This is a fix for:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43730
...and as shown there, we have existing test cases that show potential miscompiles.
We could just bail out for vector constants that contain any undef elements, or we can do as shown here:
allow the transform, but replace the undefs with a safe value.
For most of the tests shown, this results in a full splat constant (no undefs) which is probably a win
for further IR analysis because we conservatively don't match undefs in most cases. Codegen can probably
recover these kinds of undef lanes via demanded elements analysis if that's profitable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69519
This adds folds for comparing uadd.sat/usub.sat with zero:
* uadd.sat(a, b) == 0 => a == 0 && b == 0 => (a | b) == 0
* usub.sat(a, b) == 0 => a <= b
And inverted forms for !=.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69224
llvm-svn: 375374
Summary:
This problem consists of several parts:
* Basic sign bit extraction - `trunc? (?shr %x, (bitwidth(x)-1))`.
This is trivial, and easy to do, we have a fold for it.
* Shift amount reassociation - if we have two identical shifts,
and we can simplify-add their shift amounts together,
then we likely can just perform them as a single shift.
But this is finicky, has one-use restrictions,
and shift opcodes must be identical.
But there is a super-pattern where both of these work together.
to produce sign bit test from two shifts + comparison.
We do indeed already handle this in most cases.
But since we get that fold transitively, it has one-use restrictions.
And what's worse, in this case the right-shifts aren't required to be
identical, and we can't handle that transitively:
If the total shift amount is bitwidth-1, only a sign bit will remain
in the output value. But if we look at this from the perspective of
two shifts, we can't fold - we can't possibly know what bit pattern
we'd produce via two shifts, it will be *some* kind of a mask
produced from original sign bit, but we just can't tell it's shape:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/cM0https://rise4fun.com/Alive/9IN
But it will *only* contain sign bit and zeros.
So from the perspective of sign bit test, we're good:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/FRzhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/qBU
Superb!
So the simplest solution is to extend `reassociateShiftAmtsOfTwoSameDirectionShifts()` to also have a
sudo-analysis mode that will ignore extra-uses, and will only check
whether a) those are two right shifts and b) they end up with bitwidth(x)-1
shift amount and return either the original value that we sign-checking,
or null.
This does not have any functionality change for
the existing `reassociateShiftAmtsOfTwoSameDirectionShifts()`.
All that being said, as disscussed in the review, this yet again
increases usage of instsimplify in instcombine as utility.
Some day that may need to be reevaluated.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43595
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, vsk
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68930
llvm-svn: 375371
True, no test coverage is being added here. But those non-canonical
predicates that are already handled here already have no test coverage
as far as i can tell. I tried to add tests for them, but all the patterns
already get handled elsewhere.
llvm-svn: 373962
We do indeed already get it right in some cases, but only transitively,
with one-use restrictions. Since we only need to produce a single
comparison, it makes sense to match the pattern directly:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/kPg
llvm-svn: 373802
Summary:
Removing an assumption (assert) that the CmpInst already has been
simplified in getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant. Solution is
to simply bail out instead of hitting the assertion. Instead we
assume that any profitable rewrite will happen in the next iteration
of InstCombine.
The reason why we can't assume that the CmpInst already has been
simplified is that the worklist does not guarantee such an ordering.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43376
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68022
llvm-svn: 372972
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
This has the potential to uncover missed analysis/folds as shown in the
min/max code comment/test, but fewer restrictions on icmp folds should
be better in general to solve cases like:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
llvm-svn: 372510
Related folds were added in:
rL125734
...the code comment about register pressure is discussed in
more detail in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698
But 10 years later, perf testing bzip2 with this change now
shows a slight (0.2% average) improvement on Haswell although
that's probably within test noise.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 and rL371981 are related patches in this series.
llvm-svn: 372007
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL125734>
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 is a related patch in this series.
llvm-svn: 371981
This blob was written before match() existed, so it
could probably be reduced significantly.
But I suspect it isn't well tested, so tests would have
to be added to reduce risk from logic changes.
llvm-svn: 371978
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
There are similar checks as noted with the TODO comments. I'm
hoping to remove those restrictions too, but if any of these
does cause a regression, it should be easier to correct by making
small, individual commits.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
llvm-svn: 371940
(srem X, pow2C) sgt/slt 0 can be reduced using bit hacks by masking
off the sign bit and the module (low) bits:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jSO
A '2' divisor allows slightly more folding:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/tDBM
Any chance to remove an 'srem' use is probably worthwhile, but this is limited
to the one-use improvement case because doing more may expose other missing
folds. That means it does nothing for PR21929 yet:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21929
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67334
llvm-svn: 371610
A follow-up for r329011.
This may be changed to produce @llvm.sub.with.overflow in a later patch,
but for now just make things more consistent overall.
