Working on top of D69252, this adds canonicalisation patterns for ssub.with.overflow to ssub.sats.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69753
This adds to D69245, adding extra signed patterns for folding from a
sadd_with_overflow to a sadd_sat. These are more complex than the
unsigned patterns, as the overflow can occur in either direction.
For the add case, the positive overflow can only occur if both of the
values are positive (same for both the values being negative). So there
is an extra select on whether to use the positive or negative overflow
limit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69252
As noted by the FIXME comment, this is not correct based on our current FMF semantics.
We should be propagating FMF from the final value in a sequence (in this case the
'select'). So the behavior even without this patch is wrong, but we did not allow FMF
on 'select' until recently.
But if we do the correct thing right now in this patch, we'll inevitably introduce
regressions because we have not wired up FMF propagation for 'phi' and 'select' in
other passes (like SimplifyCFG) or other places in InstCombine. I'm not seeing a
better incremental way to make progress.
That said, the potential extra damage over the existing wrong behavior from this
patch is very limited. AFAIK, the only way to have different FMF on IR in the same
function is if we have LTO inlined IR from 2 modules that were compiled using
different fast-math settings.
As seen in the tests, we may actually see some improvements with this patch because
adding the FMF to the 'select' allows matching to min/max intrinsics that were
previously missed (in the common case, the 'fcmp' and 'select' should have identical
FMF to begin with).
Next steps in the transition:
Make similar changes in instcombine as needed.
Enable phi-to-select FMF propagation in SimplifyCFG.
Remove dependencies on fcmp with FMF.
Deprecate FMF on fcmp.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69720
This adds some patterns to transform uadd.with.overflow to uadd.sat
(with usub.with.overflow to usub.sat too). The patterns selects from
UINTMAX (or 0 for subs) depending on whether the operation overflowed.
Signed patterns are a little more involved (they can wrap in two
directions), but can be added here in a followup patch too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69245
This is an extra fold for a canonical form of uadd_sat, as shown in
D68651. It essentially selects uadd from an add and a select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69244
This adds an instcombine matcher for code that attempts to perform signed
saturating arithmetic by casting to a higher type. Unsigned cases are already
matched, this adds extra matches for the more complex signed cases, which
involves matching the min(max(add a b)) nodes with proper extends to ensure
legality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68651
llvm-svn: 375505
This has the potential to uncover missed analysis/folds as shown in the
min/max code comment/test, but fewer restrictions on icmp folds should
be better in general to solve cases like:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
llvm-svn: 372510
Promoting it from InstCombine's tryToReuseConstantFromSelectInComparison().
Return true if this constant and a constant 'Y' are element-wise equal.
This is identical to just comparing the pointers, with the exception that
for vectors, if only one of the constants has an `undef` element in some
lane, the constants still match.
llvm-svn: 369842
Summary:
If we have e.g.:
```
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
```
the constants `65535` and `65536` are suspiciously close.
We could perform a transformation to deduplicate them:
```
Name: ult
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
=>
%t.inv = icmp ugt i32 %x, 65535
%r = select i1 %t.inv, i32 65535, i32 %y
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/avb
While this may seem esoteric, this should certainly be good for vectors
(less constant pool usage) and for opt-for-size - need to have only one constant.
But the real fun part here is that it allows further transformation,
in particular it finishes cleaning up the `clamp` folding,
see e.g. `canonicalize-clamp-with-select-of-constant-threshold-pattern.ll`.
We start with e.g.
```
%dont_need_to_clamp_positive = icmp sle i32 %X, 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp_negative = icmp sge i32 %X, -32768
%clamp_limit = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, i32 -32768, i32 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp = and i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, %dont_need_to_clamp_negative
%R = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp, i32 %X, i32 %clamp_limit
```
without this patch we currently produce
```
%1 = icmp slt i32 %X, 32768
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 32767
```
which isn't really a `clamp` - both comparisons are performed on the original value,
this patch changes it into
```
%1.inv = icmp sgt i32 %X, 32767
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1.inv, i32 32767, i32 %3
```
and then the magic happens! Some further transform finishes polishing it and we finally get:
```
%t1 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%t2 = select i1 %t1, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%t3 = icmp slt i32 %t2, 32767
%R = select i1 %t3, i32 %t2, i32 32767
```
which is beautiful and just what we want.
