It's the same as the ZEXT/TRUNC case, except SrcBitWidth is given by the
immediate operand.
Update KnownBitsTest.cpp and a MIR test for a concrete example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95566
Just use the existing `Known.sextInReg` implementation.
- Update KnownBitsTest.cpp.
- Update combine-redundant-and.mir for a more concrete example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95484
We have a frequent pattern where we're merging two KnownBits to get the common/shared bits, and I just fell for the gotcha where I tried to use the & operator to merge them........
Convert GISelKnownBits.computeKnownBitsImpl shift handling to use the common KnownBits implementations, which makes use of the known leading/trailing bits for shifted values in cases where we don't know the shift amount value, as detailed in https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1709
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90527
If the known shift amount is bigger than or equal to the bitwidth of the type of the value to be shifted,
the result is target dependent, so don't try to infer any bits.
This fixes a crash we've seen in one of our internal test suites.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89232
Known bits for G_ANYEXT was incorrectly using KnownBits::zext, causing
us to treat the high bits as zero even though they're (by definition)
unknown.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86323
Just computing the alignment makes sense without caring about the
general known bits, such as for non-integral pointers. Separate the
two and start calling into the TargetLowering hooks for frame indexes.
Start calling the TargetLowering implementation for FrameIndexes,
which improves the AMDGPU matching for stack addressing modes. Also
introduce a new hook for returning known alignment of target
instructions. For AMDGPU, it would be useful to report the known
alignment implied by certain intrinsic calls.
Also stop using MaybeAlign.
If the caller needs to reponsible for making sure the MaybeAlign
has a value, then we should just make the caller convert it to an Align
with operator*.
I explicitly deleted the relational comparison operators that
were being inherited from Optional. It's unclear what the meaning
of two MaybeAligns were one is defined and the other isn't
should be. So make the caller reponsible for defining the behavior.
I left the ==/!= operators from Optional. But now that exposed a
weird quirk that ==/!= between Align and MaybeAlign required the
MaybeAlign to be defined. But now we use the operator== from
Optional that takes an Optional and the Value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80455
Summary:
There are at least three clients for KnownBits calculations:
ValueTracking, SelectionDAG and GlobalISel. To reduce duplication the
common logic should be moved out of these clients and into KnownBits
itself.
This patch does this for AND, OR and XOR calculations by implementing
and using appropriate operator overloads KnownBits::operator& etc.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74060
I think we can save the MRI argument from these since it's in
GISelKnownBits already, but currently not accessible.
Implementation deferred to avoid dependency on other patches.
Unlike what I claimed in my previous commit. The caching is
actually not NFC on PHIs.
When we put a big enough max depth, we end up simulating loops.
The cache is effectively cutting the simulation short and we
get less information as a result.
E.g.,
```
v0 = G_CONSTANT i8 0xC0
jump
v1 = G_PHI i8 v0, v2
v2 = G_LSHR i8 v1, 1
```
Let say we want the known bits of v1.
- With cache:
Set v1 cache to we know nothing
v1 is v0 & v2
v0 gives us 0xC0
v2 gives us known bits of v1 >> 1
v1 is in the cache
=> v1 is 0, thus v2 is 0x80
Finally v1 is v0 & v2 => 0x80
- Without cache and enough depth to do two iteration of the loop:
v1 is v0 & v2
v0 gives us 0xC0
v2 gives us known bits of v1 >> 1
v1 is v0 & v2
v0 is 0xC0
v2 is v1 >> 1
Reach the max depth for v1...
unwinding
v1 is know nothing
v2 is 0x80
v0 is 0xC0
v1 is 0x80
v2 is 0xC0
v0 is 0xC0
v1 is 0xC0
Thus now v1 is 0xC0 instead of 0x80.
I've added a unittest demonstrating that.
NFC
This patch adds a cache that is valid only for the duration of a call
to getKnownBits. With such short lived cache we avoid all the problems
of cache invalidation while still getting the benefits of reusing
the information we already computed.
This cache is useful whenever an instruction occurs more than once
in a chain of computation.
