Some of the callers are artificially limiting this transform to integer types;
this should make it easier to incrementally remove that restriction.
llvm-svn: 291620
Background/motivation - I was circling back around to:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
I made a simple patch for that and noticed some regressions, so added test cases for
those with rL281055, and this is hopefully the minimal fix for just those cases.
But as you can see from the surrounding untouched folds, we are missing commuted patterns
all over the place, and of course there are no regression tests to cover any of those cases.
We could sprinkle "m_c_" dust all over this file and catch most of the missing folds, but
then we still wouldn't have test coverage, and we'd still miss some fraction of commuted
patterns because they require adjustments to the match order.
I'm aware of the concern about the potential compile-time performance impact of adding
matches like this (currently being discussed on llvm-dev), but I don't think there's any
evidence yet to suggest that handling commutative pattern matching more thoroughly is not
a worthwhile goal of InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24419
llvm-svn: 290067
A number of new patterns for simplifying and/xor of icmp:
(icmp ne %x, 0) ^ (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ne %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask) and (%y = and %b, %mask)
2- %mask is a power of 2.
(icmp eq %x, 0) & (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ult %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask1) and (%y = and %b, %mask2)
2- Let %t be the smallest power of 2 where %mask1 & %t != 0. Then for any
%s that is a power of 2 and %s & %mask2 != 0, we must have %s <= %t.
For example if %mask1 = 24 and %mask2 = 16, setting %s = 16 and %t = 8
violates condition (2) above. So this optimization cannot be applied.
llvm-svn: 289813
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
This is prep work before changing the callers to also use APInt which will
allow folds for splat vectors. Currently, the callers have ConstantInt
guards in place, so no functional change intended with this commit.
llvm-svn: 280282
It's much less code and easier to read if we don't duplicate
everything between the 'Inside' and not 'Inside' cases.
As noted with the FIXME, the goal is to make this vector-friendly
in a follow-up patch.
llvm-svn: 280183
Summary:
InstCombine unfolds expressions of the form `zext(or(icmp, icmp))` to `or(zext(icmp), zext(icmp))` such that in a later iteration of InstCombine the exposed `zext(icmp)` instructions can be optimized. We now combine this unfolding and the subsequent `zext(icmp)` optimization to be performed together. Since the unfolding doesn't happen separately anymore, we also again enable the folding of `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` expressions to `cast(logic(icmp, icmp))` which had been disabled due to its interference with the unfolding transformation.
Tested via `make check` and `lnt`.
Background
==========
For a better understanding on how it came to this change we subsequently summarize its history. In commit r275989 we've already tried to enable the folding of `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` to `cast(logic(icmp, icmp))` which had to be reverted in r276106 because it could lead to an endless loop in InstCombine (also see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160718/374347.html). The root of this problem is that in `visitZExt()` in InstCombineCasts.cpp there also exists a reverse of the above folding transformation, that unfolds `zext(or(icmp, icmp))` to `or(zext(icmp), zext(icmp))` in order to expose `zext(icmp)` operations which would then possibly be eliminated by subsequent iterations of InstCombine. However, before these `zext(icmp)` would be eliminated the folding from r275989 could kick in and cause InstCombine to endlessly switch back and forth between the folding and the unfolding transformation. This is the reason why we now combine the `zext`-unfolding and the elimination of the exposed `zext(icmp)` to happen at one go because this enables us to still allow the cast-folding in `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` without entering an endless loop again.
Details on the submitted changes
================================
- In `visitZExt()` we combine the unfolding and optimization of `zext` instructions.
- In `transformZExtICmp()` we have to use `Builder->CreateIntCast()` instead of `CastInst::CreateIntegerCast()` to make sure that the new `CastInst` is inserted in a `BasicBlock`. The new calls to `transformZExtICmp()` that we introduce in `visitZExt()` would otherwise cause according assertions to be triggered (in our case this happend, for example, with lnt for the MultiSource/Applications/sqlite3 and SingleSource/Regression/C++/EH/recursive-throw tests). The subsequent usage of `replaceInstUsesWith()` is necessary to ensure that the new `CastInst` replaces the `ZExtInst` accordingly.
- In InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp we again allow the folding of casts on `icmp` instructions.
- The instruction order in the optimized IR for the zext-or-icmp.ll test case is different with the introduced changes.
- The test cases in zext.ll have been adopted from the reverted commits r275989 and r276105.
Reviewers: grosser, majnemer, spatel
Subscribers: eli.friedman, majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22864
Contributed-by: Matthias Reisinger <d412vv1n@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 277635
As noted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 , we can use this functionality in
visitSelectInstWithICmp() and InstSimplify, but currently we have duplicated
code.
llvm-svn: 276140
Summary:
Currently, InstCombine is already able to fold expressions of the form `logic(cast(A), cast(B))` to the simpler form `cast(logic(A, B))`, where logic designates one of `and`/`or`/`xor`. This transformation is implemented in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` in InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp. However, this optimization will not be performed if both `A` and `B` are `icmp` instructions. The decision to preclude casts of `icmp` instructions originates in r48715 in combination with r261707, and can be best understood by the title of the former one:
> Transform (zext (or (icmp), (icmp))) to (or (zext (cimp), (zext icmp))) if at least one of the (zext icmp) can be transformed to eliminate an icmp.