Proofs for `getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant()` for de-canonicalization:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Proofs for the fold itself: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66232
llvm-svn: 369840
This pattern may arise more frequently with an enhancement to SLP vectorization suggested in PR42755:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42755
...but we should handle this pattern to make things easier for the backend either way.
For all in-tree targets that I looked at, codegen for typical vector sizes looks better when we change
to a vector select, so this is safe to do without a cost model (in other words, as a target-independent
canonicalization).
For example, if the condition of the select is a scalar, we end up with something like this on x86:
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpextrb $12, %xmm0, %eax
testb $1, %al
jne LBB0_2
## %bb.1:
vmovaps %xmm3, %xmm2
LBB0_2:
vmovaps %xmm2, %xmm0
Rather than the splat-condition variant:
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpshufd $255, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[3,3,3,3]
vblendvps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm3, %xmm0
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66095
llvm-svn: 369140
Summary:
Given a pattern like:
```
%old_cmp1 = icmp slt i32 %x, C2
%old_replacement = select i1 %old_cmp1, i32 %target_low, i32 %target_high
%old_x_offseted = add i32 %x, C1
%old_cmp0 = icmp ult i32 %old_x_offseted, C0
%r = select i1 %old_cmp0, i32 %x, i32 %old_replacement
```
it can be rewritten as more canonical pattern:
```
%new_cmp1 = icmp slt i32 %x, -C1
%new_cmp2 = icmp sge i32 %x, C0-C1
%new_clamped_low = select i1 %new_cmp1, i32 %target_low, i32 %x
%r = select i1 %new_cmp2, i32 %target_high, i32 %new_clamped_low
```
Iff `-C1 s<= C2 s<= C0-C1`
Also, `ULT` predicate can also be `UGE`; or `UGT` iff `C0 != -1` (+invert result)
Also, `SLT` predicate can also be `SGE`; or `SGT` iff `C2 != INT_MAX` (+invert result)
If `C1 == 0`, then all 3 instructions must be one-use; else at most either `%old_cmp1` or `%old_x_offseted` can have extra uses.
NOTE: if we could reuse `%old_cmp1` as one of the comparisons we'll have to build, this could be less limiting.
So there are two icmp's, each one with 3 predicate variants, so there are 9 fold variants:
| | ULT | UGE | UGT |
| SLT | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/yIJ | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/5BfN | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/INH |
| SGE | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/hd8 | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Abk | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/PlzS |
| SGT | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/VYG | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oMY | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KrzC |
{F9730206}
This fold was brought up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D65148#1603922 by @dmgreen, and is needed to unblock that patch.
This patch requires D65530.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00, dmgreen
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, dmgreen
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65765
llvm-svn: 368687
As discussed in PR42696:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42696
...but won't help that case yet.
We have an odd situation where a select operand equivalence fold was
implemented in InstSimplify when it could have been done more generally
in InstCombine if we allow dropping of {nsw,nuw,exact} from a binop operand.
Here's an example:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Xplr
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 2147483647
%add = add nsw i32 %x, 1
%sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 -2147483648, i32 %add
=>
%sel = add i32 %x, 1
I've left the InstSimplify code in place for now, but my guess is that we'd
prefer to remove that as a follow-up to save on code duplication and
compile-time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65576
llvm-svn: 367695
Summary:
Sometimes we need to swap true-val and false-val of a `SelectInst`.
Having a function for that is nicer than hand-writing it each time.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, craig.topper, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: jdoerfert, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65520
llvm-svn: 367547
This is the opposite direction of D62158 (we have to choose 1 form or the other).
Now that we have FMF on the select, this becomes more palatable. And the benefits
of having a single IR instruction for this operation (less chances of missing folds
based on extra uses, etc) overcome my previous comments about the potential advantage
of larger pattern matching/analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62414
llvm-svn: 364721
Similar to rL362909:
This isn't the ideal fix (use FMF on the select), but it's still an
improvement until we have better FMF propagation to selects and other
FP math operators.
I don't think there's much risk of regression from this change by
not including the FMF on the fcmp any more. The nsz/nnan FMF
should be the same on the fcmp and the fsub because they have the
same operand.
llvm-svn: 362943
This isn't the ideal fix (use FMF on the select), but it's still an
improvement until we have better FMF propagation to selects and other
FP math operators.
