This reverts commit f2fbdf76d8.
As noted in the post-commit thread:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGf2fbdf76d8d0
...this can obscure a min/max pattern where the components
have extra uses. We can show that the problem is independent
of this change with a slightly modified source example, so
this revert just delays/reduces the need to fix the real
problem.
We need to improve our analysis of negation or -- more
generally -- subtraction using patches like D77230 or D68408.
InstCombine has a mess of logic that tries to preserve min/max patterns,
but AFAICT, this one is not necessary because we can always narrow the
corresponding select in this sequence to match the narrow compare.
The biggest danger for this patch is inducing infinite looping or
assert from exceeding max iterations. If any bots hit that in the
vicinity of this commit, this is the likely patch to blame.
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is a first step towards canonicalization and improved folding/codegen
for integer min/max as discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html
Here, we're just matching the simplest min/max patterns and adjusting the
icmp predicate while swapping the select operands.
I've included FIXME tests in test/Transforms/InstCombine/select_meta.ll
so it's easier to see how this might be extended (corresponds to the TODO
comment in the code). That's also why I'm using matchSelectPattern()
rather than a simpler check; once the backend is patched, we can just
remove some of the restrictions to allow the obfuscated min/max patterns
in the FIXME tests to be matched.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26525
llvm-svn: 287585
This was reverted at r285866 because there was a crash handling a scalar
select of vectors. I added a check for that pattern and a test case based
on the example provided in the post-commit thread for r285732.
llvm-svn: 286113
This reverts commit r285732.
This change introduced a new assertion failure in the following
testcase at -O2:
typedef short __v8hi __attribute__((__vector_size__(16)));
__v8hi foo(__v8hi &V1, __v8hi &V2, unsigned mask) {
__v8hi Result = V1;
if (mask & 0x80)
Result[0] = V2[0];
return Result;
}
llvm-svn: 285866
I think the former 'test50' had a typo making it functionally equivalent
to the former 'test49'; changed the predicate to provide more coverage.
llvm-svn: 285706
Sanjay Patel