Name: (X & (- Y)) - X -> - (X & (Y - 1)) (PR44448)
%negy = sub i8 0, %y
%unbiasedx = and i8 %negy, %x
%r = sub i8 %unbiasedx, %x
=>
%ymask = add i8 %y, -1
%xmasked = and i8 %ymask, %x
%r = sub i8 0, %xmasked
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/OIpla
This decreases use count of %x, may allow us to
later hoist said negation even further,
and results in marginally nicer X86 codegen.
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
Summary:
D68408 proposes to greatly improve our negation sinking abilities.
But in current canonicalization, we produce `sub A, zext(B)`,
which we will consider non-canonical and try to sink that negation,
undoing the existing canonicalization.
So unless we explicitly stop producing previous canonicalization,
we will have two conflicting folds, and will end up endlessly looping.
This inverts canonicalization, and adds back the obvious fold
that we'd miss:
* `sub [nsw] Op0, sext/zext (bool Y) -> add [nsw] Op0, zext/sext (bool Y)`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/xx4
* `sext(bool) + C -> bool ? C - 1 : C`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/fBl
It is obvious that `@ossfuzz_9880()` / `@lshr_out_of_range()`/`@ashr_out_of_range()`
(oss-fuzz 4871) are no longer folded as much, though those aren't really worrying.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, t.p.northover, hfinkel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71064
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
This can come up in Bit Stream abstractions.
The pattern looks big/scary, but it can't be simplified any further.
It only is so simple because a number of my preparatory folds had
happened already (shift amount reassociation / shift amount
reassociation in bit test, sign bit test detection).
Highlights:
* There are two main flavors: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zWi
The difference is add vs. sub, and left-shift of -1 vs. 1
* Since we only change the shift opcode,
we can preserve the exact-ness: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/4u4
* There can be truncation after high-bit-extraction:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/slHc1 (the main pattern i'm after!)
Which means that we need to ignore zext of shift amounts and of NBits.
* The sign-extending magic can be extended itself (in add pattern
via sext, in sub pattern via zext. not the other way around!)
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/NhG
(or those sext/zext can be sinked into `select`!)
Which again means we should pay attention when matching NBits.
* We can have both truncation of extraction and widening of magic:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/XTw
In other words, i don't believe we need to have any checks on
bitwidths of any of these constructs.
This is worsened in general by the fact that we may have `sext` instead
of `zext` for shift amounts, and we don't yet canonicalize to `zext`,
although we should. I have not done anything about that here.
Also, we really should have something to weed out `sub` like these,
by folding them into `add` variant.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42389
llvm-svn: 373964
Summary:
Sometimes we need to swap true-val and false-val of a `SelectInst`.
Having a function for that is nicer than hand-writing it each time.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, craig.topper, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: jdoerfert, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65520
llvm-svn: 367547
Reverse the canonicalization of fneg relative to fmul/fdiv. That makes it
easier to implement the transforms (and possibly other fneg transforms) in
1 place because we can always start the pattern match from fneg (either the
legacy binop or the new unop).
There's a secondary practical benefit seen in PR21914 and PR42681:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21914https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42681
...hoisting fneg rather than sinking seems to play nicer with LICM in IR
(although this change may expose analysis holes in the other direction).
1. The instcombine test changes show the expected neutral IR diffs from
reversing the order.
2. The reassociation tests show that we were missing an optimization
opportunity to fold away fneg-of-fneg. My reading of IEEE-754 says
that all of these transforms are allowed (regardless of binop/unop
fneg version) because:
"For all other operations [besides copy/abs/negate/copysign], this
standard does not specify the sign bit of a NaN result."
In all of these transforms, we always have some other binop
(fadd/fsub/fmul/fdiv), so we are free to flip the sign bit of a
potential intermediate NaN operand.
(If that interpretation is wrong, then we must already have a bug in
the existing transforms?)
3. The clang tests shouldn't exist as-is, but that's effectively a
revert of rL367149 (the test broke with an extension of the
pre-existing fneg canonicalization in rL367146).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65399
llvm-svn: 367447
The backend already does this via isNegatibleForFree(),
but we may want to alter the fneg IR canonicalizations
that currently exist, so we need to try harder to fold
fneg in IR to avoid regressions.
llvm-svn: 367227
The backend already does this via isNegatibleForFree(),
but we may want to alter the fneg IR canonicalizations
that currently exist, so we need to try harder to fold
fneg in IR to avoid regressions.
llvm-svn: 367194
(Y * (1.0 - Z)) + (X * Z) -->
Y - (Y * Z) + (X * Z) -->
Y + Z * (X - Y)
This is part of solving:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42716
Factoring eliminates an instruction, so that should be a good canonicalization.
