Narrowing an input expression of a truncate to a type larger than the
result of the truncate won't allow removing the truncate, but it may
enable further optimizations, e.g. allowing for larger vectorization
factors.
For now this is intentionally limited to integer types only, to avoid
producing new vector ops that might not be suitable for the target.
If we know that the only user is a trunc, we can also be allow more
cases, e.g. also shortening expressions with some additional shifts.
I would appreciate feedback on the best place to do such a narrowing.
This fixes PR43580.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82973
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
// trunc (binop X, C) --> binop (trunc X, C')
// trunc (binop (ext X), Y) --> binop X, (trunc Y)
I'm grouping sub with the other binops because that makes the code simpler
and the transforms are valid:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/UeF
...so even though we don't expect a sub with constant Op1 or any of the
other opcodes with constant Op0 due to canonicalization rules, we might as
well handle those situations if non-canonical code somehow reaches this
point (it should just make instcombine more efficient in reaching its
end goal).
This should solve the problem that later manifests in the vectorizers in
PR35295:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35295
llvm-svn: 318404
Note that one-use and shouldChangeType() are checked ahead of the switch.
Without the narrowing folds, we can produce inferior vector code as shown in PR35299:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35299
llvm-svn: 318323
Florian Hahn