E.g.,
v0 = G_ADD v1, v2
v3 = G_ADD v0, v1
Previously we would compute the known bits for:
v1, v2, v0, then v1 again and finally v3.
With the patch, now we won't have to recompute v1 again.
NFC
When analyzing PHIs, we gather the known bits for every operand and
merge them together to get the known bits of the result of the PHI.
It is not unusual that merging the information leads to know nothing
on the result (e.g., phi a: i8 3, b: i8 unknown, ..., after looking at the
second argument we know we will know nothing on the result), thus, as
soon as we reach that state, stop analyzing the following operand (i.e.,
on the previous example, we won't process anything after looking at `b`).
This improves compile time in particular with PHIs with a large number
of operands.
NFC.
Summary:
This was a very odd API, where you had to pass a flag into a zext
function to say whether the extended bits really were zero or not. All
callers passed in a literal true or false.
I think it's much clearer to make the function name reflect the
operation being performed on the value we're tracking (rather than on
the KnownBits Zero and One fields), so zext means the value is being
zero extended and new function anyext means the value is being extended
with unknown bits.
NFC.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74482
One of the exit criteria of computeKnownBits is whether we reach the max
recursive call depth. Before this patch we would check that the
depth is exactly equal to max depth to exit.
Depth may get bigger than max depth if it gets passed to a different
GISelKnownBits object.
This may happen when say a generic part uses a GISelKnownBits object
with some max depth, but then we hit TL.computeKnownBitsForTargetInstr
which creates a new GISelKnownBits object with a different and smaller
depth. In that situation, when we hit the max depth check for the first
time in the target specific GISelKnownBits object, depth may already
be bigger than the current max depth. Hence we would continue to compute
the known bits, until we ran through the full depth of the chain of
computation or ran out of stack space.
For instance, let say we have
GISelKnownBits Info(/*MaxDepth*/ = 10);
Info.getKnownBits(Foo)
// 9 recursive calls to computeKnownBitsImpl.
// Then we hit a target specific instruction.
// The target specific GISelKnownBits does this:
GISelKnownBits TargetSpecificInfo(/*MaxDepth*/ = 6)
TargetSpecificInfo.computeKnownBitsImpl() // <-- next max depth checks would
// always return false.
This commit does not have any test case, none of the in-tree targets
use computeKnownBitsForTargetInstr.
Summary:
This is mostly NFC. computeForAddSub may give more precise results in
some cases, but that doesn't seem to affect any existing GlobalISel
tests.
Subscribers: rovka, hiraditya, volkan, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73431
Teach the GISelKnowBits analysis how to deal with PHI operations.
PHIs are essentially COPYs happening on edges, so we can just reuse
the code for COPY.
This is NFC COPY-wise has we leave Depth untouched when calling
computeKnownBitsImpl for COPYs, like it was before this patch.
Increasing Depth is however required for PHIs as they may loop back to
themselves and we would end up in an infinite loop if we were not
increasing Depth.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73317
Summary:
G_GEP is rather poorly named. It's a simple pointer+scalar addition and
doesn't support any of the complexities of getelementptr. I therefore
propose that we rename it. There's a G_PTR_MASK so let's follow that
convention and go with G_PTR_ADD
Reviewers: volkan, aditya_nandakumar, bogner, rovka, arsenm
Subscribers: sdardis, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, hiraditya, jrtc27, atanasyan, arphaman, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69734
Summary:
It seems we missed that the target hook can't query the known-bits for the
inputs to a target instruction. Fix that oversight
Reviewers: aditya_nandakumar
Subscribers: rovka, hiraditya, volkan, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67380
llvm-svn: 373264
Now that we look through copies, it's possible to visit registers that
have a register class constraint but not a type constraint. Avoid looking
through copies when this occurs as the SrcReg won't be able to determine
it's bit width or any known bits.
Along the same lines, if the initial query is on a register that doesn't
have a type constraint then the result is a default-constructed KnownBits,
that is, a 1-bit fully-unknown value.
llvm-svn: 371116
Jessica Paquette