The motivating pattern was handled in 0a2d69480d ,
but we should have this for symmetry.
But this really highlights that we could generalize for
any shifted constant if we match this in instcombine.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/MrmVNt
Calling null or undef results in immediate undefined behavior.
Return poison instead of undef in this case, similar to what
we do for immediate UB due to division by zero.
It's always safe to pick the earlier abs regardless of the nsw flag. We'll just lose it if it is on the outer abs but not the inner abs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85053
abs() should be rare enough that using value tracking is not going
to be a compile-time cost burden, so use it to reduce a variety of
potential patterns. We do this in DAGCombiner too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85043
No changes relative to last time, but after a mitigation for
an AMDGPU regression landed.
---
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
If a call argument has the "returned" attribute, we can simplify
the call to the value of that argument. This was already partially
handled by InstSimplify/InstCombine for the case where the argument
is an integer constant, and the result is thus known via known bits.
The non-constant (or non-int) argument cases weren't handled though.
This previously landed as an InstSimplify transform, but was reverted
due to assertion failures when compiling the Linux kernel. The reason
is that simplifying a call to another call breaks assumptions in
call graph updating during inlining. As the code is not easy to fix,
and there is no particularly strong motivation for having this in
InstSimplify, the transform is only performed in InstCombine instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75815
If a call argument has the "returned" attribute, we can simplify
the call to the value of that argument. The "-inst-simplify" pass
already handled this for the constant integer argument case via
known bits, which is invoked in SimplifyInstruction. However,
non-constant (or non-int) arguments are not handled at all right now.
This addresses one of the regressions from D75801.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75815
As pointed out by jdoerfert on D75815, we must be careful when
simplifying musttail calls: We can only replace the return value
if we can eliminate the call entirely. As we can't make this
guarantee for all consumers of InstSimplify, this patch disables
simplification of musttail calls. Without this patch, musttail
simplification currently results in module verification errors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75824
This is another transform suggested in PR44153:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44153
The backend for some targets already manages to get
this if it converts copysign to bitwise logic.
This is correct for any value including NaN/inf.
We don't have this fold directly in the backend either,
but x86 manages to get it after converting things to bitops.
This is intended to be similar to the constant folding results from
D67446
and earlier, but not all operands are constant in these tests, so the
responsibility for folding is left to InstSimplify.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67721
llvm-svn: 373455
Fix folds of addo and subo with an undef operand to be:
`@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` all fold to `{ undef, false }`,
as per LLVM undef rules.
Same for commuted variants.
Based on the original version of the patch by @nikic.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42209 | PR42209 ]]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63065
llvm-svn: 363522
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130491.html
We can't remove the compare+select in the general case because
we are treating funnel shift like a standard instruction (as
opposed to a special instruction like select/phi).
That means that if one of the operands of the funnel shift is
poison, the result is poison regardless of whether we know that
the operand is actually unused based on the instruction's
particular semantics.
The motivating case for this transform is the more specific
rotate op (rather than funnel shift), and we are preserving the
fold for that case because there is no chance of introducing
extra poison when there is no anonymous extra operand to the
funnel shift.
llvm-svn: 354905
Rotate is a special-case of funnel shift that has different
poison constraints than the general case. That's not visible
yet in the existing tests, but it needs to be corrected.
llvm-svn: 354894
These are part of D54666, so adding them here before the patch to
show the baseline (currently unoptimized) results.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
llvm-svn: 347331
This is a problem seen in common rotate idioms as noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34924
Note that we are not canonicalizing standard IR (shifts and logic) to the intrinsics yet.
(Although I've written this before...) I think this is the last step before we enable
that transform. Ie, we could regress code by doing that transform without this
simplification in place.
In PR34924, I questioned whether this is a valid transform for target-independent IR,
but I convinced myself this is ok. If we're speculating a funnel shift by turning cmp+br
into select, then SimplifyCFG has already determined that the transform is justified.
It's possible that SimplifyCFG is not taking into account profile or other metadata,
but if that's true, then it's a bug independent of funnel shifts.
Also, we do have CGP code to restore a guard like this around an intrinsic if it can't
be lowered cheaply. But that isn't necessary for funnel shift because the default
expansion in SelectionDAGBuilder includes this same cmp+select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54552
llvm-svn: 346960
Sanjay Patel