A few observations stem from this:
* There does not seem to be a similar one-instruction fold for uadd-overflow
* I'm not sure we'll want to canonicalize `B u> A` as `usub.with.overflow`,
so since the `icmp` here no longer refers to `sub`,
reconstructing `usub.with.overflow` will be problematic,
and will likely require standalone pass (similar to DivRemPairs).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Zqs
Name: (A - B) u> A --> B u> A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ugt i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %B, %A
Name: (A - B) u<= A --> B u<= A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ule i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ule i8 %B, %A
Name: C u< (C - D) --> C u< D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %D
Name: C u>= (C - D) --> C u>= D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %D
llvm-svn: 371101
Summary:
Finally, the fold i was looking forward to :)
The legality check is muddy, i doubt i've groked the full generalization,
but it handles all the cases i care about, and can come up with:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/26j
I.e. we can perform the fold if **any** of the following is true:
* The shift amount is either zero or one less than widest bitwidth
* Either of the values being shifted has at most lowest bit set
* The value that is being shifted by `shl` (which is not truncated) should have no less leading zeros than the total shift amount;
* The value that is being shifted by `lshr` (which **is** truncated) should have no less leading zeros than the widest bit width minus total shift amount minus one
I strongly suspect there is some better generalization, but i'm not aware of it as of right now.
For now i also avoided using actual `computeKnownBits()`, but restricted it to constants.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66383
llvm-svn: 370324
Summary:
`matchThreeWayIntCompare()` looks for
```
select i1 (a == b),
i32 Equal,
i32 (select i1 (a < b), i32 Less, i32 Greater)
```
but both of these selects/compares can be in it's commuted form,
so out of 8 variants, only the two most basic ones is handled.
This fixes regression being introduced in D66232.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66607
llvm-svn: 369841
Summary:
If we have e.g.:
```
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
```
the constants `65535` and `65536` are suspiciously close.
We could perform a transformation to deduplicate them:
```
Name: ult
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
=>
%t.inv = icmp ugt i32 %x, 65535
%r = select i1 %t.inv, i32 65535, i32 %y
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/avb
While this may seem esoteric, this should certainly be good for vectors
(less constant pool usage) and for opt-for-size - need to have only one constant.
But the real fun part here is that it allows further transformation,
in particular it finishes cleaning up the `clamp` folding,
see e.g. `canonicalize-clamp-with-select-of-constant-threshold-pattern.ll`.
We start with e.g.
```
%dont_need_to_clamp_positive = icmp sle i32 %X, 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp_negative = icmp sge i32 %X, -32768
%clamp_limit = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, i32 -32768, i32 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp = and i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, %dont_need_to_clamp_negative
%R = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp, i32 %X, i32 %clamp_limit
```
without this patch we currently produce
```
%1 = icmp slt i32 %X, 32768
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 32767
```
which isn't really a `clamp` - both comparisons are performed on the original value,
this patch changes it into
```
%1.inv = icmp sgt i32 %X, 32767
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1.inv, i32 32767, i32 %3
```
and then the magic happens! Some further transform finishes polishing it and we finally get:
```
%t1 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%t2 = select i1 %t1, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%t3 = icmp slt i32 %t2, 32767
%R = select i1 %t3, i32 %t2, i32 32767
```
which is beautiful and just what we want.
Proofs for `getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant()` for de-canonicalization:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Proofs for the fold itself: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66232
llvm-svn: 369840
Started implementing the vector case and realized the scalar case hadn't handled the GEP producing a different type than the base correctly. It's entertaining seeing what slips through review when we're focused on the 'hard' parts. :(
Also adding an extra vector test as it happened to be in workspace and wasn't worth separating.
llvm-svn: 369795
This generalizes the isGEPKnownNonNull rule from ValueTracking to apply when we do not know if the base is non-null, and thus need to replace one condition with another.
The core notion is that since an inbounds GEP can only form null if the base pointer is null and the offset is zero. However, if the offset is non-zero, the the "inbounds" marker makes the result poison. Thus, we're free to ignore the case where the offset is non-zero. Similarly, there's no case under which a non-null base can result in a null result without generating poison.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66608
llvm-svn: 369789
An intermediate extend is used to widen the narrow operand to the width of
the other (wider) operand. At that point, we have the same logic as the
existing transform that was restricted to folds of equal width zext/sext.
This mostly solves PR42700:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42700
llvm-svn: 369519
1. Update function name and stale code comments.
2. Use variable names that are less ambiguous.
3. Move operand checks into the function as early exits.
llvm-svn: 369390
Summary:
This is continuation of D63829 / https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42399
I thought naive pattern would solve my issue, but nope, it involved truncation,
thus more folds needed.. This isn't really the fold i'm interested in,
i need trunc-of-lshr, but i'we decided to start with `shl` because it's simpler.
