This is already done within InstCombine:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/MiGE22
...but leaving it out of analysis makes it
harder to avoid infinite loops there.
This is already done within InstCombine:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/MiGE22
...but leaving it out of analysis makes it
harder to avoid infinite loops there.
ValueTracking should allow for value ranges that may satisfy
llvm.assume, instead of restricting the ranges only to values that
will always satisfy the condition.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107298
Proposed alternative to D105338.
This is ugly, but short-term I think it's the best way forward: first,
let's formalize the hacks into a coherent model. Then we can consider
extensions of that model (we could have different flavors of volatile
with different rules).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106309
This replaces the current ad-hoc implementation,
by syncing the code from InstCombine's implementation in `InstCombinerImpl::visitUnreachableInst()`,
with one exception that here in SimplifyCFG we are allowed to remove EH instructions.
Effectively, this now allows SimplifyCFG to remove calls (iff they won't throw and will return),
arithmetic/logic operations, etc.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105374
This borrows as much as possible from the SDAG version of the code
(originally added with D27129 and since updated with big endian support).
In IR, we can test more easily for correctness than we did in the
original patch. I'm using the simplest cases that I could find for
InstSimplify: we computeKnownBits on variable shift amounts to see if
they are zero or in range. So shuffle constant elements into a vector,
cast it, and shift it.
The motivating x86 example from https://llvm.org/PR50123 is also here.
We computeKnownBits in the caller code, but we only check if the shift
amount is in range. That could be enhanced to catch the 2nd x86 test -
if the shift amount is known too big, the result is 0.
Alive2 understands the datalayout and agrees that the tests here are
correct - example:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/KZJFMZ
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104472
This was reverted because of a reported problem. It turned out this patch didn't introduce said problem, it just exposed it more widely. 15a4233 fixes the root issue, so this simple a) rebases over that, and b) adds a much more extensive comment explaining why that weakened assert is correct.
Original commit message follows:
Follow up to D99912, specifically the revert, fix, and reapply thereof.
This generalizes the invertible recurrence logic in two ways:
* By allowing mismatching operand numbers of the phi, we can recurse through a pair of phi recurrences whose operand orders have not been canonicalized.
* By allowing recurrences through operand 1, we can invert these odd (but legal) recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100884
There's a TODO comment in the code and discussion in D99912
about generalizing this, but I wasn't sure how to implement that,
so just going with a potential minimal fix to avoid crashing.
The test is a reduction beyond useful code (there's no user of
%user...), but it is based on https://llvm.org/PR50191, so this
is asserting on real code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101772
This update supports the following transformation:
```
select(extract(mul_with_overflow(a, _), _), (a == 0), false)
=>
and(extract(mul_with_overflow(a, _), _), (a == 0))
```
which is correct because if `a` was poison the select's condition was
also poison.
This update is splitted from D101423.
The current code can scan an unlimited number of instructions,
if the containing basic block is very large. The test case from
PR50155 contains a basic block with approximately 100k instructions.
To avoid this, limit the number of instructions we inspect. At
the same time, drop the limit on the number of basic blocks, as
this will be implicitly limited by the number of instructions as
well.
This seems like a reasonable upper bound on VL. WG discussions for
the V spec would probably allow us to use 2^16 as an upper bound
on VLEN, but this is good enough for now.
This allows us to remove sext and zext if user happens to assign
the size_t result into an int and then uses it as a VL intrinsic
argument which is size_t.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck, rogfer01, arcbbb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101472
Follow up to D99912, specifically the revert, fix, and reapply thereof.
This generalizes the invertible recurrence logic in two ways:
* By allowing mismatching operand numbers of the phi, we can recurse through a pair of phi recurrences whose operand orders have not been canonicalized.
* By allowing recurrences through operand 1, we can invert these odd (but legal) recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100884
I'd reverted this in commit 3b6acb1797 due to buildbot failures. This patch contains the fix for said issue. I'd forgotten to handle the case where two phis in the same block have different operand order. We canonicalize away from this, but it's still valid IR. The tests included in this change (as opposed to simply having test output changed), crashed without the fix.
Original commit message follows...
This extends the phi handling in isKnownNonEqual with a special case based on invertible recurrences. If we can prove the recurrence is invertible (which many common ones are), we can recurse through the start operands of the recurrence skipping the phi cycle.
