Fold or(zext(bitreverse(x)),shl(zext(bitreverse(y)),bw/2) -> bitreverse(or(zext(x),shl(zext(y),bw/2))
Practically this is the same as the BSWAP pattern so we might as well handle it.
This adds a general combine that can be used to fold:
or(zext(OP(x)), shl(zext(OP(y)),bw/2))
-->
OP(or(zext(x), shl(zext(y),bw/2)))
Allowing us to widen 'concat-able' style or+zext patterns - I've just set this up for BSWAP but we could use this for other similar ops (BITREVERSE for instance).
We already do something similar for bitop(bswap(x),bswap(y)) --> bswap(bitop(x,y))
Fixes PR45715
Reviewed By: @lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79041
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, rriddle, efriedma
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77263
Because this code does not use the IC-aware replaceInstUsesWith()
helper, we need to manually push users to the worklist.
This is NFC-ish, in that it may only change worklist order.
This patch adds a simplification if an OR weakens the overflow condition
for umul.with.overflow by treating any non-zero result as overflow. In that
case, we overflow if both umul.with.overflow operands are != 0, as in that
case the result can only be 0, iff the multiplication overflows.
Code like this is generated by code using __builtin_mul_overflow with
negative integer constants, e.g.
bool test(unsigned long long v, unsigned long long *res) {
return __builtin_mul_overflow(v, -4775807LL, res);
}
```
----------------------------------------
Name: D74141
%res = umul_overflow {i8, i1} %a, %b
%mul = extractvalue {i8, i1} %res, 0
%overflow = extractvalue {i8, i1} %res, 1
%cmp = icmp ne %mul, 0
%ret = or i1 %overflow, %cmp
ret i1 %ret
=>
%t0 = icmp ne i8 %a, 0
%t1 = icmp ne i8 %b, 0
%ret = and i1 %t0, %t1
ret i1 %ret
%res = umul_overflow {i8, i1} %a, %b
%mul = extractvalue {i8, i1} %res, 0
%cmp = icmp ne %mul, 0
%overflow = extractvalue {i8, i1} %res, 1
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
Reviewers: nikic, lebedev.ri, spatel, Bigcheese, dexonsmith, aemerson
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74141
As discussed on D73919, this replaces a few cases where we were
modifying multiple operands of instructions in-place with the
creation of a new instruction, which we generally prefer nowadays.
This tends to be more readable and less prone to worklist management
bugs.
Test changes are only superficial (instruction naming and order).
Adds a replaceOperand() helper, which is like Instruction.setOperand()
but adds the old operand to the worklist. This reduces the amount of
missing or incorrect worklist management.
This only applies the helper to a relatively small subset of
setOperand() calls in InstCombine, namely those of the pattern
`I.setOperand(); return &I;`, where it is most obviously applicable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73803
This renames Worklist.AddDeferred() to Worklist.add() and
Worklist.Add() to Worklist.push(). The intention here is that
Worklist.add() should be the go-to method for explicit worklist
management, while the raw Worklist.push() is mostly for
InstCombine internals. I will then migrate uses of Worklist.push()
to Worklist.add() in followup changes.
As suggested by spatel on D73411 I'm also changing the remaining
method names to lowercase first character, in line with current
coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73745
This addresses https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42801.
The m_c_ICmp() matcher is changed to provide the swapped predicate
if the operands are swapped.
Existing uses of m_c_ICmp() fall in one of two categories: Working
on equality predicates only, where swapping is irrelevant.
Or performing a manual swap, in which case this patch removes it.
The only exception is the foldICmpWithLowBitMaskedVal() fold, which
does not swap the predicate, and instead reasons about whether
a swap occurred or not for each predicate. Getting the swapped
predicate allows us to merge the logic for pairs of predicates,
instead of duplicating it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72976
not (select ?, (cmp TPred, ?, ?), (cmp FPred, ?, ?) -->
select ?, (cmp TPred', ?, ?), (cmp FPred', ?, ?)
If both sides of the select are cmps, we can remove an instruction.
