext each v4i8 subvector to a i64 sum, which we can then reduce together.
This addresses some of the PR42674 test cases where the source data was vXi8 but had been extended to match a wider unsigned integer accumulator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120193
Using getSplatValue causes poor codegen due to not always being able to remove the EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT created inside getSplatValue.
The vXi16 shifts/rotates are still showing occasional regressions but vXi8 is a definite improvement.
combineX86ShuffleChain no longer has to assume that the shuffle inputs are the right size, so don't create unnecessary nodes messing up oneuse limits as detailed on Issue #45319
combineX86ShuffleChain no longer has to assume that the shuffle inputs are the right size, so don't create unnecessary nodes messing up oneuse limits as detailed on Issue #45319
Removing widening from combineX86ShufflesRecursively will be the next step, followed by removing combineX86ShuffleChainWithExtract entirely
With only a load-fold the diffs look neutral. If there's a load and store (rmw)
fold opportunity as shown in the test based on #53862, then we end up with an
extra instruction.
Fixes#53862
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120281
Peek through if we're extracting a non-zero'th subvector in an attempt to fold the extract into a lane-crossing shuffle
This also exposes a failure to fold extract_subvector(movddup(x),c) -> movddup(extract_subvector(x,c))
Extension to PR45974, unless we actual combine the target shuffles we shouldn't be generating temporary nodes as they may interfere with the one use checks in the shuffle recursions
When building 32b x86 code as PIC, the existing handling of "i"
constraints is conservative since generally we have to go through the
GOT to find references to functions.
But generally, BlockAddresses from C code refer to the Function in the
current TU. Permit BlockAddresses to be used with the "i" constraint
for those cases.
I regressed this in
commit 4edb9983cb ("[SelectionDAG] treat X constrained labels as i for asm")
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53868
Reviewed By: efriedma, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119905
Extend the existing split where we already do this for v32i16/v64i8
We can end up trying to use PCMPEQ/GT if the result needs to be sign-extended (typically due to the DAGCombiner::foldSextSetcc fold).
Fixes#53842
Simon Pilgrim