In this case, no extra legality checks are needed:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/CAb
We should be careful about not increasing instruction count,
since we need to produce `zext` because `and` is done in wider type.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66057
llvm-svn: 369117
Instead of matching value and then blindly casting to BinaryOperator
just to get the opcode, just match instruction and do no cast.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42962
llvm-svn: 368554
If one of the values being shifted is a constant, since the new shift
amount is known-constant, the new shift will end up being constant-folded
so, we don't need that one-use restriction then.
llvm-svn: 368519
That one-use restriction is not needed for correctness - we have already
ensured that one of the shifts will go away, so we know we won't increase
the instruction count. So there is no need for that restriction.
llvm-svn: 368518
Summary:
I have stumbled into this by accident while preparing to extend backend `x s% C ==/!= 0` handling.
While we did happen to handle this fold in most of the cases,
the folding is indirect - we fold `x u% y` to `x & (y-1)` (iff `y` is power-of-two),
or first turn `x s% -y` to `x u% y`; that does handle most of the cases.
But we can't turn `x s% INT_MIN` to `x u% -INT_MIN`,
and thus we end up being stuck with `(x s% INT_MIN) == 0`.
There is no such restriction for the more general fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IIeS
To be noted, the fold does not enforce that `y` is a constant,
so it may indeed increase instruction count.
This is consistent with what `x u% y`->`x & (y-1)` already does.
I think it makes sense, it's at most one (simple) extra instruction,
while `rem`ainder is really much more un-simple (and likely **very** costly).
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, nikic, xbolva00, craig.topper
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65046
llvm-svn: 367322
Extends the transform from:
rL364341
...to include another (more common?) pattern that tests whether a
value is a power-of-2 (including or excluding zero).
llvm-svn: 364856
Summary:
Given pattern:
`icmp eq/ne (and ((x shift Q), (y oppositeshift K))), 0`
we should move shifts to the same hand of 'and', i.e. rewrite as
`icmp eq/ne (and (x shift (Q+K)), y), 0` iff `(Q+K) u< bitwidth(x)`
It might be tempting to not restrict this to situations where we know
we'd fold two shifts together, but i'm not sure what rules should there be
to avoid endless combine loops.
We pick the same shift that was originally used to shift the variable we picked to shift:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/6x1v
Should fix [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42399 | PR42399]].
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63829
llvm-svn: 364791
This follows up the transform from rL363956 to use the ctpop intrinsic when checking for power-of-2-or-zero.
This is matching the isPowerOf2() patterns used in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
But there's at least 1 instcombine follow-up needed to match the alternate form:
(v & (v - 1)) == 0;
We should have all of the backend expansions handled with:
rL364319
(x86-specific changes still needed for optimal code based on subtarget)
And the larger patterns to exclude zero as a power-of-2 are joining with this change after:
rL364153 ( D63660 )
rL364246
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63777
llvm-svn: 364341
The form that compares against 0 is better because:
1. It removes a use of the input value.
2. It's the more standard form for this pattern: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#DetermineIfPowerOf2
3. It results in equal or better codegen (tested with x86, AArch64, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS).
This is a root cause for PR42314, but probably doesn't completely answer the codegen request:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
Alive proof:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/9kG
Name: is power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a2, 0
Name: is not power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a2, 0
llvm-svn: 363956
Previously, this used a statement like this:
Map[A] = Map[B];
This is equivalent to the following:
const auto &Src = Map[B];
auto &Dest = Map[A];
Dest = Src;
The second statement, "auto &Dest = Map[A];" can insert a new
element into the DenseMap, which can potentially grow and reallocate
the DenseMap's internal storage, which will invalidate the existing
reference to the source. When doing the actual assignment,
the Src reference is dereferenced, accessing memory that was
freed when the DenseMap grew.
This issue hasn't shown up when LLVM was built with Clang, because
the right hand side ended up dereferenced before evaulating the
left hand side. (If the value type is a larger data type, Clang doesn't
do this but behaves like GCC.)
With GCC, a cast to Value* isn't enough to make it dereference the
right hand side reference before invoking operator[] (while that is
enough to make Clang/LLVM do the right thing for larger types), but
storing it in an intermediate variable in a separate statement works.
This fixes PR42065.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62624
llvm-svn: 362150
In order to fold an always overflowing signed saturating add/sub,
we need to know in which direction the always overflow occurs.
This patch splits up AlwaysOverflows into AlwaysOverflowsLow and
AlwaysOverflowsHigh to pass through this information (but it is
not used yet).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62463
llvm-svn: 361858
Extract method to compute overflow based on binop and signedness,
and then make the result handling code generic. This extends the
always-overflow handling to signed muls, but has currently no effect,
as we don't compute always overflow for them (thus NFC).
llvm-svn: 361721
Fundamentally/generally, we should not have to rely on bailouts/crippling of
folds. In this particular case, I think we always recognize the inverted
predicate min/max pattern, so there should not be any loss of optimization.
