This is NFCI because the pattern with 2 left-shifts should get
folded independently by smaller folds.
The motivation is to refine this block to avoid infinite loops
seen with D110170.
The test is from https://llvm.org/PR51351.
There are 2 related logic bugs from over-generalizing "lshr" to "any shr",
but I'm not sure how to expose the difference for "MaskC" because instsimplify
already folds ashr of -1.
I'll extend instsimplify to catch the MaskD pattern as a follow-up, but this
patch should be enough to avoid the miscompile.
This is NFCI (no-functional-change-intended), but there
are benign diffs possible with commutable ops as seen in
the test diffs.
The transforms were repeated for the commutative opcodes,
but that should not be necessary if we canonicalize the
patterns that we're matching. If both operands of the
binop match, that should get folded eventually.
The transform that starts with a mask op seems to
over-constrain the use checks, so that could be a
potential enhancement.
This commit is the InstCombine follow-up to the previous constant-folding
change that enables noticeable optimizations for CHERI-enabled targets.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110247
This is no-functional-change-intended, but it hopefully makes things
slightly clearer and more efficient to have transforms that require
'shl' be called only from visitShl(). Further cleanup is possible.
This is another step towards trying to re-apply D110170
by eliminating conflicting transforms that cause infinite loops.
a47c8e40c7 was a previous patch in this direction.
The diffs here are mostly cosmetic, but intentional:
1. The existing code that would handle this pattern in FoldShiftByConstant()
is limited to 'shl' only now. The formatting change to IsLeftShift shows
that we could move several transforms into visitShl() directly for
efficiency because they are not common shift transforms.
2. The tests are regenerated to show new instruction names to prove that
we are getting (almost) identical logic results.
3. The one case where we differ ("trunc_sandwich_small_shift1") shows that
we now use a narrow 'and' instruction. Previously, we relied on another
transform to do that, but it is limited to legal types. That seems to
be a legacy constraint from when IR analysis and codegen were less robust.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JxyGA4
declare void @llvm.assume(i1)
define i8 @src(i32 %x, i32 %c0, i8 %c1) {
; The sum of the shifts must not overflow the source width.
%z1 = zext i8 %c1 to i32
%sum = add i32 %c0, %z1
%ov = icmp ult i32 %sum, 32
call void @llvm.assume(i1 %ov)
%sh1 = lshr i32 %x, %c0
%tr = trunc i32 %sh1 to i8
%sh2 = lshr i8 %tr, %c1
ret i8 %sh2
}
define i8 @tgt(i32 %x, i32 %c0, i8 %c1) {
%z1 = zext i8 %c1 to i32
%sum = add i32 %c0, %z1
%maskc = lshr i8 -1, %c1
%s = lshr i32 %x, %sum
%t = trunc i32 %s to i8
%a = and i8 %t, %maskc
ret i8 %a
}
This is another regression noted with the proposal to canonicalize
to the min/max intrinsics in D98152.
Here are Alive2 attempts to show correctness without specifying
exact constants:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/bvfCwh (smax)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/of7eqy (smin)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/2Xtxoh (umax)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Rm4Ad8 (umin)
(if you comment out the assume and/or no-wrap, you should see failures)
The different output for the umin test is due to a fold added with
c4fc2cb5b2 :
// umin(x, 1) == zext(x != 0)
We probably want to adjust that, so it applies more generally
(umax --> sext or patterns where we can fold to select-of-constants).
Some folds that were ok when starting with cmp+select may increase
instruction count for the equivalent intrinsic, so we have to decide
if it's worth altering a min/max.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110038
Only the multi-use cases are changing here because there's
another fold that catches the simpler patterns.
But that other fold is the source of infinite loops when we
try to add D110170, so removing that is planned as a follow-up.
Attempt to show the general proof in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Ns1uS2
Note that the overshift fold-to-zero tests are not
currently handled by instsimplify. If they were, we
could assert that the shift amount sum is less than
the source bitwidth.
This reverts commit bb9333c350.
This exposes another existing bug that causes an infinite loop as shown in
D110170
...so reverting while I look at another fix.
There are several places in the code that are currently broken as
they assume an Instruction always has a parent Function when
attempting to get the vscale_range attribute. This patch adds checks
that an Instruction has a parent.
I've added a test for a parentless @llvm.vscale intrinsic call here:
unittests/Analysis/ValueTrackingTest.cpp
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110158
This patch is for fixing potential shufflevector-related bugs like D93818.
As D93818, this patch change shufflevector's default placeholder to poison.
To reduce risk, it was divided into several patches, and this patch is for InstCombineVectorOps.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110230
This patch is for fixing potential shufflevector-related bugs like D93818.
As D93818, this patch change shufflevector's default placeholder to poison.
To reduce risk, it was divided into several patches, and this patch is for InstCombineCompares and InstructionCombining.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110227
This patch is for fixing potential shufflevector-related bugs like D93818.
As D93818, this patch change shufflevector's default placeholder to poison.
To reduce risk, it was divided into several patches, and this patch is for InstCombineCasts.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110226
This reverts commit 2f6b07316f.
This caused several bots to hit an infinite loop at stage 2,
so it needs to be reverted while figuring out how to fix that.