The potential conversion to FMA would be handled by the backend based on target
capabilities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65305
llvm-svn: 367101
Summary:
To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se,
it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3,
but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is
indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind
when there are extra uses.
This does address the regression being exposed in D63992.
https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltUhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]]
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993
llvm-svn: 364792
It looks this fold was already partially happening, indirectly
via some other folds, but with one-use limitation.
No other fold here has that restriction.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ftR
llvm-svn: 362217
Also, break out a helper function, namely foldFNegIntoConstant(...), which performs transforms common between visitFNeg(...) and visitFSub(...).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61693
llvm-svn: 361188
(X | C1) + C2 --> (X | C1) ^ C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
I verified the correctness using Alive:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/YNV
This transform enables the following transform that already exists in
instcombine:
(X | Y) ^ Y --> X & ~Y
As a result, the full expected transform is:
(X | C1) + C2 --> X & ~C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
There already exists the transform in the sub case:
(X | Y) - Y --> X & ~Y
However this does not trigger in the case where Y is constant due to an earlier
transform:
X - (-C) --> X + C
With this new add fold, both the add and sub constant cases are handled.
Patch by Chris Dawson.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61517
llvm-svn: 360185
// 0 - (X sdiv C) -> (X sdiv -C) provided the negation doesn't overflow.
This fold has been around for many years and nobody noticed the potential
vector miscompile from overflow until recently...
So it seems unlikely that there's much demand for a vector sdiv optimization
on arbitrary vector constants, so just limit the matching to splat constants
to avoid the possible bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60426
llvm-svn: 358005
This is the last step towards solving the examples shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
With this change, x86 should end up with psubus instructions
when those are available.
All known codegen issues with expanding the saturating intrinsics
were resolved with:
D59006 / rL356855
We also have some early evidence in D58872 that using the intrinsics
will lead to better perf. If some target regresses from this, custom
lowering of the intrinsics (as in the above for x86) may be needed.
llvm-svn: 357012
This is part of a transform that may be done in the backend:
D13757
...but it should always be beneficial to fold this sooner in IR
for all targets.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/vaiW
Name: sext add nsw
%add = add nsw i8 %i, C0
%ext = sext i8 %add to i32
%r = add i32 %ext, C1
=>
%s = sext i8 %i to i32
%r = add i32 %s, sext(C0)+C1
Name: zext add nuw
%add = add nuw i8 %i, C0
%ext = zext i8 %add to i16
%r = add i16 %ext, C1
=>
%s = zext i8 %i to i16
%r = add i16 %s, zext(C0)+C1
llvm-svn: 355118
add A, sext(B) --> sub A, zext(B)
We have to choose 1 of these forms, so I'm opting for the
zext because that's easier for value tracking.
The backend should be prepared for this change after:
D57401
rL353433
This is also a preliminary step towards reducing the amount
of bit hackery that we do in IR to optimize icmp/select.
That should be waiting to happen at a later optimization stage.
The seeming regression in the fuzzer test was discussed in:
D58359
We were only managing that fold in instcombine by luck, and
other passes should be able to deal with that better anyway.
llvm-svn: 354748
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 an attempt to get out of a local-minimum that instcombine currently
gets stuck in. We essentially combine two optimisations at once, ~a - ~b = b-a
and min(~a, ~b) = ~max(a, b), only doing the transform if the result is at
least neutral. This involves using IsFreeToInvert, which has been expanded a
little to include selects that can be easily inverted.
This is trying to fix PR35875, using the ideas from Sanjay. It is a large
improvement to one of our rgb to cmy kernels.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52177
llvm-svn: 343569
Summary:
If the sub doesn't overflow in the original type we can move it above the sext/zext.
This is similar to what we do for add. The overflow checking for sub is currently weaker than add, so the test cases are constructed for what is supported.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52075
llvm-svn: 342335
Similar to rL342278:
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
D52075 should be able to use this code too rather than
duplicating all of the logic.
llvm-svn: 342292
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
llvm-svn: 342278
This commit fixes a (gcc 7.3.0) [-Wunused-function] warning caused by the
presence of unused method FaddCombine::createFDiv().