Codegen looks better because we are eliminating an fneg.
llvm-svn: 360180
Follow-up to:
rL359482
Avoid this potential problem throughout by giving the type a name
and verifying the assumption that both operands are the same type.
llvm-svn: 359485
PVS Studio's copy+paste recognizer was seeing this as a typo, technically Op0/Op1 in a fcmp should always be the same type, but we might as well avoid the issue.
Reported in https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0629/
llvm-svn: 359482
As pointed out in D60518 folding mulo(%x, undef) to {undef, undef}
isn't correct. As a correct version of this already exists in
InstructionSimplify (bd8056ef32/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp (L4750-L4757)) this is just
dead code though. Drop it together with the mul(%x, 0) -> {0, false}
fold that is also already handled by InstSimplify.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60649
llvm-svn: 358339
Following D60483 and D60497, this adds support for AlwaysOverflows
handling for ssubo. This is the last case we can handle right now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60518
llvm-svn: 358100
Check AlwaysOverflow condition for usubo. The implementation is the
same as the existing handling for uaddo and umulo. Handling for saddo
and ssubo will follow (smulo doesn't have the necessary ValueTracking
support).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60483
llvm-svn: 358052
Change the code to always handle the unsigned+signed cases together
with the same basic structure for add/sub/mul. The simple folds are
always handled first and then the ValueTracking overflow checks are
used.
llvm-svn: 358025
This fixes a class of bugs introduced by D44367,
which transforms various cases of icmp (bitcast ([su]itofp X)), Y to icmp X, Y.
If the bitcast is between vector types with a different number of elements,
the current code will produce bad IR along the lines of: icmp <N x i32> ..., <M x i32> <...>.
This patch suppresses the transform if the bitcast changes the number of vector elements.
Patch by: @AndrewScheidecker (Andrew Scheidecker)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57871
llvm-svn: 353467
We should canonicalize to one of these forms,
and compare-with-zero could be more conducive
to follow-on transforms. This also leads to
generally better codegen as shown in PR40611:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40611
llvm-svn: 353313
This cleans up all CallInst creation in LLVM to explicitly pass a
function type rather than deriving it from the pointer's element-type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57170
llvm-svn: 352909
Followup to D55745, this time handling comparisons with ugt and ult
predicates (which are the canonical forms for non-equality predicates).
For ctlz we can convert into a simple icmp, for cttz we can convert
into a mask check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56355
llvm-svn: 351645
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
Checking whether a number has a certain number of trailing / leading
zeros means checking whether it is of the form XXXX1000 / 0001XXXX,
which can be done with an and+icmp.
Related to https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28668. As a next
step, this can be extended to non-equality predicates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55745
llvm-svn: 349530
This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39908.
The evaluateGEPOffsetExpression() function simplifies GEP offsets for
use in comparisons against zero, basically by converting X*Scale+Offset==0
to X+Offset/Scale==0 if Scale divides Offset. However, before this is done,
Offset is masked down to the pointer size. This results in incorrect
results for negative Offsets, because we basically end up dividing the
32-bit offset *zero* extended to 64-bit bits (rather than sign extended).
Fix this by explicitly sign extending the truncated value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55449
llvm-svn: 348987
I was finally able to quantify what i thought was missing in the fix,
it was vector constants. If we have a scalar (and %x, -1),
it will be instsimplified before we reach this code,
but if it is a vector, we may still have a -1 element.
Thus, we want to avoid the fold if *at least one* element is -1.
Or in other words, ignoring the undef elements, no sign bits
should be set. Thus, m_NonNegative().
A follow-up for rL348181
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39861
llvm-svn: 348462
The tests here are based on the motivating cases from D54827.
More background:
1. We don't get these cases in general with SimplifyCFG because the root
of the pattern match is an icmp, not a branch. I'm not sure how often
we encounter this pattern vs. the seemingly more likely case with
branches, but I don't see evidence to leave the minimal pattern
unoptimized.
2. This has a chance of increasing compile-time because we're using a
ValueTracking call to handle the match. The motivating cases could be
handled with a simpler pair of calls to isImpliedTrueByMatchingCmp/
isImpliedFalseByMatchingCmp, but I saw that we have a more
comprehensive wrapper around those, so we might as well use it here
unless there's evidence that it's significantly slower.
3. Ideally, we'd handle the fold to constants in InstSimplify, but as
with the existing code here, we could extend this to handle cases
where the result is not a constant, but a new combined predicate.
That would mean splitting the logic across the 2 passes and possibly
duplicating the pattern-matching cost.
4. As mentioned in D54827, this seems like the kind of thing that should
be handled in Correlated Value Propagation, but that pass is currently
limited to dealing with instructions with constant operands, so extending
this bit of InstCombine is the smallest/easiest way to get these patterns
optimized.
llvm-svn: 348367
Move it out from under the constant check, reorder
predicates, add comments. This makes it easier to
extend to handle the non-constant case.
llvm-svn: 348284
There's a potential small enhancement to this code that could
solve the cases currently under proposal in D54827 via SimplifyCFG.
