Extend this to support ComputeNumSignBits of the (used) source vector elements so that we can handle more than just the case where we're sext_in_reg from the source element signbit.
Noticed while investigating the poor codegen in D98587.
A 1-bit smulo overflows is both inputs are -1 since the result
should be +1 which can't be represented in a signed 1 bit value.
We can detect this with an AND and a setcc. The multiply result
can also use the same AND.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97634
This prepares codegen for a change that will remove the identical
folds from IR because they are not poison-safe. See
D93065 / D97360
for details.
We already generically support scalar types, and there are various
target-specific transforms that overlap the vector folds. For example,
x86 recognizes the and patterns, but not or. We can end up with 1
extra instruction there, but I think that is still preferred over the
blendv alternative that loads a constant vector.
If this is not optimal, then it should be fixed with a later transform
(this change is not expected to result in any regressions because
InstCombine currently does the same thing).
Removing custom code and supporting undefs in constant-pattern-matching
can be follow-up changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97730
Peeking through AND is only valid if the input to both shifts is
the same. If the inputs are different, then the original pattern
ORs the two values when the masked shift amount is 0. This is ok
if the values are the same since the OR would be a NOP which is
why its ok for rotate.
Fixes PR49365 and reverts PR34641
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97637
Even if the first computeKnownBits call doesn't have any zero
bits it is possible the other operand has bitwidth-1 leading zero.
In that case overflow is still impossible. So always call computeKnownBits
for both operands.
Using ComputeNumSignBits or computeKnownBits we might be able
to determine that overflow is impossible.
This especially helps after type legalization if the type was
promoted from a type with half the bits or more. Type legalization
conservatively creates a promoted smulo/umulo and an overflow
check for the promoted bits. The overflow from the promoted
smulo/umulo is ORed with the result of the promoted bits
overflow check. Proving that the promoted smulo/umulo can never
overflow will leave us with just the promoted bits overflow check.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97160
This patch handles usubsat patterns hidden through zext/trunc and uses the getTruncatedUSUBSAT helper to determine if the USUBSAT can be correctly performed in the truncated form:
zext(x) >= y ? x - trunc(y) : 0 --> usubsat(x,trunc(umin(y,SatLimit)))
zext(x) > y ? x - trunc(y) : 0 --> usubsat(x,trunc(umin(y,SatLimit)))
Based on original examples:
void foo(unsigned short *p, int max, int n) {
int i;
unsigned m;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
m = *--p;
*p = (unsigned short)(m >= max ? m-max : 0);
}
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25987
If extload is legal, following transform
(zext (select c, load1, load2)) -> (select c, zextload1, zextload2)
can save one ext instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95086
Adjust generateFMAsInMachineCombiner to return false if SVE is present
in order to combine fmul+fadd into fma. Also add new pseudo instructions
so as to select the most appropriate of FMLA/FMAD depending on register
allocation.
Depends on D96599
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96424
Fold shuffle(bop(shuffle(x,y),shuffle(z,w)),bop(shuffle(a,b),shuffle(c,d))) -> bop(shuffle(x,y),shuffle(z,w)),bop(shuffle(a,b),shuffle(c,d))
Attempt to fold from a shuffle of a pair of binops to a binop of shuffles, as long as one/both of the binop sources are also shuffles that can be merged with the outer shuffle. This should guarantee that we remove one binop without introducing any additional shuffles.
Technically there's potential for a merged shuffle's lowering to be poorer than the original shuffle, but it could also be better, and I'm not seeing any regressions as long as we keep the 'don't merge splats' rule already present in MergeInnerShuffle.
This expands and generalizes an existing X86 combine and attempts to merge either of each binop's sources (with an on-the-fly commutation of the shuffle mask) - we couldn't do that in the x86 version as it had to stay in a form that DAGCombine's MergeInnerShuffle would still recognise.
Fixes issue raised by @saugustine in rG5aa8f4c0843a where we were failing to replace null shuffle operands from MergeInnerShuffle to UNDEFs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96345
This reverts commit 5dfba562dd.
That commit causes an assertion failure with the following repro:
typedef long b __attribute__((__vector_size__(16)));
b *d;
b e;
b __attribute__((__always_inline__)) c(b h, b i) {
return (__attribute__((__vector_size__(8 * sizeof(short)))) short)h + i;
}
j() {
b k, l, m, n, o[6], p, q;
m = d[5];
b r = m;
b s = f(r, 8);
q = s;
l = d[1];
p = l;
t(q);
n = c(m, l);
o[1] = c(s, f(p, 8));
k = __builtin_shufflevector(n, o[1], 0, 2);
e = __builtin_ia32_psrlwi128(k, j);
}
./bin/clang -cc1 -triple x86_64-grtev4-linux-gnu -emit-obj -O1 -std=c99 test.c
Fold shuffle(bop(shuffle(x,y),shuffle(z,w)),bop(shuffle(a,b),shuffle(c,d))) -> bop(shuffle(x,y),shuffle(z,w)),bop(shuffle(a,b),shuffle(c,d))
Attempt to fold from a shuffle of a pair of binops to a binop of shuffles, as long as one/both of the binop sources are also shuffles that can be merged with the outer shuffle. This should guarantee that we remove one binop without introducing any additional shuffles.