The last use of that method was removed at r339519.
llvm-svn: 340014
This accounts for the missing IR fold noted in D50195. We don't need any fast-math to enable the negation transform.
FP negation can always be folded into an fmul/fdiv constant to eliminate the fneg.
I've limited this to one-use to ensure that we are eliminating an instruction rather than replacing fneg by a
potentially expensive fdiv or fmul.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50417
llvm-svn: 339248
These are reassociated versions of the same pattern and
similar transforms as in rL338200 and rL338118.
The motivation is identical to those commits:
Patterns with add/sub combos can be improved using
'not' ops. This is better for analysis and may lead
to follow-on transforms because 'xor' and 'add' are
commutative/associative. It can also help codegen.
llvm-svn: 338221
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jDd
Patterns with add/sub combos can be improved using
'not' ops. This is better for analysis and may lead
to follow-on transforms because 'xor' and 'add' are
commutative/associative. It can also help codegen.
llvm-svn: 338200
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
Turn canonicalized subtraction back into (-1 - B) and combine it with (A + 1) into (A - B).
This is similar to the folding already done for (B ^ -1) + Const into (-1 + Const) - B.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48535
llvm-svn: 335579
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
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37603 | PR37603 ]].
https://godbolt.org/g/VCMNpShttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/idM
When doing bit manipulations, it is quite common to calculate some bit mask,
and apply it to some value via `and`.
The typical C code looks like:
```
int mask_signed_add(int nbits) {
return (1 << nbits) - 1;
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_add(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 1, %0
%3 = add nsw i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
But there is a second, less readable variant:
```
int mask_signed_xor(int nbits) {
return ~(-(1 << nbits));
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_xor(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 -1, %0
%3 = xor i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
Since we created such a mask, it is quite likely that we will use it in `and` next.
And then we may get rid of `not` op by folding into `andn`.
But now that i have actually looked:
https://godbolt.org/g/VTUDmU
_some_ backend changes will be needed too.
We clearly loose `bzhi` recognition.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47428
llvm-svn: 334127
There's a patchwork of existing transforms trying to handle
these cases, but as seen in the changed test, we weren't
catching them all.
llvm-svn: 333845
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
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' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.
The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.
The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.
Surprisingly, `$ 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
Summary:
Simplify integer add expression X % C0 + (( X / C0 ) % C1) * C0 to
X % (C0 * C1). This is a common pattern seen in code generated by the XLA
GPU backend.
Add test cases for this new optimization.
Patch by Bixia Zheng!
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: efriedma, craig.topper, lebedev.ri, llvm-commits, jlebar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45976
llvm-svn: 330992
Two cleanups:
1. As noted in D45453, we had tests that don't need FMF that were misplaced in the 'fast-math.ll' test file.
2. This removes the final uses of dyn_castFNegVal, so that can be deleted. We use 'match' now.
llvm-svn: 330126
These simplifications were previously enabled only with isFast(), but that
is more restrictive than required. Since r317488, FMF has 'reassoc' to
control these cases at a finer level.
llvm-svn: 330089
This restores what was lost with rL73243 but without
re-introducing the bug that was present in the old code.
Note that we already have these transforms if the ops are
marked 'fast' (and I assume that's happening somewhere in
the code added with rL170471), but we clearly don't need
all of 'fast' for these transforms.
llvm-svn: 329362
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
As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107104.html
and again more recently:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118118.html
...this is a step in cleaning up our fast-math-flags implementation in IR to better match
the capabilities of both clang's user-visible flags and the backend's flags for SDNode.
As proposed in the above threads, we're replacing the 'UnsafeAlgebra' bit (which had the
'umbrella' meaning that all flags are set) with a new bit that only applies to algebraic
reassociation - 'AllowReassoc'.
We're also adding a bit to allow approximations for library functions called 'ApproxFunc'
(this was initially proposed as 'libm' or similar).
...and we're out of bits. 7 bits ought to be enough for anyone, right? :) FWIW, I did
look at getting this out of SubclassOptionalData via SubclassData (spacious 16-bits),
but that's apparently already used for other purposes. Also, I don't think we can just
add a field to FPMathOperator because Operator is not intended to be instantiated.
We'll defer movement of FMF to another day.
We keep the 'fast' keyword. I thought about removing that, but seeing IR like this:
%f.fast = fadd reassoc nnan ninf nsz arcp contract afn float %op1, %op2
...made me think we want to keep the shortcut synonym.