The case where only side is a cmp is deferred to a possible
follow-on patch.
We have a more general 'isFreeToInvert' analysis, but I'm not seeing
a way to use that more widely without inducing infinite looping
(opposing transforms).
Here, we flip the compare predicates directly, so we should not have
any danger by creating extra intermediate 'not' ops.
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jKa
Name: both select values are compares - invert predicates
%tcmp = icmp sle i32 %x, %y
%fcmp = icmp ugt i32 %z, %w
%sel = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp, i1 %fcmp
%not = xor i1 %sel, true
=>
%tcmp_not = icmp sgt i32 %x, %y
%fcmp_not = icmp ule i32 %z, %w
%not = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp_not, i1 %fcmp_not
Name: false val is compare - invert/not
%fcmp = icmp ugt i32 %z, %w
%sel = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp, i1 %fcmp
%not = xor i1 %sel, true
=>
%tcmp_not = xor i1 %tcmp, -1
%fcmp_not = icmp ule i32 %z, %w
%not = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp_not, i1 %fcmp_not
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72007
In this pattern, all the "magic" bits that we'd `add` are all
high sign bits, and in the value we'd be adding to they are all unset,
not unexpectedly, so we can have an `or` there:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ups
It is possible that `haveNoCommonBitsSet()` should be taught about this
pattern so that we never have an `add` variant, but the reasoning would
need to be recursive (because of that `select`), so i'm not really sure
that would be worth it just yet.
llvm-svn: 375378
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
For
```
#include <cassert>
char* test(char& base, signed long offset) {
__builtin_assume(offset < 0);
return &base + offset;
}
```
We produce
https://godbolt.org/z/r40U47
and again those two icmp's can be merged:
```
Name: 0
Pre: C != 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, C
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ult i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, C
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ALaphttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/slnN
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
i believe they all will go into InstSimplify.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67849
llvm-svn: 372768
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
This pattern isn't exactly what we get there
(strict vs. non-strict predicate), but this pattern does not
require known-bits analysis, so it is best to handle it first.
```
Name: 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, %offset
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, %offset
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/knp
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
they all will go into InstSimplify:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bIDZhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, majnemer, vsk, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67846
llvm-svn: 372767
Summary:
Fold
or(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X)
into
X s> Y ? -1 : X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/d8Ab
clamp255 is a common operator in image processing, can be implemented
in a shifty way "(255 - X) >> 31 | X & 255". Fold shift into select
enables more optimization, e.g., vmin generation for ARM target.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, efriedma, spatel, kparzysz, bcahoon
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67800
llvm-svn: 372678
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
In this particular case, given
```
char* test(char& base, unsigned long offset) {
return &base - offset;
}
```
it will end up producing something like
https://godbolt.org/z/luGEju
which after optimizations reduces down to roughly
```
declare void @use64(i64)
define i1 @test(i8* dereferenceable(1) %base, i64 %offset) {
%base_int = ptrtoint i8* %base to i64
%adjusted = sub i64 %base_int, %offset
call void @use64(i64 %adjusted)
%not_null = icmp ne i64 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i64 %adjusted, %base_int
%no_underflow_and_not_null = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
ret i1 %no_underflow_and_not_null
}
```
Without D67122 there was no `%not_null`,
and in this particular case we can "get rid of it", by merging two checks:
Here we are checking: `Base u>= Offset && (Base u- Offset) != 0`, but that is simply `Base u> Offset`
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/QOs
The `@llvm.usub.with.overflow` pattern itself is not handled here
because this is the main pattern, that we currently consider canonical.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00, majnemer
Reviewed By: xbolva00, majnemer
Subscribers: vsk, majnemer, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67356
llvm-svn: 372341
Summary:
I don't have a direct motivational case for this,
but it would be good to have this for completeness/symmetry.
This pattern is basically the motivational pattern from
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
but with different predicate that requires that the offset is non-zero.
The completeness bit comes from the fact that a similar pattern (offset != zero)
will be needed for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259,
so it'd seem to be good to not overlook very similar patterns..