Apparently, it introduced a transformation that is a reverse of the transformation that is done in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()`. Its purpose is to expose pairs of `zext icmp` that would subsequently be optimized by `transformZExtICmp()` in InstCombineCasts.cpp. Therefore, in order to avoid an endless loop of switching back and forth between these two transformations, the one in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` has been restricted to exclude `icmp` instructions which is mirrored in the responsible check:
`if ((!isa<ICmpInst>(Cast0Src) || !isa<ICmpInst>(Cast1Src)) && ...`
This check seems to sort out more cases than necessary because:
- the reverse transformation is obviously done for `or` instructions only
- and also not every `zext icmp` pair is necessarily the result of this reverse transformation
Therefore we now remove this check and replace it by a more finegrained one in `shouldOptimizeCast()` that now rejects only those `logic(zext(icmp), zext(icmp))` that would be able to be optimized by `transformZExtICmp()`, which also avoids the mentioned endless loop. That means we are now able to also simplify expressions of the form `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` to `cast(logic(icmp, icmp))` (`cast` being an arbitrary `CastInst`).
As an example, consider the following IR snippet
```
%1 = icmp sgt i64 %a, %b
%2 = zext i1 %1 to i8
%3 = icmp slt i64 %a, %c
%4 = zext i1 %3 to i8
%5 = and i8 %2, %4
```
which would now be transformed to
```
%1 = icmp sgt i64 %a, %b
%2 = icmp slt i64 %a, %c
%3 = and i1 %1, %2
%4 = zext i1 %3 to i8
```
This issue became apparent when experimenting with the programming language Julia, which makes use of LLVM. Currently, Julia lowers its `Bool` datatype to LLVM's `i8` (also see https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/17225). In fact, the above IR example is the lowered form of the Julia snippet `(a > b) & (a < c)`. Like shown above, this may introduce `zext` operations, casting between `i1` and `i8`, which could for example hinder ScalarEvolution and Polly on certain code.
Reviewers: grosser, vtjnash, majnemer
Subscribers: majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22511
Contributed-by: Matthias Reisinger
llvm-svn: 275989
Summary:
This patch cleans up parts of InstCombine to raise its compliance with the LLVM coding standards and to increase its readability. The changes and according rationale are summarized in the following:
- Rename `ShouldOptimizeCast()` to `shouldOptimizeCast()` since functions should start with a lower case letter.
- Move `shouldOptimizeCast()` from InstCombineCasts.cpp to InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp since it's only used there.
- Simplify interface of `shouldOptimizeCast()`.
- Minor code style adaptions in `shouldOptimizeCast()`.
- Remove the documentation on the function definition of `shouldOptimizeCast()` since it just repeats the documentation on its declaration. Also enhance the documentation on its declaration with more information describing its intended use and make it doxygen-compliant.
- Change a comment in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` from `fold (logic (cast A), (cast B)) -> (cast (logic A, B))` to `fold logic(cast(A), cast(B)) -> cast(logic(A, B))` since the surrounding comments use this format.
- Remove comment `Only do this if the casts both really cause code to be generated.` in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` since it just repeats parts of the documentation of `shouldOptimizeCast()` and does not help to improve readability.
- Simplify the interface of `isEliminableCastPair()`.
- Removed the documentation on the function definition of `isEliminableCastPair()` which only contained obvious statements about its implementation. Instead added more general doxygen-compliant documentation to its declaration.
- Renamed parameter `DoXform` of `transformZExtIcmp()` to `DoTransform` to make its intention clearer.
- Moved documentation of `transformZExtIcmp()` from its definition to its declaration and made it doxygen-compliant.
Reviewers: vtjnash, grosser
Subscribers: majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22449
Contributed-by: Matthias Reisinger
llvm-svn: 275964
In D21740, we discussed trying to make this a more general matcher. However, I didn't see a clean
way to handle the regular m_Not cases and these non-splat vector patterns, so I've opted for the
direct approach here. If there are other potential uses of areInverseVectorBitmasks(), we could
move that helper function to a higher level.
There is an open question as to which is of these forms should be considered the canonical IR:
%sel = select <4 x i1> <i1 true, i1 false, i1 false, i1 true>, <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b
%shuf = shufflevector <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 5, i32 6, i32 3>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22114
llvm-svn: 275289
This isn't a sure thing (are 2 extra bitcasts less expensive than a logic op?),
but we'll try to err on the conservative side by going with the case that has
less IR instructions.