Whether instcombine should be doing this kind of semi-non-local
analysis in the first place is an open question, but separating
the logic out can only help if/when we decide to move it to a
different pass.
AFAICT, any proposal to do this in SimplifyCFG could also be seen
as an overreach + it would be incomplete to start the fold from a
branch rather than an icmp.
There's another question here about the code for processUGT_ADDCST_ADD().
That part may be completely dead after rL234638 ?
llvm-svn: 348273
By morphing the instruction rather than deleting and creating a new one,
we retain fast-math-flags and potentially other metadata (profile info?).
llvm-svn: 346331
The sibling fold for 'oge' --> 'ord' was already here,
but this half was missing.
The result of fabs() must be positive or nan, so asking
if the result is negative or nan is the same as asking
if the result is nan.
This is another step towards fixing:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
llvm-svn: 346321
As shown, this is used to eliminate redundant code in InstCombine,
and there are more cases where we should be using this pattern, but
we're currently unintentionally dropping flags.
llvm-svn: 346282
This is another part of solving PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
This might be enough to fix that particular issue, but as noted
with the FIXME, we're still dropping FMF on other folds around here.
llvm-svn: 346234
As stated in IEEE-754 and discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...the sign of zero does not affect any FP compare predicate.
Known regressions were fixed with:
rL346097 (D54001)
rL346143
The transform will help reduce pattern-matching complexity to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
...as well as improve CSE and codegen (a zero constant is almost always
easier to produce than 0x80..00).
llvm-svn: 346147
The 'OLT' case was updated at rL266175, so I assume it was just an
oversight that 'UGE' was not included because that patch handled
both predicates in InstSimplify.
llvm-svn: 345727
Summary:
This is a continuation of the fix for PR34627 "InstCombine assertion at vector gep/icmp folding". (I just realized bugpoint had fuzzed the original test for me, so I had fixed another trigger of the same assert in adjacent code in InstCombine.)
This patch avoids optimizing an icmp (to look only at the base pointers) when the resulting icmp would have a different type.
The patch adds a testcase and also cleans up and shrinks the pre-existing test for the adjacent assert trigger.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, majnemer, spatel
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52494
llvm-svn: 343486
When C is not zero and infinites are not allowed (C / X) > 0 is a sign
test. Depending on the sign of C, the predicate must be swapped.
E.g.:
foo(double X) {
if ((-2.0 / X) <= 0) ...
}
=>
foo(double X) {
if (X >= 0) ...
}
Patch by: @marels (Martin Elshuber)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51942
llvm-svn: 343228
Summary:
Same as to D52146.
`((1 << y)+(-1))` is simply non-canoniacal version of `~(-1 << y)`: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0vl
We can not canonicalize it due to the extra uses. But we can handle it here.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52147
llvm-svn: 342547
Summary:
Two folds are happening here:
1. https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oaFX
2. And then `foldICmpWithHighBitMask()` (D52001): https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wsP4
This change doesn't just add the handling for eq/ne predicates,
it actually builds upon the previous `foldICmpWithLowBitMaskedVal()` work,
so **all** the 16 fold variants* are immediately supported.
I'm indeed only testing these two predicates.
I do not feel like re-proving all 16 folds*, because they were already proven
for the general case of constant with all-ones in low bits. So as long as
the mask produces all-ones in low bits, i'm pretty sure the fold is valid.
But required, i can re-prove, let me know.
* eq/ne are commutative - 4 folds; ult/ule/ugt/uge - are not commutative (the commuted variant is InstSimplified), 4 folds; slt/sle/sgt/sge are not commutative - 4 folds. 12 folds in total.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52146
llvm-svn: 342546
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only n bits wide (where n is a variable.)
There are many ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
More complicated, canonical pattern:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/uhA
We do need to have two `switch()`'es like this,
to not mismatch the swappable predicates.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52001
llvm-svn: 342173
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only `n` bits wide (where `n` is a variable.)
There are **many** ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
Let's handle the second variant first, since it is much simpler.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LYjYhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51985
llvm-svn: 342067
Name: op_ugt_sum
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, %a
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
Name: sum_ult_op
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ult i8 %a, %x
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZRxI
AFAICT, this doesn't interfere with any add-saturation patterns
because those have >1 use for the 'add'. But this should be
better for IR analysis and codegen in the basic cases.
This is another fold inspired by PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 342004
These are the folds in Alive;
Name: xor_ult
Pre: isPowerOf2(-C1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ult i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, ~C1
Name: xor_ugt
Pre: isPowerOf2(C1+1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vty
The ugt case in its simplest form was already handled by DemandedBits,
but that's not ideal as shown in the multi-use test.
I'm not sure if these are all of the symmetrical folds, but I adjusted
the existing code for one of the folds to try to show the similarities.
There's no obvious connection, but this is another preliminary step
for PR14613...
