Replace the check for poison-producing instructions in
SimplifyWithOpReplaced() with the generic helper canCreatePoison()
that properly handles poisonous shifts and thus avoids the problem
from PR47322.
This additionally fixes a bug in IIQ.UseInstrInfo=false mode, which
previously could have caused this code to ignore poison flags.
Setting UseInstrInfo=false should reduce the possible optimizations,
not increase them.
This is not a full solution to the problem, as poison could be
introduced more indirectly. This is just a minimal, easy to backport
fix.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86834
This recommits the following patches now that D85684 has landed
1cf6f210a2 [IR] Disable select ? C : undef -> C fold in ConstantFoldSelectInstruction unless we know C isn't poison.
469da663f2 [InstSimplify] Re-enable select ?, undef, X -> X transform when X is provably not poison
122b0640fc [InstSimplify] Don't fold vectors of partial undef in SimplifySelectInst if the non-undef element value might produce poison
ac0af12ed2 [InstSimplify] Add test cases for opportunities to fold select ?, X, undef -> X when we can prove X isn't poison
9b1e95329a [InstSimplify] Remove select ?, undef, X -> X and select ?, X, undef -> X transforms
This reverts most of the following patches due to reports of miscompiles.
I've left the added test cases with comments updated to be FIXMEs.
1cf6f210a2 [IR] Disable select ? C : undef -> C fold in ConstantFoldSelectInstruction unless we know C isn't poison.
469da663f2 [InstSimplify] Re-enable select ?, undef, X -> X transform when X is provably not poison
122b0640fc [InstSimplify] Don't fold vectors of partial undef in SimplifySelectInst if the non-undef element value might produce poison
ac0af12ed2 [InstSimplify] Add test cases for opportunities to fold select ?, X, undef -> X when we can prove X isn't poison
9b1e95329a [InstSimplify] Remove select ?, undef, X -> X and select ?, X, undef -> X transforms
Follow up from the transform being removed in D83360. If X is probably not poison, then the transform is safe.
Still plan to remove or adjust the code from ConstantFolding after this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83440
We can't fold to the non-undef value unless we know it isn't poison. So check each element with isGuaranteedNotToBeUndefOrPoison. This currently rules out all constant expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83442
As mentioned in D72643, we'd like to be able to assert that any select
of equivalent constants has been removed before we're deep into InstCombine.
But there's a loophole in that assertion for vectors with undef elements
that don't match exactly.
This patch should close that gap. If we have undefs, we can't safely
propagate those unless both constants elements for that lane are undef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72958
This is step 1 of damage control assuming that we need to remove several
over-reaching folds for select-of-booleans because they can cause
miscompiles as shown in D72396.
The scalar case seems obviously safe:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jSj
And I don't think there's any danger for vectors either - if the
condition is poisoned, then the select must be poisoned too, so undef
elements don't make any difference.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72412
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
I was reminded today that this patch got reverted in r301885. I can no
longer reproduce the failure that caused the revert locally (...almost
one year later), and the patch applied pretty cleanly, so I guess we'll
see if the bots still get angry about it.
The original breakage was InstSimplify complaining (in "assertion
failed" form) about getting passed some crazy IR when running `ninja
check-sanitizer`. I'm unable to find traces of what, exactly, said crazy
IR was. I suppose we'll find out pretty soon if that's still the case.
:)
Original commit:
Author: gbiv
Date: Mon May 1 18:12:08 2017
New Revision: 301880
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=301880&view=rev
Log:
[InstSimplify] Handle selects of GEPs with 0 offset
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 330667
Call ConstantFoldSelectInstruction() to fold cases like below
select <2 x i1><i1 true, i1 false>, <2 x i8> <i8 0, i8 1>, <2 x i8> <i8 2, i8 3>
All operands are constants and the condition has mixed true and false conditions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38369
llvm-svn: 314741
This code is double-dead:
1. We simplify all selects with constant true/false condition in InstSimplify.
I've minimized/moved the tests to show that works as expected.
2. All remaining vector selects with a constant condition are canonicalized to
shufflevector, so we really can't see this pattern.
llvm-svn: 312123
This adds support non-canonical compare predicates. InstSimplify can't rely on canonicalization to have occurred.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36646
llvm-svn: 310893
This recommits r310869, with the moved files and no extra changes.
Original commit message:
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310889
Failed to add the two files that moved. And then added an extra change I didn't mean to while trying to fix that. Reverting everything.
llvm-svn: 310873
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310869
This change caused buildbot failures, apparently because we're not
passing around types that InstSimplify is used to seeing. I'm not overly
familiar with InstSimplify, so I'm reverting this until I can figure out
what exactly is wrong.
llvm-svn: 301885
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 301880
rL245171 exposed a hole in InstSimplify that manifested in a strange way in PR28466:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28466
It's possible to use trunc + icmp sgt/slt in place of an and + icmp eq/ne, so we need to
recognize that pattern to eliminate selects that are choosing between some value and some
bitmasked version of that value.
Note that there is significant room for improvement (refactoring) and enhancement (more
patterns, possibly in InstCombine rather than here).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537
llvm-svn: 276341
(X & INT_MIN) ? X & INT_MAX : X into X & INT_MAX
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X & INT_MAX into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X | INT_MIN : X into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X | INT_MIN into X | INT_MIN
llvm-svn: 224669
This restores our ability to optimize:
(X & C) ? X & ~C : X into X & ~C
(X & C) ? X : X & ~C into X
(X & C) ? X | C : X into X
(X & C) ? X : X | C into X | C
llvm-svn: 222868
Nikita Popov