We determined that the MSVC implementation of std::aligned* isn't suited
to our needs. It doesn't support 16 byte alignment or higher, and it
doesn't really guarantee 8 byte alignment. See
https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/1533
Also reverts "ADT: Change AlignedCharArrayUnion to an alias of std::aligned_union_t, NFC"
Also reverts "ADT: Remove AlignedCharArrayUnion, NFC" to bring back
AlignedCharArrayUnion.
This reverts commit 4d8bf870a8.
This reverts commit d10f9863a5.
This reverts commit 4b5dc150b9.
Prepare to delete `AlignedCharArrayUnion` by migrating its users over to
`std::aligned_union_t`.
I will delete `AlignedCharArrayUnion` and its tests in a follow-up
commit so that it's easier to revert in isolation in case some
downstream wants to keep using it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92516
Update all the users of `AlignedCharArrayUnion` to stop peeking inside
(to look at `buffer`) so that a follow-up patch can replace it with an
alias to `std::aligned_union_t`.
This was reviewed as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D92512, but I'm
splitting this bit out to commit first to reduce churn in case the
change to `AlignedCharArrayUnion` needs to be reverted for some
unexpected reason.
We need to preserve wrapping flags to allow better folds.
The cases with geps may be non-intuitive, but that appears to agree with Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JQcqw7
We create 'nsw' ops independent from the original wrapping on the sub.
This is a retry of 324a53205. I cautiously reverted that at 6aa3fc4
because the rules about gep math were not clear. Since then, we
have added this line to LangRef for gep inbounds:
"The successive addition of offsets (without adding the base address)
does not wrap the pointer index type in a signed sense (nsw)."
See D90708 and post-commit comments on the revert patch for more details.
Handle the emission of the add in a single place, instead of three
different ones.
Don't emit an unnecessary add with zero to start with. It will get
dropped by InstCombine, but we may as well not create it in the
first place. This also means that InstCombine does not need to
specially handle this extra add.
This is conceptually NFC, but can affect worklist order etc.
There might be some demanded/known bits way to generalize this,
but I'm not seeing it right now.
This came up as a regression when I was looking at a different
demanded bits improvement.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/5fl
Name: general
Pre: ((-1 << countTrailingZeros(C1)) & C2) == 0
%a1 = add i8 %x, C1
%a2 = and i8 %x, C2
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, ~C2
Name: test 1
%a1 = add i8 %x, 192
%a2 = and i8 %x, 10
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, -11
Name: test 2
%a1 = add i8 %x, -108
%a2 = and i8 %x, 3
%r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
=>
%r = and i8 %a1, -4
As shown in the affected test, we could increase instruction
count without this limitation. There's another test with extra
use that shows we still convert directly to a real "sext" if
possible.
There might be a better way to specify the pre-conditions,
but this is hopefully clearer than the way it was written:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Jhk3
Pre: C2 < 0 && isShiftedMask(C2) && (C1 == C1 & C2)
%a = and %x, C2
%r = add %a, C1
=>
%a2 = add %x, C1
%r = and %a2, C2
Pre-conditions seem to be optimal, but we don't need a use check
because we are only replacing an add with a sub.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/hzN
Pre: (~C1 | C2 == -1) && isPowerOf2(C2+1)
%m = and i8 %x, C1
%f = xor i8 %m, C2
%r = add i8 %f, C3
=>
%r = sub i8 C2 + C3, %m
We do similar factorization folds in SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws,
but that drops no-wrap properties. Propagating those optimally may
help solve:
https://llvm.org/PR47430
The propagation is all-or-nothing for these patterns: when all
3 incoming ops have nsw or nuw, the 2 new ops should have the
same no-wrap property:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Dv8wsU
This also solves:
https://llvm.org/PR47584
This was supposed to be an NFC cleanup, but there's
a real logic difference (did not drop 'nsw') visible
in some tests in addition to an efficiency improvement.
This is because in the case where we have 2 GEPs,
the code was *always* swapping the operands and
negating the result. But if we have 2 GEPs, we
should *never* need swapping/negation AFAICT.
This is part of improving flags propagation noticed
with PR47430.
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
This is the integer sibling to D81491.
(a[0] + a[1] + a[2] + a[3]) - (b[0] + b[1] + b[2] +b[3]) -->
(a[0] - b[0]) + (a[1] - b[1]) + (a[2] - b[2]) + (a[3] - b[3])
Removing the "experimental" from these intrinsics is likely
not too far away.
(a[0] + a[1] + a[2] + a[3]) - (b[0] + b[1] + b[2] +b[3]) -->
(a[0] - b[0]) + (a[1] - b[1]) + (a[2] - b[2]) + (a[3] - b[3])
This should be the last step in solving PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
We started emitting reduction intrinsics with:
D80867/ rGe50059f6b6b3
So it's a relatively easy pattern match now to re-order those ops.
Also, I have not seen any complaints for the switch to intrinsics
yet, so I'll propose to remove the "experimental" tag from the
intrinsics soon.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81491
Summary:
"X % C == 0" is optimized to "X & C-1 == 0" (where C is a power-of-two)
However, "X % Y" can also be represented as "X - (X / Y) * Y" so if I rewrite the initial expression:
"X - (X / C) * C == 0" it's not currently optimized to "X & C-1 == 0", see godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/KzuXUj
This is my first contribution to LLVM so I hope I didn't mess things up
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79369
The -reassociate pass tends to transform this kind of pattern into
something that is worse for vectorization and codegen. See PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
Follows-up the FP version of the same transform:
rGa0ce2338a083
The -reassociate pass tends to transform this kind of pattern into
something that is worse for vectorization and codegen. See PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
This eliminates a use of 'B', so it can enable follow-on transforms
as well as improve analysis/codegen.