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 341997
There were two combines not covered by the check before now, neither of which
actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687) when we just
didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been diligently maintained
since.
llvm-svn: 341831
Summary:
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38149 | PR38149 ]]
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158957 and later,
the IR for 'check for [no] signed truncation' pattern can be improved:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gBf
^ that pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in signed case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
Proofs for this transform: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
This transform is surprisingly frustrating.
This does not deal with non-splat shift amounts, or with undef shift amounts.
I've outlined what i think the solution should be:
```
// Potential handling of non-splats: for each element:
// * if both are undef, replace with constant 0.
// Because (1<<0) is OK and is 1, and ((1<<0)>>1) is also OK and is 0.
// * if both are not undef, and are different, bailout.
// * else, only one is undef, then pick the non-undef one.
```
The DAGCombine will reverse this transform, see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49266
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49320
llvm-svn: 337190
All predicates are handled.
There does not seem to be any other possible folds here.
There are some more folds possible with inverted mask though.
llvm-svn: 337112
Summary:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123
This pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in unsigned case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Rny
^ there are more opportunities for folds, i will follow up with them afterwards.
Caveat: this somehow exposes a missing opportunities
in `test/Transforms/InstCombine/icmp-logical.ll`
It seems, the problem is in `foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps()` in `InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp`.
But i'm not quite sure what is wrong, because it calls `getMaskedTypeForICmpPair()`,
which calls `decomposeBitTestICmp()` which should already work for these cases...
As @spatel notes in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158760,
that code is a rather complex mess, so we'll let it slide.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: yamauchi, majnemer, t.p.northover, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179
llvm-svn: 336834
This patch changes order of transform in InstCombineCompares to avoid
performing transforms based on ranges which produce complex bit arithmetics
before more simple things (like folding with constants) are done. See PR37636
for the motivating example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48584
Reviewed By: spatel, lebedev.ri
llvm-svn: 336172
Summary:
When iterating users of a multiply in processUMulZExtIdiom, the
call to setOperand in the truncation case may replace the use
being visited; make sure the iterator has been advanced before
doing that replacement.
Reviewers: majnemer, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48192
llvm-svn: 334844
Inspired by r331508, I did a grep and found these.
Mostly just change from dyn_cast to cast. Some cases also showed a dyn_cast result being converted to bool, so those I changed to isa.
llvm-svn: 331577
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:
Folding patterns like:
%vec = shufflevector <4 x i8> %insvec, <4 x i8> undef, <4 x i32> zeroinitializer
%cast = bitcast <4 x i8> %vec to i32
%cond = icmp eq i32 %cast, 0
into:
%ext = extractelement <4 x i8> %insvec, i32 0
%cond = icmp eq i32 %ext, 0
Combined with existing rules, this allows us to fold patterns like:
%insvec = insertelement <4 x i8> undef, i8 %val, i32 0
%vec = shufflevector <4 x i8> %insvec, <4 x i8> undef, <4 x i32> zeroinitializer
%cast = bitcast <4 x i8> %vec to i32
%cond = icmp eq i32 %cast, 0
into:
%cond = icmp eq i8 %val, 0
When we construct a splat vector via a shuffle, and bitcast the vector into an integer type for comparison against an integer constant. Then we can simplify the the comparison to compare the splatted value against the integer constant.
Reviewers: spatel, anna, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44997
llvm-svn: 329087
Summary:
Presently, InstCombiner::foldICmpWithCastAndCast() implicitly assumes that it is
only invoked with icmp instructions of integer type. If that assumption is broken,
and it is called with an icmp of vector type, then it fails (asserts/crashes).
This patch addresses the deficiency. It allows it to simplify
icmp (ptrtoint x), (ptrtoint/c) of vector type into a compare of the inputs,
much as is done when the type is integer.
Reviewers: apilipenko, fedor.sergeev, mkazantsev, anna
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44063
llvm-svn: 326730
Making a width of GEP Index, which is used for address calculation, to be one of the pointer properties in the Data Layout.
p[address space]:size:memory_size:alignment:pref_alignment:index_size_in_bits.
The index size parameter is optional, if not specified, it is equal to the pointer size.
Till now, the InstCombiner normalized GEPs and extended the Index operand to the pointer width.
It works fine if you can convert pointer to integer for address calculation and all registered targets do this.
But some ISAs have very restricted instruction set for the pointer calculation. During discussions were desided to retrieve information for GEP index from the Data Layout.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120416.html
I added an interface to the Data Layout and I changed the InstCombiner and some other passes to take the Index width into account.
This change does not affect any in-tree target. I added tests to cover data layouts with explicitly specified index size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42123
llvm-svn: 325102
Because of potential UB (known bits conflicts with an llvm.assume),
we have to check rather than assert here because InstSimplify doesn't
kill the compare:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35846
llvm-svn: 322104
Summary:
This patch adds an early out to visitICmpInst if we are looking at a compare as part of an integer absolute value idiom. Similar is already done for min/max.