Technically there's potential for a merged shuffle's lowering to be poorer than the original shuffle, but it could also be better, and I'm not seeing any regressions as long as we keep the 'don't merge splats' rule already present in MergeInnerShuffle.
This expands and generalizes an existing X86 combine and attempts to merge either of each binop's sources (with an on-the-fly commutation of the shuffle mask) - we couldn't do that in the x86 version as it had to stay in a form that DAGCombine's MergeInnerShuffle would still recognise.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96345
Begin transitioning the X86 vector code to recognise sub(umax(a,b) ,b) or sub(a,umin(a,b)) USUBSAT patterns to make it more generic and available to all targets.
This initial patch just moves the basic umin/umax patterns to DAG, removing some vector-only checks on the way - these are some of the patterns that the legalizer will try to expand back to so we can be reasonably relaxed about matching these pre-legalization.
We can handle the trunc(sub(..))) variants as well, which helps with patterns where we were promoting to a wider type to detect overflow/saturation.
The remaining x86 code requires some cleanup first - some of it isn't actually tested etc. I also need to resurrect D25987.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96413
Avoid doing the following combine for vector types:
```
copysign(x, fp_extend(y)) -> copysign(x, y)
copysign(x, fp_round(y)) -> copysign(x, y)
```
That combine seemed to impede the selection of vector instruction and cause
a mess in some circumstances.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96037
As of commit 284f2bffc9, the DAG Combiner gets rid of the masking of the
input to this node if the mask only keeps the bottom 16 bits. This is because
the underlying library function does not use the high order bits. However, on
PowerPC's ELFv2 ABI, it is the caller that is responsible for clearing the bits
from the register. Therefore, the library implementation of __gnu_h2f_ieee will
return an incorrect result if the bits aren't cleared.
This combine is desired for ARM (and possibly other targets) so this patch adds
a query to Target Lowering to check if this zeroing needs to be kept.
Fixes: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49092
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96283
Make sure scalable property is preserved by using getVectorElementCount().
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95967
If sext_inreg is supported, we will turn this into sext_inreg. That
will then remove it if there are enough sign bits. But if sext_inreg
isn't supported, we can still remove the shift pair based on sign
bits.
Split from D95890.
This patch adds support for scalable-vector splats in DAGCombiner's
`isConstantOrConstantVector` and `ISD::matchUnaryPredicate` functions,
which enable the SelectionDAG div/rem-by-constant optimizations for
scalable vector types.
It also fixes up one case where the UDIV optimization was generating a
SETCC without first consulting the target for its preferred SETCC result
type.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94501
For now, we correct the result for sqrt if iteration > 0. This doesn't make
sense as they are not strict relative.
Reviewed By: dmgreen, spatel, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94480
Add DemandedElts support inside the TRUNCATE analysis.
REAPPLIED - this was reverted by @hans at rGa51226057fc3 due to an issue with vector shift amount types, which was fixed in rG935bacd3a724 and an additional test case added at rG0ca81b90d19d
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56387
It caused "Vector shift amounts must be in the same as their first arg"
asserts in Chromium builds. See the code review for repro instructions.
> Add DemandedElts support inside the TRUNCATE analysis.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56387
This reverts commit cad4275d69.
Use the KnownBits icmp comparisons to determine when a ISD::UMIN/UMAX op is unnecessary should either op be known to be ULT/ULE or UGT/UGE than the other.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94532
MergeInnerShuffle currently attempts to merge shuffle(shuffle(x,y),z) patterns into a single shuffle, using 1 or 2 of the x,y,z ops.
However if we already match 2 ops we might be able to handle the third op if its also a shuffle that references one of the previous ops, allowing us to handle some cases like:
shuffle(shuffle(x,y),shuffle(x,y))
shuffle(shuffle(shuffle(x,z),y),z)
shuffle(shuffle(x,shuffle(x,y)),z)
etc.
This isn't an exhaustive match and is dependent on the order the candidate ops are encountered - if one of the matched ops was a shuffle that was peek-able we don't go back and try to split that, I haven't found much need for that amount of analysis yet.
This is a preliminary patch that will allow us to later improve x86 HADD/HSUB matching - but needs to be reviewed separately as its in generic code and affects existing Thumb2 tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94671
I'm hoping to reuse MergeInnerShuffle in some other folds - so ensure the candidate ops/mask are reset at the start of each run.
Also, move the second op matching before bailing to make it simpler to try to match other things afterward.
Simon Pilgrim