Proofs: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21b
Also, there is something odd with `isKnownNonZero()`, if the non-zero
knowledge was specified as an assumption, it didn't pick it up (PR43267)
With this, i see no other missing folds for
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67412
llvm-svn: 372257
Summary:
This is rather unconventional..
As the comment there says, we don't have much folds for xor-of-icmps,
we try to turn them into an and-of-icmps, for which we have plenty of folds.
But if the ICmp we need to invert is not single-use - we give up.
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D65148#1603922,
we may have a non-canonical CLAMP pattern, with bit match and
select-of-threshold that we'll potentially clamp.
As it can be seen in `canonicalize-clamp-with-select-of-constant-threshold-pattern.ll`,
out of all 8 variations of the pattern, only two are **not** canonicalized into
the variant with and+icmp instead of bit math.
The reason is because the ICmp we need to invert is not single-use - we give up.
We indeed can't perform this fold at will, the general rule is that
we should not increase instruction count in InstCombine,
But we wouldn't end up increasing instruction count if we can adapt every other
user to the inverted value. This way the `not` we create **will** get folded,
and in the end the instruction count did not increase.
For that, of course, we need to look at the users of a Value,
which is again rather unconventional for InstCombine :S
Thus i'm proposing to be a little bit more insistive in `foldXorOfICmps()`.
The alternatives would be to not create that `not`, but add duplicate code to
manually invert all users; or to add some even less general combine to handle
some more specific pattern[s].
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, jdoerfert, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65530
llvm-svn: 368685
We can treat icmp eq X, MIN_UINT as icmp ule X, MIN_UINT and allow
it to merge with icmp ugt X, C. Similar for the other constants.
We can do simliar for icmp ne X, (U)INT_MIN/MAX in foldAndOfICmps. And we already handled UINT_MIN there.
Fixes PR42691.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65017
llvm-svn: 366945
For equality, the function called getTrue/getFalse with the VT
of the comparison input. But getTrue/getFalse need the boolean VT.
So if this code ever executed, it would assert.
I believe these cases are removed by InstSimplify so we don't get here.
So this patch just fixes up an assert to exclude the equality
possibility and removes the broken code.
llvm-svn: 366649
AddOne/SubOne create new Constant objects. That seems heavy for
comparing ConstantInts which wrap APInts. Just do the math on
on the APInts and compare them.
llvm-svn: 366648
This is the Demorgan'd 'not' of the pattern handled in:
D63660 / rL364153
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is not a power-of-2 using ctpop(X) > 1,
so combining that with an is-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if not exactly 1 bit is set:
(X == 0) || (ctpop(X) u> 1) --> ctpop(X) != 1
llvm-svn: 364246
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is power-of-2-or-0 using ctpop(X) < 2,
so combining that with a non-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if exactly 1 bit is set:
(X != 0) && (ctpop(X) u< 2) --> ctpop(X) == 1
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63660
llvm-svn: 364153
We have a similar match for patterns ending in a truncate. This
should be ok for all targets because the default expansion would
still likely be better from replacing 2 'and' ops with 1.
Attempt to show the logic equivalence in Alive (which doesn't
currently have funnel-shift in its vocabulary AFAICT):
%shamt = zext i8 %i to i32
%m = and i32 %shamt, 31
%neg = sub i32 0, %shamt
%and4 = and i32 %neg, 31
%shl = shl i32 %v, %m
%shr = lshr i32 %v, %and4
%or = or i32 %shr, %shl
=>
%a = and i8 %i, 31
%shamt2 = zext i8 %a to i32
%neg2 = sub i32 0, %shamt2
%and4 = and i32 %neg2, 31
%shl = shl i32 %v, %shamt2
%shr = lshr i32 %v, %and4
%or = or i32 %shr, %shl
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/V9r
llvm-svn: 360605
If they have other users we'll just end up increasing the instruction count.
We might be able to weaken this to only one of them having a single use if we can prove that the and will be removed.