In the particular case I observed in a benchmark we had an absolute value of a load from an indexed global. We simplified the compare using foldCmpLoadFromIndexedGlobal into a magic bit vector, a shift, and an and. But the load result was still used for the select and the negate part of the absolute valute idiom. So we overcomplicated the code and lost the ability to recognize it as an absolute value.
I've chosen a simpler case for the test here.
Reviewers: spatel, davide, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39766
llvm-svn: 317994
Summary:
The following transformation for cmp instruction:
icmp smin(x, PositiveValue), 0 -> icmp x, 0
should only be done after checking for min/max to prevent infinite
looping caused by a reverse canonicalization. That is why this
transformation was moved to place after the mentioned check.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38934
Patch by: Artur Gainullin <artur.gainullin@intel.com>
llvm-svn: 315895
We can support ashr similar to lshr, if we know that none of the shifted in bits are used. In that case SimplifyDemandedBits would normally convert it to lshr. But that conversion doesn't happen if the shift has additional users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38521
llvm-svn: 314945
Apparently this works by virtue of the fact that the pointers are pointers to the APInts stored inside of the ConstantInt objects. But I really don't think we should be relying on that.
llvm-svn: 314761
Summary: This currently uses ConstantExpr to do its math, but as noted in a TODO it can all be done directly on APInt.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38440
llvm-svn: 314640
This reverts r314017 and similar code added in later commits. It seems to not work for pointer compares and is causing a bot failure for the last several days.
llvm-svn: 314360
If this transformation succeeds, we're going to remove our dependency on the shift by rewriting the and. So it doesn't matter how many uses the shift has.
This distributes the one use check to other transforms in foldICmpAndConstConst that do need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38206
llvm-svn: 314233
All this optimization cares about is knowing how many low bits of LHS is known to be zero and whether that means that the result is 0 or greater than the RHS constant. It doesn't matter where the zeros in the low bits came from. So we don't need to specifically look for an AND. Instead we can use known bits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38195
llvm-svn: 314153
The result of the isSignBitCheck isn't used anywhere else and this allows us to share the m_APInt call in the likely case that it isn't a sign bit check.
llvm-svn: 314018
We already did (X & C2) > C1 --> (X & C2) != 0, if any bit set in (X & C2) will produce a result greater than C1. But there is an equivalent inverse condition with <= C1 (which will be canonicalized to < C1+1)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38065
llvm-svn: 313819
This is a preliminary step towards solving the remaining part of PR27145 - IR for isfinite():
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27145
In order to solve that one more generally, we need to add matching for and/or of fcmp ord/uno
with a constant operand.
But while looking at those patterns, I realized we were missing a canonicalization for nonzero
constants. Rather than limiting to just folds for constants, we're adding a general value
tracking method for this based on an existing DAG helper.
By transforming everything to 0.0, we can simplify the existing code in foldLogicOfFCmps()
and pick up missing vector folds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37427
llvm-svn: 312591
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
We assumed the constant was a scalar when creating the replacement operand.
Also, improve tests for this fold and move the tests for this fold to their own file.
I'll move the related and missing tests to this file as a follow-up.
llvm-svn: 306985
I noticed this missed bswap optimization in the CGP memcmp() expansion,
and then I saw that we don't have the fold in InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34763
llvm-svn: 306980
Summary:
Many languages have a three way comparison idiom where comparing two values
produces not a boolean, but a tri-state value. Typical values (e.g. as used in
the lcmp/fcmp bytecodes from Java) are -1 for less than, 0 for equality, and +1
for greater than.
We actually do a great job already of converting three way comparisons into
binary comparisons when the result produced has one a single use. Unfortunately,
such values can have more than one use, and in that case, our existing
optimizations break down.
The patch adds a peephole which converts a three-way compare + test idiom into a
binary comparison on the original inputs. It focused on replacing the test on
the result of the three way compare and does nothing about removing the three
way compare itself. That's left to other optimizations (which do actually kick
in commonly.)
We currently recognize one idiom on signed integer compare. In the future, we
plan to recognize and simplify other comparison idioms on
other signed/unsigned datatypes such as floats, vectors etc.
This is a resurrection of Philip Reames' original patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19452
Reviewers: majnemer, apilipenko, reames, sanjoy, mkazantsev
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34278
llvm-svn: 306100
I believe this code used to use APInt references which would have worked. But then they were changed to pointers to allow m_APInt to be used.
llvm-svn: 304875
Every other place in InstCombine that uses these methods in ValueTracking already pass this information. This makes the remaining sites consistent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33567
llvm-svn: 304018
We have wrappers for several other ValueTracking methods that take care of passing all of the analysis and assumption cache parameters. This extends it to isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo.
llvm-svn: 303924
There's probably a lot more like this (see also comments in D33338 about responsibility),
but I suspect we don't usually get a visible manifestation.
