As discussed in the motivating PR44509:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44509
...we can end up with worse code using fast-math than without.
This is because the reassociate pass greedily transforms fsub
into fneg/fadd and apparently (based on the regression tests
seen here) expects instcombine to clean that up if it wasn't
profitable. But we were missing this fold:
(X - Y) - Z --> X - (Y + Z)
There's another, more specific case that I think we should
handle as shown in the "fake" fneg test (but missed with a real
fneg), but that's another patch. That may be tricky to get
right without conflicting with existing transforms for fneg.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72521
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
These simplifications were previously enabled only with isFast(), but that
is more restrictive than required. Since r317488, FMF has 'reassoc' to
control these cases at a finer level.
llvm-svn: 330089
This reverts commit r222142. This is causing/exposing an execution-time regression
in spec2006/gcc and coremark on AArch64/A57/Ofast.
Conflicts:
test/Transforms/Reassociate/optional-flags.ll
llvm-svn: 222398
Arthur Eubanks