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.
m_SpecificInt doesn't accept undef elements in a vector splat value - tweak specific_intval to optionally allow undefs and add the m_SpecificIntAllowUndef variants.
Allows us to remove the m_APIntAllowUndef + comparison hack inside matchFunnelShift
Replace m_SpecificInt with m_APIntAllowUndef to matching splats containing undefs, then use ConstantExpr::mergeUndefsWith to merge the undefs together in the result.
The undef funnel shift amounts are getting replaced with zero later on - I'll address this in a later patch, otherwise we lose potential shift by splat value patterns.
If value tracking can confirm that a shift value is less than the type bitwidth then we can more confidently fold general or(shl(a,x),lshr(b,sub(bw,x))) patterns to a funnel/rotate intrinsic pattern without causing bad codegen regressions in the backend (see D89139).
Reapplied after the shift canonicalization in rG02295e6d1a15 which removed the need to flip the shift values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88783
After rG02295e6d1a15 we no longer need to invert the shift values for fshr - this is just hidden at the moment as funnel shifts only ever match for constant values so never use the fshr "Sub on SHL" path.
If value tracking can confirm that a shift value is less than the type bitwidth then we can more confidently fold general or(shl(a,x),lshr(b,sub(bw,x))) patterns to a funnel/rotate intrinsic pattern without causing bad codegen regressions in the backend (see D89139).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88783
Complete basic PR46895 fixes by refactoring D87452/D88402 to allow us to match non-uniform constant values.
We still don't handle non-uniform vectors that contain undef elements, but that can wait until we have a decent generic mechanism for this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88420
First step towards extending the existing rotation support to full funnel shift handling now that the backend legalization support has improved.
This enables us to match the shift by constant cases, which are pretty trivial to expand again if necessary.
D88420 will add non-uniform support for funnel shifts as well once its been finalized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88834
The existing code ignores undef values which matches m_SpecificInt_ICMP, although m_SpecificInt_ICMP returns false for an all-undef constant, I've added test coverage at rGfe0197e194a64f9 to show that undef folding should already have dealt with that case.
If we're bswap'ing some bytes and zero'ing the remainder we can perform this as a bswap+mask which helps us match 'partial' bswaps as a first step towards folding into a more complex bswap pattern.
Reapplied with early-out if recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom collects a source wider than the result type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88578
Roman Lebedev