(Side note: Instcombine currently does not push back through these cases. I will implement that in a follow up change w/separate review.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99912
This extends the phi handling in isKnownNonEqual with a special case based on invertible recurrences. If we can prove the recurrence is invertible (which many common ones are), we can recurse through the start operands of the recurrence skipping the phi cycle.
(Side note: Instcombine currently does not push back through these cases. I will implement that in a follow up change w/separate review.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99912
This is an alternative to D99759 to avoid the compile-time explosion seen in:
https://llvm.org/PR49785
Another potential solution would make the exclusion logic stronger to avoid
blowing up, but note that we reduced the complexity of the exclusion mechanism
in D16204 because it was too costly.
So I'm questioning the need for recursion/exclusion entirely - what is the
optimization value vs. cost of recursively computing known bits based on
assumptions?
This was built into the implementation from the start with 60db058,
and we have kept adding code/cost to deal with that capability.
By clearing the query's AssumptionCache inside computeKnownBitsFromAssume(),
this patch retains all existing assume functionality except refining known
bits based on even more assumptions.
We have 1 regression test that shows a difference in optimization power.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100573
Just like in the mul nuw case, it's sufficient that the step is
non-zero. If the step is negative, then the values will jump
between positive and negative, "crossing" zero, but the value of
the recurrence is never actually zero.
It's okay if the step is zero, we'll just stay at the same non-zero
value in that case. The valuable part of this is that the step
doesn't even need to be a constant anymore.
The start value can't be null for something to be a non-zero
recurrence, so hoist that common check out of the switch.
Subsequent checks may be incomplete or over-specified as noted in:
D100408
For use in an uncoming patch. Left out the phi case (which could otherwise fit in this framework) as it would cause infinite recursion in said patch. We can probably also leverage this in instcombine to ensure we keep the two sets of related analysis and transforms in sync.
This is a patch teaching ValueTracking that `s/u*.with.overflow` intrinsics do not
create undef/poison and they propagate poison.
I couldn't write a nice example like the one with ctpop; ValueTrackingTest.cpp were simply updated
to check these instead.
This patch helps reducing regression while fixing https://llvm.org/pr49688 .
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99671
Handle (x << s) != (y << s) where x != y and the shifts are
non-wrapping. Once again, this establishes parity with the
corresponing mul fold that already exists. The shift case is
more powerful because we don't need to guard against multiplies
by zero.
This handles the pattern X != X << C for non-zero X and C and a
non-overflowing shift. This establishes parity with the corresponing
fold for multiplies.
This is mainly for clarity: It doesn't make sense to do any
negative/positive checks when dealing with a nuw add/mul. These
only make sense to nsw add/mul.
loop:
%cmp.0 = phi i32 [ 3, %entry ], [ %inc, %loop ]
%pos.0 = phi i32 [ 1, %entry ], [ %cmp.0, %loop ]
...
%inc = add i32 %cmp.0, 1
br label %loop
On above example, %pos.0 uses previous iteration's %cmp.0 with backedge
according to PHI's instruction's defintion. If the %inc is not same among
iterations, we can say the two PHIs are not same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98422
This is similar to the select logic just ahead of the new code.
Min/max choose exactly one value from the inputs, so if both of
those are a power-of-2, then the result must be a power-of-2.
This might help with D98152, but we likely still need other
pieces of the puzzle to avoid regressions.
The change in PatternMatch.h is needed to build with clang.
It's possible there is a better way to deal with the 'const'
incompatibities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99276
This select of ctpop with 0 pattern can get left behind after
loop idiom recognize converts a loop to ctpop. LLVM 10 was able
to optimize this, but LLVM 11 and later is not. The difference
seems to be that some select transforms are now limited based
on canCreateUndefOrPoison.
Teaching canCreateUndefOrPoison about ctpop restores the
LLVM 10 codegen.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99207
X != X * C is true if:
* C is not 0 or 1
* X is not 0
* mul is nsw or nuw
Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uwF29z
This is motivated by one of the cases in D98422.
Normally, this function just doesn't bother about cycles,
and hopes that the caller supplied small-enough depth
so that at worst it will take a potentially large,
but limited amount of time. But that obviously doesn't work
if there is no depth limit.
This reapples 36f1c3db66,
but without asserting, just bailout once cycle is detected.
Jeroen Dobbelaere in
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149206.html
is reporting that this function can end up in an endless loop
when called from SROA w/ full restrict patches.
For now, simply ensure that such problems are caught earlier/easier.
Sanjay Patel