Note: This question came up in http://reviews.llvm.org/D22114 , but this part is
independent of that patch proposal, so I'm making this small change ahead of that
one.
See also:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL274926
llvm-svn: 274932
By putting all the possible commutations together, we simplify the code.
Note that this is NFCI, but I'm adding tests that actually exercise each
commutation pattern because we don't have this anywhere else.
llvm-svn: 273702
By moving this transform to InstSimplify from InstCombine, we sidestep the problem/question
raised by PR27869:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27869
...where InstCombine turns an icmp+zext into a shift causing us to miss the fold.
Credit to David Majnemer for a draft patch of the changes to InstructionSimplify.cpp.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21512
llvm-svn: 273200
There was concern that creating bitcasts for the simpler potential select pattern:
define <2 x i64> @vecBitcastOp1(<4 x i1> %cmp, <2 x i64> %a) {
%a2 = add <2 x i64> %a, %a
%sext = sext <4 x i1> %cmp to <4 x i32>
%bc = bitcast <4 x i32> %sext to <2 x i64>
%and = and <2 x i64> %a2, %bc
ret <2 x i64> %and
}
might lead to worse code for some targets, so this patch is matching the larger
patterns seen in the test cases.
The motivating example for this patch is this IR produced via SSE intrinsics in C:
define <2 x i64> @gibson(<2 x i64> %a, <2 x i64> %b) {
%t0 = bitcast <2 x i64> %a to <4 x i32>
%t1 = bitcast <2 x i64> %b to <4 x i32>
%cmp = icmp sgt <4 x i32> %t0, %t1
%sext = sext <4 x i1> %cmp to <4 x i32>
%t2 = bitcast <4 x i32> %sext to <2 x i64>
%and = and <2 x i64> %t2, %a
%neg = xor <4 x i32> %sext, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1>
%neg2 = bitcast <4 x i32> %neg to <2 x i64>
%and2 = and <2 x i64> %neg2, %b
%or = or <2 x i64> %and, %and2
ret <2 x i64> %or
}
For an AVX target, this is currently:
vpcmpgtd %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm2
vpand %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
vpandn %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm1
vpor %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
retq
With this patch, it becomes:
vpmaxsd %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20774
llvm-svn: 271676
This is effectively NFC because we already do this transform after r175380:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL175380
and also via foldBoolSextMaskToSelect().
This change should just make it a bit more efficient to match the pattern.
The original guard was added in r95058:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL95058
A sampling of codegen for current in-tree targets shows no problems. This
makes sense given that we're already producing the vector selects via the
other transforms.
llvm-svn: 271554
Also, rename recognizeBitReverseOrBSwapIdiom to recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom,
so the ordering of the MatchBSwaps and MatchBitReversals arguments are
consistent with the function name.
llvm-svn: 270715
Given that we're not actually reducing the instruction count in the included
regression tests, I think we would call this a canonicalization step.
The motivation comes from the example in PR26702:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
If we hoist the bitwise logic ahead of the bitcast, the previously unoptimizable
example of:
define <4 x i32> @is_negative(<4 x i32> %x) {
%lobit = ashr <4 x i32> %x, <i32 31, i32 31, i32 31, i32 31>
%not = xor <4 x i32> %lobit, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1>
%bc = bitcast <4 x i32> %not to <2 x i64>
%notnot = xor <2 x i64> %bc, <i64 -1, i64 -1>
%bc2 = bitcast <2 x i64> %notnot to <4 x i32>
ret <4 x i32> %bc2
}
Simplifies to the expected:
define <4 x i32> @is_negative(<4 x i32> %x) {
%lobit = ashr <4 x i32> %x, <i32 31, i32 31, i32 31, i32 31>
ret <4 x i32> %lobit
}
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17583
llvm-svn: 262645
This is part of the payoff for the refactoring in:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL261649http://reviews.llvm.org/rL261707
In addition to removing a pile of duplicated code, the xor case was
missing the optimization for vector types because it checked
"SrcTy->isIntegerTy()" rather than "SrcTy->isIntOrIntVectorTy()"
like 'and' and 'or' were already doing.
This solves part of:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
llvm-svn: 261750
Note: The 'and' case in foldCastedBitwiseLogic() is inheriting one extra
check from the nearly identical 'or' case:
if ((!isa<ICmpInst>(Cast0Src) || !isa<ICmpInst>(Cast1Src))
But I'm not sure how to expose that difference in a regression test.
Without that check, the 'or' path will infinite loop on:
test/Transforms/InstCombine/zext-or-icmp.ll
because the zext-or-icmp fold is attempting a reverse transform.
The refactoring should extend to the 'xor' case next to solve part of
PR26702.
llvm-svn: 261707
This is a straight cut and paste of the existing code and is intended to
be the first step in solving part of PR26702:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
We should be able to reuse most of this and delete the nearly identical
existing code in visitOr(). Then, we can enhance visitXor() to use the
same code too.
llvm-svn: 261649
David Majnemer