Finally, this change is binary incompatible with existing IR as seen in the
compatibility tests. This statement:
"Newer releases can ignore features from older releases, but they cannot miscompile
them. For example, if nsw is ever replaced with something else, dropping it would be
a valid way to upgrade the IR."
( http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility )
...provides the flexibility we want to make this change without requiring a new IR
version. Ie, we're not loosening the FP strictness of existing IR. At worst, we will
fail to optimize some previously 'fast' code because it's no longer recognized as
'fast'. This should get fixed as we audit/squash all of the uses of 'isFast()'.
Note: an inter-dependent clang commit to use the new API name should closely follow
commit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304
llvm-svn: 317488
In these cases, two selects have constant selectable operands for
both the true and false components and have the same conditional
expression.
We then create two arithmetic operations of the same type and feed a
final select operation using the result of the true arithmetic for the true
operand and the result of the false arithmetic for the false operand and reuse
the original conditionl expression.
The arithmetic operations are naturally folded as a consequence, leaving
only the newly formed select to replace the old arithmetic operation.
Patch by: Michael Berg <michael_c_berg@apple.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37019
llvm-svn: 313774
Summary:
Pointer difference simplifications currently happen only if input GEPs don't have other uses or their indexes are all constants, to avoid duplicating indexing arithmetic.
This patch enables cases with exactly one non-constant index among input GEPs to happen where there is no duplicated arithmetic or code size increase even if input GEPs have other uses.
For example, this patch allows "(&A[42][i]-&A[42][0])" --> "i", which didn't happen previously, if the input GEP(s) have other uses.
Reviewers: sanjoy, bkramer
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35499
llvm-svn: 309304
Previously the InstCombiner class contained a pointer to an IR builder that had been passed to the constructor. Sometimes this would be passed to helper functions as either a pointer or the pointer would be dereferenced to be passed by reference.
This patch makes it a reference everywhere including the InstCombiner class itself so there is more inconsistency. This a large, but mechanical patch. I've done very minimal formatting changes on it despite what clang-format wanted to do.
llvm-svn: 307451
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/i8Q
A narrow bitwise logic op is obviously better than math for value tracking,
and zext is better than sext. Typically, the 'not' will be folded into an
icmp predicate.
The IR difference would even survive through codegen for x86, so we would see
worse code:
https://godbolt.org/g/C14HMF
one_or_zero(int, int): # @one_or_zero(int, int)
xorl %eax, %eax
cmpl %esi, %edi
setle %al
retq
one_or_zero_alt(int, int): # @one_or_zero_alt(int, int)
xorl %ecx, %ecx
cmpl %esi, %edi
setg %cl
movl $1, %eax
subl %ecx, %eax
retq
llvm-svn: 306243
Summary: This matches the behavior we already had for compares and makes us consistent everywhere.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel, spatel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33604
llvm-svn: 305049
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
Summary:
Fix naming conventions and const correctness.
This completes the changes made in rL303029.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom.
Reviewers: craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33377
llvm-svn: 303529
Summary:
Merge overflow computation for signed add,
appearing both in InstCombine and ValueTracking.
As part of the merge,
cleanup the interface for overflow checks in InstCombine.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom.
Reviewers: craig.topper, majnemer
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: takuto.ikuta, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32946
llvm-svn: 303029
This is another step towards favoring 'not' ops over random 'xor' in IR:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
This transformation may have occurred in longer IR sequences using computeKnownBits,
but that could be much more expensive to calculate.
As the scalar result shows, we do not currently favor 'not' in all cases. The 'not'
created by the transform is transformed again (unnecessarily). Vectors don't have
this problem because vectors are (wrongly) excluded from several other combines.
llvm-svn: 302659
Change checkRippleForAdd from a heuristic to a full check -
if it is provable that the add does not overflow return true, otherwise false.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32686
llvm-svn: 302093
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
There is logic to track the expected number of instructions
produced. It thought in this case an instruction would
be necessary to negate the result, but here it folded
into a ConstantExpr fneg when the non-undef value operand
was cancelled out by the second fsub.
I'm not sure why we don't fold constant FP ops with undef currently,
but I think that would also avoid this problem.
llvm-svn: 301199
The bug was introduced by r301018 "[InstCombine] fadd double (sitofp x), y check that the promotion is valid". The patch didn't expect that fadd can be on vectors not necessarily scalars. Add vector support along with the test.
llvm-svn: 301070
Doing these transformations check that the result of integer addition is representable in the FP type.