The PhaseOrdering test was added for D61726, and that shows
the limits of instcombine vs. real reassociation. We would
need to run some form of CSE to collapse that further.
The intermediate variable naming here is intentional because
there's a test at llvm/test/Bitcode/value-with-long-name.ll
that would break with the usual nameless value. I'm not sure
how to improve that test to be more robust.
The naming may also be helpful to debug regressions if this
change exposes weaknesses in the reassociation pass for example.
Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.
Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`
This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
Now compiler defines 5 sets of constants to represent rounding mode.
These are:
1. `llvm::APFloatBase::roundingMode`. It specifies all 5 rounding modes
defined by IEEE-754 and is used in `APFloat` implementation.
2. `clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind`. It specifies 4 of 5 IEEE-754
rounding modes and a special value for dynamic rounding mode. It is used
in clang frontend.
3. `llvm::fp::RoundingMode`. Defines the same values as
`clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind` but in different order. It is
used to specify rounding mode in in IR and functions that operate IR.
4. Rounding mode representation used by `FLT_ROUNDS` (C11, 5.2.4.2.2p7).
Besides constants for rounding mode it also uses a special value to
indicate error. It is convenient to use in intrinsic functions, as it
represents platform-independent representation for rounding mode. In this
role it is used in some pending patches.
5. Values like `FE_DOWNWARD` and other, which specify rounding mode in
library calls `fesetround` and `fegetround`. Often they represent bits
of some control register, so they are target-dependent. The same names
(not values) and a special name `FE_DYNAMIC` are used in
`#pragma STDC FENV_ROUND`.
The first 4 sets of constants are target independent and could have the
same numerical representation. It would simplify conversion between the
representations. Also now `clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind` and
`llvm::fp::RoundingMode` do not contain the value for IEEE-754 rounding
direction `roundTiesToAway`, although it is supported natively on
some targets.
This change defines all the rounding mode type via one `llvm::RoundingMode`,
which also contains rounding mode for IEEE rounding direction `roundTiesToAway`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77379
Summary: Rewrite the fsub-0.0 idiom to fneg and always emit fneg for fp
negation. This also extends the scalarization cost in instcombine for unary
operators to result in the same IR rewrites for fneg as for the idiom.
Reviewed By: cameron.mcinally
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75467
SimplifyAddWithRemainder currently also matches for vector types, but
tries to create an integer constant, which causes a crash.
By using Constant::getIntegerValue() we can support both the scalar and
vector cases.
The 2 added test cases crash without the fix.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: spatel, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75906
Use UnaryOperator::CreateFNeg instead.
Summary:
With the introduction of the native fneg instruction, the
fsub -0.0, %x idiom is obsolete. This patch makes LLVM
emit fneg instead of the idiom in all places.
Reviewed By: cameron.mcinally
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75130
This is a followup to D73803, which uses the replaceOperand()
helper in more places.
This should be NFC apart from changes to worklist order.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73919
Followup to D72978. This moves existing negation handling in
InstCombine into freelyNegateValue(), which make it composable.
In particular, root negations of div/zext/sext/ashr/lshr/sub can
now always be performed through a shl/trunc as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73288
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44529. We already have
a combine to sink a negation through a left-shift, but it currently
only works if the shift operand is negatable without creating any
instructions. This patch introduces freelyNegateValue() as a more
powerful extension of dyn_castNegVal(), which allows negating a
value as long as this doesn't end up increasing instruction count.
Specifically, this patch adds support for negating A-B to B-A.
This mechanism could in the future be extended to handle general
negation chains that a) start at a proper 0-X negation and b) only
require one operand to be freely negatable. This would end up as a
weaker form of D68408 aimed at the most obviously profitable subset
that eliminates a negation entirely.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72978
This is 1 of the potential folds uncovered by extending D72521.
We don't seem to do this in the backend either (unless I'm not
seeing some target-specific transform).
icc and gcc (appears to be target-specific) do this transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73057
As discussed in the motivating PR44509:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44509
...we can end up with worse code using fast-math than without.
This is because the reassociate pass greedily transforms fsub
into fneg/fadd and apparently (based on the regression tests
seen here) expects instcombine to clean that up if it wasn't
profitable. But we were missing this fold:
(X - Y) - Z --> X - (Y + Z)
There's another, more specific case that I think we should
handle as shown in the "fake" fneg test (but missed with a real
fneg), but that's another patch. That may be tricky to get
right without conflicting with existing transforms for fneg.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72521
Fix https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44419 by preserving the
nuw on sub of geps. We only do this if the offset has a multiplication
as the final operation, as we can't be sure the operations is nuw
in the other cases without more thorough analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048
I would think it's better than having two practically identical folds
next to eachother, but then generalization isn't all that pretty
due to the fact that we need to produce different `sub` each time..
This change is no-functional-changes-intended refactoring.
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
Roman Lebedev