Fixes PR41164.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59630
llvm-svn: 356690
Combine 2 fcmps that are checking for nan-ness:
and (fcmp ord X, 0), (and (fcmp ord Y, 0), Z) --> and (fcmp ord X, Y), Z
or (fcmp uno X, 0), (or (fcmp uno Y, 0), Z) --> or (fcmp uno X, Y), Z
This is an exact match for a minimal reassociation pattern.
If we want to handle this more generally that should go in
the reassociate pass and allow removing this code.
This should fix:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41069
llvm-svn: 356471
This bug seems to be harmless in release builds, but will cause an error in UBSAN
builds or an assertion failure in debug builds.
When it gets to this opcode comparison, it assumes both of the operands are BinaryOperators,
but the prior m_LogicalShift will also match a ConstantExpr. The cast<BinaryOperator> will
assert in a debug build, or reading an invalid value for BinaryOp from memory with
((BinaryOperator*)constantExpr)->getOpcode() will cause an error in a UBSAN build.
The test I added will fail without this change in debug/UBSAN builds, but not in release.
Patch by: @AndrewScheidecker (Andrew Scheidecker)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58049
llvm-svn: 353736
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This is matching the equivalent of the DAG expansion,
so it should never end up with worse perf than the
original code even if the target doesn't have a rotate
instruction.
llvm-svn: 350672
There are potential improvements to the structure of this API
raised by D54994, but remove some cosmetic blemishes before
making any functional changes.
llvm-svn: 348149
The original patch was committed here:
rL344609
...and reverted:
rL344612
...because it did not properly check/test data types before calling
ComputeNumSignBits().
The tests that caused bot failures for the previous commit are
over-reaching front-end tests that run the entire -O optimizer
pipeline:
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector.c
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector2.c
I've added a negative test here to ensure coverage for that case.
The new early exit check also tests the type of the 'B' parameter,
so we don't waste time on matching if either value is unsuitable.
Original commit message:
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 345149
I noticed a missing check and added it at rL344610, but there actually
are codegen tests that will fail without that, so I'll edit those and
submit a fixed patch with more tests.
llvm-svn: 344612
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 344609
This allows the xor to be removed completely.
This might help with recomitting r341674, but seems good regardless.
Coincidentally fixes PR38915.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51964
llvm-svn: 342163
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
This fold is needed to avoid a regression when we try
to recommit rL300977.
We can't see the most basic win currently because
demanded bits changes the patterns:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/plpp
llvm-svn: 341559
I'm probably missing some way to use m_Deferred to remove the code
duplication, but that can be a follow-up.
The improvement in demand_shrink_nsw.ll is an example of missing
the fold because the pattern matching was deficient. I didn't try
to follow the bits in that test, but Alive says it's correct:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ugc
llvm-svn: 341426
This is just a cleanup step. The TODO comments show
what is wrong with the 'and' version of the fold.
Fixing this should be part of recommitting:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341405
The fold was implemented for the general case but use-limitation,
but the later constant version which didn't check uses was only
matching splat constants.
llvm-svn: 341292
This is no-outwardly-visible-change intended, so no test.
But the code is smaller and more efficient. The check for
a 'not' op is intended to avoid the expensive value tracking
call when it should not be necessary, and it might prevent
infinite looping when we resurrect:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341280
I'm assuming its easier to make sure the RHS of an XOR is all ones than it is to check for the many select patterns we have. So lets check that first. Same with the one use check.
llvm-svn: 340321
Summary:
This comes with `Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change` (D50250):
```
signed char test(unsigned int x) { return x; }
```
`clang++ -fsanitize=implicit-conversion -S -emit-llvm -o - /tmp/test.cpp -O3`
* Old: {F6904292}
* With this patch: {F6904294}
General pattern:
X & Y
Where `Y` is checking that all the high bits (covered by a mask `4294967168`)
are uniform, i.e. `%arg & 4294967168` can be either `4294967168` or `0`
Pattern can be one of:
%t = add i32 %arg, 128
%r = icmp ult i32 %t, 256
Or
%t0 = shl i32 %arg, 24
%t1 = ashr i32 %t0, 24
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
Or
%t0 = trunc i32 %arg to i8
%t1 = sext i8 %t0 to i32
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
This pattern is a signed truncation check.