(fadd double (sitofp x), fpcst) --> (sitofp (add int x, intcst))
(fadd double (sitofp x), (sitofp y)) --> (sitofp (add int x, y))
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=27036
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor, scanon, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31182
llvm-svn: 301018
getSignBit is a static function that creates an APInt with only the sign bit set. getSignMask seems like a better name to convey its functionality. In fact several places use it and then store in an APInt named SignMask.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32108
llvm-svn: 300856
We currently only support folding a subtract into a select but not a PHI. This fixes that.
I had to fix an assumption in FoldOpIntoPhi that assumed the PHI node was always in operand 0. Now we pass it in like we do for FoldOpIntoSelect. But we still require some dancing to find the Constant when we create the BinOp or ConstantExpr. This is based code is similar to what we do for selects.
Since I touched all call sites, this also renames FoldOpIntoPhi to foldOpIntoPhi to match coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31686
llvm-svn: 300363
We currently only fold scalar add of constants into selects. This improves this to support vectors too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31683
llvm-svn: 299847
Summary:
This is my first time using the commutable matchers so wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
Are there any other matcher tricks to further shrink this? Can we commute the whole match so we don't have to LHS and RHS separately?
Reviewers: davide, spatel
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31680
llvm-svn: 299840
Calling computeKnownBits on the RHS should allows us to recurse one step further. isMask is equivalent to the isPowerOf2(C+1) except in the case where C is all ones. But that was already handled earlier by creating a not which is an Xor with all ones. So this should be fine.
llvm-svn: 299710
Notably, no regression tests change when we remove these calls, and these are expensive calls.
The motivation comes from the general acknowledgement that the compiler is getting slower:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109188.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/108279.html
And specifically the test case attached to PR32037:
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Profiling the middle-end (opt) part of the compile:
$ ./opt -O2 row_common.bc -o /dev/null
...visitAdd and visitSub are near the top of the instcombine list, and the calls to SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits()
are high within each of those. Those calls account for 1%+ of the opt time in either debug or release profiles. And
that's the rough win I see from this patch when testing opt built release from r295864 on an iMac with Haswell 4GHz
(model 4790K).
It seems unlikely that we'd be able to eliminate add/sub or change their operands given that add/sub normally affect
all bits, and the PR32037 example shows no IR difference after this change using -O2.
Also worth noting - the code comment in visitAdd:
// This handles stuff like (X & 254)+1 -> (X&254)|1
...isn't true. That transform is handled later with a call to haveNoCommonBitsSet().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30270
llvm-svn: 295898
Changing to 'or' (rather than 'xor' when no wrapping flags are set)
allows icmp simplifies to happen as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
llvm-svn: 295574
Some of the callers are artificially limiting this transform to integer types;
this should make it easier to incrementally remove that restriction.
llvm-svn: 291620
We can perform the following:
(add (zext (add nuw X, C1)), C2) -> (zext (add nuw X, C1+C2))
This is only possible if C2 is negative and C2 is greater than or equal to negative C1.
llvm-svn: 290927
We correctly canonicalized (add (sext x), (sext y)) to (sext (add x, y))
where possible. However, we didn't perform the same canonicalization
for zexts or for muls.
llvm-svn: 290733
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
Prefer add/zext because they are better supported in terms of value-tracking.
Note that the backend should be prepared for this IR canonicalization
(including vector types) after:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL284015
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25135
llvm-svn: 284241
The pattern may look more obviously like a sext if written as:
define i32 @g(i16 %x) {
%zext = zext i16 %x to i32
%xor = xor i32 %zext, 32768
%add = add i32 %xor, -32768
ret i32 %add
}
We already have that fold in visitAdd().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22477
llvm-svn: 276035
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
Summary:
Extract method haveNoCommonBitsSet so that we don't have to duplicate this logic in
InstCombine and SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP.
This patch also makes SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP more precise by passing
DominatorTree to computeKnownBits.
Test Plan: value-tracking-domtree.ll that tests ValueTracking indeed leverages dominating conditions
Reviewers: broune, meheff, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9734
llvm-svn: 237407
The rule that turns a sub to xor if the LHS is 2^n-1 and the remaining bits
are known zero, does not use the demanded bits at all: Move it to the
normal InstCombine code path.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9417
llvm-svn: 236268
Roman Lebedev