The folding rule (select C, (gep Ptr, Idx), Ptr) -> (gep Ptr, (select C,
Idx, 0)) creates a malformed SELECT IR if C is a vector while Idx is scalar.
SELECT VecC, ScalarIdx, 0
We could splat Idx to a vector but it defeats the purpose of
optimisation. Don't apply the folding rule in this case.
This fixes a regression from commit d561b6fbdb.
InstCombine's worklist can be re-used by other passes like
VectorCombine. Move it to llvm/Transform/Utils and rename it to
InstructionWorklist.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110181
We already have pow(x, y) * pow(x, z) -> pow(x, y + z) transformation, but we are missing same transformation for powi (power is integer).
Requires reassoc.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109954
This patch allows sinking an instruction which can have multiple uses in a
single user. We were previously over-restrictive by looking for exactly one use,
rather than one user.
Also added an API for retrieving a unique undroppable user.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109700
We implement logic to convert a byte offset into a sequence of GEP
indices for that offset in a number of places. This patch adds a
DataLayout::getGEPIndicesForOffset() method, which implements the
core logic. I've updated SROA, ConstantFolding and InstCombine to
use it, and there's a few more places where it looks relevant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110043
getMetadata() currently uses a weird API where it populates a
structure passed to it, and optionally merges into it. Instead,
we can return the AAMDNodes and provide a separate merge() API.
This makes usages more compact.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109852
This reverts commit 4ac4e52189.
There are couple of test failures, which needs update of the test cases.
Doing a clean revert and will recommit the change along with fixed
testcases.
This patch allows sinking an instruction which can have multiple uses in a
single user. We were previously over-restrictive by looking for exactly one use,
rather than one user.
Also, the API for retrieving undroppable user has been updated accordingly since
in both usecases (Attributor and InstCombine), we seem to care about the user,
rather than the use.
Reviewed-By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109700
I was wondering how instcombine does on the examples in D109236,
and we're missing a basic transform:
inselt (ext X), (ext Y), Index --> ext (inselt X, Y, Index)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/z2aBu9
Note that there are several possible extensions of this fold
(see TODO comments).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109537
Moved out the checks for profitability of TryToSinkInstructions
into a lambda function.
This will also allow us to easily add checks for bailing out if the
transform is not profitable.
Tests-Run: instCombine tests.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/_AivbM
This case seems clear since we can reduce instruction count
and avoid an intermediate type change, but we might want to
use mask-and-compare for other sequences.
Currently, we can generate more instructions on some related
patterns by trying to use bit-hacks instead of mask+cmp, so
something is not behaving as expected.
This is a translation of the existing code to handle the intrinsics
and another step towards D98152.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/jA7eBC
This pattern is already handled by underlying folds if there are
less uses, so the minimal tests in this case have extra uses.
The larger cmyk tests show the motivation - when combined with
other folds, we invert a larger sequence and eliminate 'not' ops.
This renames the primary methods for creating a zero value to `getZero`
instead of `getNullValue` and renames predicates like `isAllOnesValue`
to simply `isAllOnes`. This achieves two things:
1) This starts standardizing predicates across the LLVM codebase,
following (in this case) ConstantInt. The word "Value" doesn't
convey anything of merit, and is missing in some of the other things.
2) Calling an integer "null" doesn't make any sense. The original sin
here is mine and I've regretted it for years. This moves us to calling
it "zero" instead, which is correct!
APInt is widely used and I don't think anyone is keen to take massive source
breakage on anything so core, at least not all in one go. As such, this
doesn't actually delete any entrypoints, it "soft deprecates" them with a
comment.
Included in this patch are changes to a bunch of the codebase, but there are
more. We should normalize SelectionDAG and other APIs as well, which would
make the API change more mechanical.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109483
The motivating case is an infinite loop shown with a reduced test from:
https://llvm.org/PR51762
To solve this, I'm proposing we delete the most obviously broken part of this code.
The bug example shows a fundamental problem: we ask computeKnownBits if a transform
will be profitable, alter the code by creating new instructions, then rely on
computeKnownBits to return the same answer to actually eliminate instructions.
But there's no guarantee that the results will be the same between the 1st and 2nd
calls. In the infinite loop example, we get different answers, so we add
instructions that conflict with some other transform, and we're stuck.
There's at least one other problem visible in the test diff for
`@zext_or_masked_bit_test_uses`: the code doesn't check uses properly, so we can
end up with extra instructions created.
Last, it's not clear if this set of transforms actually improves analysis or
codegen. I spot-checked a few targets and don't see a clear win:
https://godbolt.org/z/x87EWovso
If we do see a regression from this change, codegen seems like the right place to
add a cmp -> bit-hack fold.
If this is too big of a step, we could limit the computeKnownBits calls by not
passing a context instruction and/or limiting the recursion. I checked that those
would stop the infinite loop for PR51762, but that won't guarantee that some other
example does not fall into the same loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109440
This could go either direction since the instruction
count is the same either way, but there are a few
reasons to prefer this:
1. We already do the related transform with 'and'
(see just above the new code).
2. We try (too hard) to compensate for not having this
and possibly other folds in transformZExtICmp(),
and that leads to bugs like https://llvm.org/PR51762 .
3. Codegen looks better across a variety of targets.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uEgn4P
We're trying to get the parameter index of sret and see if it's part of
a function's varargs.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109335
Sanjay Patel