And `X` is checking that some bit in that same mask is zero.
I.e. can be one of:
%r = icmp sgt i32 %arg, -1
Or
%t = and i32 %arg, 2147483648
%r = icmp eq i32 %t, 0
Since we are checking that all the bits in that mask are the same,
and a particular bit is zero, what we are really checking is that all the
masked bits are zero.
So this should be transformed to:
%r = icmp ult i32 %arg, 128
The transform itself ended up being rather horrible, even though i omitted some cases.
Surely there is some infrastructure that can help clean this up that i missed?
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3Ou
The initial commit (rL339610)
was reverted, since the first assert was being triggered.
The @positive_with_extra_and test now has coverage for that case.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, erichkeane, vsk, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50465
llvm-svn: 339621
At least one buildbot was able to actually trigger that assert
on the top of the function. Will investigate.
This reverts commit r339610.
llvm-svn: 339612
Summary:
This comes with `Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change` (D50250):
```
signed char test(unsigned int x) { return x; }
```
`clang++ -fsanitize=implicit-conversion -S -emit-llvm -o - /tmp/test.cpp -O3`
* Old: {F6904292}
* With this patch: {F6904294}
General pattern:
X & Y
Where `Y` is checking that all the high bits (covered by a mask `4294967168`)
are uniform, i.e. `%arg & 4294967168` can be either `4294967168` or `0`
Pattern can be one of:
%t = add i32 %arg, 128
%r = icmp ult i32 %t, 256
Or
%t0 = shl i32 %arg, 24
%t1 = ashr i32 %t0, 24
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
Or
%t0 = trunc i32 %arg to i8
%t1 = sext i8 %t0 to i32
%r = icmp eq i32 %t1, %arg
This pattern is a signed truncation check.
And `X` is checking that some bit in that same mask is zero.
I.e. can be one of:
%r = icmp sgt i32 %arg, -1
Or
%t = and i32 %arg, 2147483648
%r = icmp eq i32 %t, 0
Since we are checking that all the bits in that mask are the same,
and a particular bit is zero, what we are really checking is that all the
masked bits are zero.
So this should be transformed to:
%r = icmp ult i32 %arg, 128
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3Ou
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, erichkeane, vsk, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50465
llvm-svn: 339610
Summary: computeKnownBits is expensive. The cases that would be detected by the computeKnownBits portion of haveNoCommonBitsSet were already handled by the earlier call to SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50604
llvm-svn: 339531
Summary:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IT3
Comes up in the [most ugliest] `signed int` -> `signed char` case of
`-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250)
Previously, we were stuck with `not`: {F6867736}
But now we are able to completely get rid of it: {F6867737}
(FIXME: why are we loosing the metadata? that seems wrong/strange.)
Here, we only want to do that it we will be able to completely
get rid of that 'not'.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: vsk, erichkeane, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50301
llvm-svn: 339243
This fold was written in an odd way and tried to avoid
an endless loop by bailing out on all constants instead
of the supposedly problematic case of -1. But (X & -1)
should always be simplified before we reach here, so I'm
not sure how that is a problem.
There were no tests for the commuted patterns, so I added
those at rL338364.
llvm-svn: 338367
The tests with constants show a missing optimization.
Analysis for adds is better than subs, so this can also
help with other transforms. And codegen is better with
adds for targets like x86 (destructive ops, no sub-from).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/llK
llvm-svn: 338118
This bug was created by rL335258 because we used to always call instsimplify
after trying the associative folds. After that change it became possible
for subsequent folds to encounter unsimplified code (and potentially assert
because of it).
Instead of carrying changed state through instcombine, we can just return
immediately. This allows instsimplify to run, so we can continue assuming
that easy folds have already occurred.
llvm-svn: 336965
This is outwardly NFC from what I can tell, but it should be more efficient
to simplify first (despite the name, SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative does
not actually simplify as InstSimplify does - it creates/morphs instructions).