Given the recent interest in improving InstCombine efficiency, another potential micro-opt
that could be repeated several times in this function: morph the existing icmp pred/operands
instead of creating a new instruction.
llvm-svn: 303860
The swapped operands in the first test is a manifestation of an
inefficiency for vectors that doesn't exist for scalars because
the IRBuilder checks for an all-ones mask for scalars, but not
vectors.
llvm-svn: 303818
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
The missing optimization for xor-of-icmps still needs to be added, but by
being more efficient (not generating unnecessary logic ops with constants)
we avoid the bug.
See discussion in post-commit comments:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 303312
As noted in the post-commit comments in D32143, we should be
catching the constant operand cases sooner to be more efficient
and less likely to expose a missing fold.
llvm-svn: 303309
This adds routines for reseting KnownBits to unknown, making the value all zeros or all ones. It also adds methods for querying if the value is zero, all ones or unknown.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32637
llvm-svn: 302262
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
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
Switch from Euclid's algorithm to Stein's algorithm for computing GCD. This
avoids the (expensive) APInt division operation in favour of bit operations.
Remove all memory allocation from within the GCD loop by tweaking our `lshr`
implementation so it can operate in-place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31968
llvm-svn: 300252
The first thing it did was get the User for the Use to get the instruction back. This requires looking through the Uses for the User using the waymarking walk. That's pretty fast, but its probably still better to just pass the Instruction we already had.
llvm-svn: 298772
Summary:
When InstCombine is optimizing certain select-cmp-br patterns
it replaces the result of the select in uses outside of the
basic block containing the select. This is only legal if the
path from the select to the outside use is disjoint from all
other paths out from the originating basic block.
The problem found was that InstCombiner::replacedSelectWithOperand
did not consider the case when both edges out from the br pointed
to the same label. In that case the paths aren't disjoint and the
transformation is illegal. This patch avoids the faulty rewrites
by verifying that there is a single flow to the successor where
we want to replace uses.
Reviewers: llvm-commits, spatel, majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30455
llvm-svn: 296752
transformToIndexedCompare
If they don't have the same type, the size of the constant
index would need to be adjusted (and this wouldn't be always
possible).
Alternatively we could try the analysis with the initial
RHS value, which would guarantee that the two sides have
the same type. However it is unlikely that in practice this
would pass our transformation requirements.
Fixes PR31808 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31808).
llvm-svn: 293629
This is a minimal patch to avoid the infinite loop in:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31751
But the general problem is bigger: we're not canonicalizing all of the min/max forms reported
by value tracking's matchSelectPattern(), and we don't define min/max consistently. Some code
uses matchSelectPattern(), other code uses matchers like m_Umax, and others have their own
inline definitions which may be subtly different from any of the above.
The reason that the test cases in this patch need a cast op to trigger is because we don't
(yet) canonicalize all min/max forms based on matchSelectPattern() in
canonicalizeMinMaxWithConstant(), but we do make min/max+cast transforms based on
matchSelectPattern() in visitSelectInst().
The location of the icmp transforms that trigger the inf-loop seems arbitrary at best, so
I'm moving those behind the min/max fence in visitICmpInst() as the quick fix.
llvm-svn: 293345
Allows LLVM to optimize sequences like the following:
%add = add nuw i32 %x, 1
%cmp = icmp ugt i32 %add, %y
Into:
%cmp = icmp uge i32 %x, %y
Previously, only signed comparisons were being handled.
Decrements could also be handled, but 'sub nuw %x, 1' is currently canonicalized to
'add %x, -1' in InstCombineAddSub, losing the nuw flag. Removing that canonicalization
seems like it might have far-reaching ramifications so I kept this simple for now.
Patch by Matti Niemenmaa!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24700
llvm-svn: 291975
Min/max canonicalization (r287585) exposes the fact that we're missing combines for min/max patterns.
This patch won't solve the example that was attached to that thread, so something else still needs fixing.
The line between InstCombine and InstSimplify gets blurry here because sometimes the icmp instruction that
we want to fold to already exists, but sometimes it's the swapped form of what we want.
Corresponding changes for smax/umin/umax to follow.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27531
llvm-svn: 289855
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
At least the plugin used by the LibreOffice build
(<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Clang_plugins>) indirectly
uses those members (through inline functions in LLVM/Clang include files in turn
using them), but they are not exported by utils/extract_symbols.py on Windows,
and accessing data across DLL/EXE boundaries on Windows is generally
problematic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26671
llvm-svn: 289647
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
These 2 helper functions were already using APInt internally, so just
change the API and caller to allow folds for splats. The scalar
regression tests look quite thorough, so I just added a couple of
tests to prove that vectors are handled too.
These folds should be grouped with the other cmp+shift folds though.
That can be an NFC follow-up.
llvm-svn: 281663
Dávid Bolvanský