This reverts commit ea1a0d7c9a.
While this is strictly more powerful, it is also strictly slower.
InstSimplify intentionally does not perform many folds that it
is allowed to perform, if doing so requires a KnownBits calculation
that will be repeated in InstCombine.
Maybe it's worthwhile to do this here, but that needs a more
explicitly stated motivation, evaluated in a review.
We already special-cased a few interesting patterns,
but that is strictly less powerful than using KnownBits.
So instead get the known bits for the operand of `and`,
and iff all the unset bits of the `and`-mask are known to be zeros
in the operand, we can omit said `and`.
This is similar to the select logic just ahead of the new code.
Min/max choose exactly one value from the inputs, so if both of
those are a power-of-2, then the result must be a power-of-2.
This might help with D98152, but we likely still need other
pieces of the puzzle to avoid regressions.
The change in PatternMatch.h is needed to build with clang.
It's possible there is a better way to deal with the 'const'
incompatibities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99276
See PR45510:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45510
We had partial coverage for some of these patterns, so removing duplicate tests
with the complete set in the new test file.
As discussed in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
Improving the canonicalization for these patterns:
rL363956
...means we should adjust/enhance the related simplification.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/w1cp
Name: isPow2 or zero
%x = and i32 %xx, 2048
%a = add i32 %x, -1
%r = and i32 %a, %x
=>
%r = i32 0
llvm-svn: 363997
I added a canonicalization to create this general pattern in:
rL363956
But as noted in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314#c11
...we have a (potentially expensive) simplification for the version
of the code that we just canonicalized away from, so we should
add/adjust that code to match.
llvm-svn: 363981
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is the second patch of the series which intends to enable jump threading for an inlined method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
The first patch is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL338485.
This patch handles code sequences that merges two values using `shl` and `or`, then extracts one value using `and`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49981
llvm-svn: 338817
This commit includes unit tests for D48828, which enhances InstSimplify to enable jump threading with a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
I am going to commit the actual transformation later.
llvm-svn: 338107
For both operands are unsigned, the following optimizations are valid, and missing:
1. X > Y && X != 0 --> X > Y
2. X > Y || X != 0 --> X != 0
3. X <= Y || X != 0 --> true
4. X <= Y || X == 0 --> X <= Y
5. X > Y && X == 0 --> false
unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
should fold to x > y, but I found we haven't done it right now.
besides, unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x < y && y != 0; }
Has been folded to x < y, so there may be a bug.
Patch by: Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47922
llvm-svn: 335129
These are the baseline tests for the functional change in D47922.
Patch by Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48000
llvm-svn: 335128
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
Currently m_Not only works the canonical xor X, -1 form that InstCombine produces. InstSimplify can't rely on this canonicalization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33331
llvm-svn: 303379
We would eventually catch these via demanded bits and computing known bits in InstCombine,
but I think it's better to handle the simple cases as soon as possible as a matter of efficiency.
This fold allows further simplifications based on distributed ops transforms. eg:
%a = lshr i8 %x, 7
%b = or i8 %a, 2
%c = and i8 %b, 1
InstSimplify can directly fold this now:
%a = lshr i8 %x, 7
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33221
llvm-svn: 303213
The sibling folds for 'and' with casts were added with https://reviews.llvm.org/rL273200.
This is a preliminary step for adding the 'or' variants for the folds added with https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301260.
The reason for the strange form with constant LHS in the 1st test is because there's another missing fold in that
case for the inverted predicate. That should be fixed when we add the ConstantRange functionality for 'or-of-icmps'
that already exists for 'and-of-icmps'.
I'm hoping to share more code for the and/or cases, so we won't have these differences. This will allow us to remove
code from InstCombine. It's also possible that we can remove some code here in InstSimplify. I think we have some
duplicated folds because patterns are not matched in a general way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32876
llvm-svn: 302189
The code Sanjay Patel moved over from InstCombine doesn't work properly if the 'and' has both inputs as nots because we used a commuted op matcher on the 'and' first. But this will bind to the first 'not' on 'and' when there could be two 'not's. InstCombine could rely on DeMorgan to ensure the 'and' wouldn't have two 'not's eventually, but InstSimplify can't rely on that.
This patch matches the xor first then checks for the ands and allows a not of either operand of the xor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32458
llvm-svn: 301329
This is a straight cut and paste, but there's a bigger problem: if this
fold exists for simplifyOr, there should be a DeMorganized version for
simplifyAnd. But more than that, we have a patchwork of ad hoc logic
optimizations in InstCombine. There should be some structure to ensure
that we're not missing sibling folds across and/or/xor.
llvm-svn: 301213
The change to InstCombine in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
...exposes this missing fold in InstSimplify, so adding this
first to avoid a regression.
llvm-svn: 295573
By moving this transform to InstSimplify from InstCombine, we sidestep the problem/question
raised by PR27869:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27869
...where InstCombine turns an icmp+zext into a shift causing us to miss the fold.
Credit to David Majnemer for a draft patch of the changes to InstructionSimplify.cpp.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21512
llvm-svn: 273200
I didn't notice any significant changes in the actual checks here;
all of these tests already used FileCheck, so a script can batch
update them in one shot.
This commit is just to show the value of automating this process:
We have uniform formatting as opposed to a mish-mash of check
structure that changes based on individual prefs and the current
fashion. This makes it simpler to update when we find a bug or
make an enhancement.
llvm-svn: 264457
Simon Pilgrim