This should make it easier to refactor duplicated code that runs for all binops.
llvm-svn: 335258
The bug report:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36036
...requests a DAG change for this, but an IR canonicalization
probably handles most cases. If we still want to match this
pattern in the backend, there's a proposal for that too:
D47831
Alive proofs including nsw/nuw cases that were first noted in:
D46988
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Kmp
This patch is largely copied from the existing code that was
initially added with:
D40984
...but I didn't see much gain from trying to share code.
llvm-svn: 334137
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
As noted in the review thread for rL333782, we could have
made a bug harder to hit if we were simplifying instructions
before trying other folds.
The shuffle transform in question isn't ever a simplification;
it's just a canonicalization. So I've renamed that to make that
clearer.
This is NFCI at this point, but I've regenerated the test file
to show the cosmetic value naming difference of using
instcombine's RAUW vs. the builder.
Possible follow-ups:
1. Move reassociation folds after simplifies too.
2. Refactor common code; we shouldn't have so much repetition.
llvm-svn: 333820
In post-commit review, Eric Christopher notes that many
new MSan warnings are being observed with this patch.
The probable reason is: if 'y' is undef here and we could
evaluate it twice and get different results.
We can't increase the number of uses of a value.
llvm-svn: 333631
Summary:
Finally fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]].
Now that the backend is all done, we can finally fold it!
The canonical unfolded masked merge pattern is
```(x & m) | (y & ~m)```
There is a second, equivalent variant:
```(x | ~m) & (y | m)```
Only one of them (the or-of-and's i think) is canonical.
And if the mask is not a constant, we should fold it to:
```((x ^ y) & M) ^ y```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ndQw
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nicholas, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46814
llvm-svn: 333106
According to alive this is valid. I'm hoping to use this to make an assumption that the sign bit is zero after this sequence. The only way it wouldn't be is if the input was INT__MIN, but by preserving the flags we can make doing this to INT_MIN UB.
The nuw flags is weird because it creates such a contradiction that the original number would have to be positive meaning we could remove the select entirely, but we don't get that far.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46988
llvm-svn: 332623
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Summary:
As discussed in D45733, we want to do this in InstCombine.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LGk
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: chandlerc, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45867
llvm-svn: 331205
Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`,
We should canonicalize the pattern to non-inverted mask.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Yol
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45664
llvm-svn: 331112
Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.
The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.
The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.
Surprisingly, `$ ninja check-llvm` still passes with this.
But i expect the bots will disagree..
The motivational unittest is included.
I'd like to use this in D45664.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, arsenm, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: xbolva00, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45828
llvm-svn: 331085
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
Summary:
In order to get the whole fold as specified in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]],
let's first handle the simple straight-forward things.
Let's start with the `and` -> `or` simplification.
The one obvious thing missing here: the constant mask is not handled.
I have an idea how to handle it, but it will require some thinking,
and is not strictly required here, so i've left that for later.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Pkmg
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, eli.friedman, jingyue
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Was reviewed as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D45631
llvm-svn: 330103
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
getNumUses is a linear time operation. It traverses the user linked list to the end and counts as it goes. Since we are only interested in small constant counts, we should use hasNUses or hasNUsesMore more that terminate the traversal as soon as it can provide the answer.
There are still two other locations in InstCombine, but changing those would force a rebase of D44266 which if accepted would remove them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44398
llvm-svn: 327315
Also, rename 'foldOpWithConstantIntoOperand' because that's annoyingly
vague. The constant check is redundant in some cases, but it allows
removing duplication for most of the calls.
llvm-svn: 326329
This is guarded by shouldChangeType(), so the tests show that
we don't do the fold if the narrower type is not legal. Note
that there is a proposal (D42424) that would change the results
for the specific cases shown in these tests. That difference is
also discussed in PR35792:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35792
Alive proofs for the cases handled here as well as the bitwise
logic binops that we should already do better on:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/c97https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Lc5Ehttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/kdf
llvm-svn: 323437
Simon Pilgrim