This makes the intrinsic logic match the cmp+select idiom folds
just below. It's not clearly a win either way unless we think
that a 'not' op costs more than min/max.
The cmp+select folds on these patterns are more extensive than
the intrinsics currently and may have some complicated interactions,
so I'm trying to make those line up and bring the optimizations
for intrinsics up to parity.
Currently we only match bswap intrinsics from or(shl(),lshr()) style patterns when we could often match bitreverse intrinsics almost as cheaply.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90170
If a logical and/or is used, we need to be careful not to propagate
a potential poison value from the RHS by inserting a freeze
instruction. Otherwise it works the same way as bitwise and/or.
This is intended to address the regression reported at
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101191#2751002.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102279
We can not rely on (C+X)-->(X+C) already happening,
because we might not have visited that `add` yet.
The added testcase would get stuck in an endless combine loop.
Remove the requirement that the instruction is a BinaryOperator,
make the predicate check more compact and use slightly more
meaningful naming for the and operands.
Let's say you represent (i32, i32) as an i64 from which the parts
are extracted with lshr/trunc. Then, if you compare two tuples by
parts you get something like A[0] == B[0] && A[1] == B[1], just
that the part extraction happens by lshr/trunc and not a narrow
load or similar.
The fold implemented here reduces such equality comparisons by
converting them into a comparison on a larger part of the integer
(which might be the whole integer). It handles both the "and of eq"
and the conjugated "or of ne" case.
I'm being conservative with one-use for now, though this could be
relaxed if profitable (the base pattern converts 11 instructions
into 5 instructions, but there's quite a few variations on how it
can play out).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101232
The swap of the operands can affect later transforms that
are expecting a constant as operand 1. I don't think we
can trigger a bug with the current code, but I hit that
problem while drafting a new transform for min/max intrinsics.
If we have a recurrence of the form <Start, Or, Step> we know that the value taken by the recurrence stabilizes on the first iteration (provided step is loop invariant). We can exploit that fact to remove the loop carried dependence in the recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97578 (or part)
If we have a recurrence of the form <Start, And, Step> we know that the value taken by the recurrence stabilizes on the first iteration (provided step is loop invariant). We can exploit that fact to remove the loop carried dependence in the recurrence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97578 (and part)
recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom + collectBitParts have pattern matching to bail out early if a bswap/bitreverse pattern isn't possible - we should be able to rely on this instead without any notable change in compile time.
This is part of a cleanup towards letting matchBSwapOrBitReverse /recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom use 'root' instructions that aren't ORs (FSHL/FSHRs in particular which can be prematurely created).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97056
Iff we know we can get rid of the inversions in the new pattern,
we can thus get rid of the inversion in the old pattern,
this decreasing instruction count.
Note that we could position this transformation as just hoisting
of the `not` (still, iff y is freely negatible), but the test changes
show a number of regressions, so let's not do that.
Iff we know we can get rid of the inversions in the new pattern,
we can thus get rid of the inversion in the old pattern,
this decreasing instruction count.
As Mikael Holmén is noting in the post-commit review for the first fix
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGd4ccef38d0bb#967466
not hoisting constantexprs is not enough,
because if the xor originally was a constantexpr (i.e. X is a constantexpr).
`SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative()` in `visitXor()` will immediately
undo this transform, thus again causing an infinite combine loop.
This transform has resulted in a surprising number of constantexpr failures.
As it is being reported (in post-commit review) in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93857
this fold (as i expected, but failed to come up with test coverage
despite trying) has issues with constant expressions.
Since we only care about true constants, which constantexprs are not,
don't perform such hoisting for constant expressions.
This is one of the deficiencies that can be observed in
https://godbolt.org/z/YPczsG after D91038 patch set.
This exposed two missing folds, one was fixed by the previous commit,
another one is `(A ^ B) | ~(A ^ B) --> -1` / `(A ^ B) & ~(A ^ B) --> 0`.
`-early-cse` will catch it: https://godbolt.org/z/4n1T1v,
but isn't meaningful to fix it in InstCombine,
because we'd need to essentially do our own CSE,
and we can't even rely on `Instruction::isIdenticalTo()`,
because there are no guarantees that the order of operands matches.
So let's just accept it as a loss.
One less instruction and reducing use count of zext.
As alive2 confirms, we're fine with all the weird combinations of
undef elts in constants, but unless the shift amount was undef
for a lane, we must sanitize undef mask to zero, since sign bits
are no longer zeros.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/d7r
```
----------------------------------------
Optimization: zz
Precondition: ((C1 == (width(%r) - width(%x))) && isSignBit(C2))
%o0 = zext %x
%o1 = shl %o0, C1
%r = and %o1, C2
=>
%n0 = sext %x
%r = and %n0, C2
Done: 2016
Optimization is correct!
```
m_SpecificInt has the same 'no undef element' behaviour as m_APInt so no change there, and anyway we have test coverage for undef elements in the fold.
Noticed while fixing a Wshadow warning about shadow Value *X, *Y variables.
There are 1-2 potential follow-up NFC commits to reduce
this further on the way to generalizing this for vectors.
The operand replacing path should be dead code because demanded
bits handles that more generally (D91415).
I'm not certain InstCombinerImpl::matchBSwapOrBitReverse needs to filter the or(op0(),op1()) ops - there are just too many cases that recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom/collectBitParts handle now (and quickly).
matchBSwapOrBitReverse was hardcoded to just match bswaps - we're going to need to expose the ability to match bitreverse as well, so make this part of the function call.
Fixes a number of stage2 buildbots that were failing when I generalized the m_ConstantInt() logic - that didn't match for pointer types but m_Zero() does......
Scalar cases were already being handled by foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps (so this was dead code), but refactoring to support non-uniform vectors will take some time, so tweak this fold in the meantime.
Sanjay Patel