I don't think there's much risk of regression from this change by
not including the FMF on the fcmp any more. The nsz/nnan FMF
should be the same on the fcmp and the fneg (fsub) because they
have the same operand.
This works around the most glaring FMF logical inconsistency cited
in PR38086:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
llvm-svn: 362909
We don't always get this:
Cond ? -X : -Y --> -(Cond ? X : Y)
...even with the legacy IR form of fneg in the case with extra uses,
and we miss matching with the newer 'fneg' instruction because we
are expecting binops through the rest of the path.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61604
llvm-svn: 360075
Start using the uadd.sat and usub.sat intrinsics for the existing
canonicalizations. These intrinsics should optimize better than
expanded IR, have better handling in the X86 backend and should
be no worse than expanded IR in other backends, as far as we know.
rL357012 already introduced use of uadd.sat for the add+umin pattern.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58872
llvm-svn: 357103
This is no-functional-change-intended, but that was also
true when it was part of rL354276, and I managed to lose
2 predicates for the fold with constant...causing much bot
distress. So this time I'm adding a couple of negative tests
to avoid that.
llvm-svn: 354384
We want to use the sum in the icmp to allow matching with
m_UAddWithOverflow and eliminate the 'not'. This is discussed
in D51929 and is another step towards solving PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
(The matching here is incomplete. Trying to take minimal steps
to make sure we don't induce infinite looping from existing
canonicalizations of the 'select'.)
llvm-svn: 354221
I'm circling back around to a loose end from D51929.
The backend (either CGP or DAG) doesn't recognize this pattern, so we end up with different asm for these IR variants.
Regardless of any future changes to canonicalize to saturation/overflow intrinsics, we want to get raw IR variations
into the minimal number of raw IR forms. If/when we can canonicalize to intrinsics, that will make that step easier.
Pre: C2 == ~C1
%a = add i32 %x, C1
%c = icmp ugt i32 %x, C2
%r = select i1 %c, i32 -1, i32 %a
=>
%a = add i32 %x, C1
%c2 = icmp ult i32 %x, C2
%r = select i1 %c2, i32 %a, i32 -1
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pkH
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57352
llvm-svn: 352536
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This is matching the equivalent of the DAG expansion,
so it should never end up with worse perf than the
original code even if the target doesn't have a rotate
instruction.
llvm-svn: 350672
The cttz/ctlz intrinsics have a parameter specifying whether the
result is undefined for zero. cttz(x, false) can be relaxed to
cttz(x, true) if x is known non-zero, and in fact such an optimization
is already performed. However, this currently doesn't work if x is
non-zero as a result of a select rather than an explicit branch.
This patch adds handling for this case, thus allowing
x != 0 ? cttz(x, false) : y to simplify to x != 0 ? cttz(x, true) : y.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55786
llvm-svn: 350463
The final piece of IR-level analysis to allow this was committed with:
rL350188
Using the intrinsics should improve transforms based on cost models
like vectorization and inlining.
The backend should be prepared too, so we can now canonicalize more
sequences of shift/logic to the intrinsics and know that the end
result should be equal or better to the original code even if the
target does not have an actual rotate instruction.
llvm-svn: 350199
This is an almost direct move of the functionality from InstCombine to
InstSimplify. There's no reason not to do this in InstSimplify because
we never create a new value with this transform.
(There's a question of whether any dominance-based transform belongs in
either of these passes, but that's a separate issue.)
I've changed 1 of the conditions for the fold (1 of the blocks for the
branch must be the block we started with) into an assert because I'm not
sure how that could ever be false.
We need 1 extra check to make sure that the instruction itself is in a
basic block because passes other than InstCombine may be using InstSimplify
as an analysis on values that are not wired up yet.
The 3-way compare changes show that InstCombine has some kind of
phase-ordering hole. Otherwise, we would have already gotten the intended
final result that we now show here.
llvm-svn: 347896
Summary:
These asserts are based on the assumption that the order of true/false operands in a select and those in the compare would always be the same.
This fixes PR39595.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54359
llvm-svn: 346874
The cmp+branch variant of this pattern is shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34924
...and as discussed there, we probably can't transform
that without a rotate intrinsic. We do have that now
via funnel shift, but we're not quite ready to
canonicalize IR to that form yet. The case with 'select'
should already be transformed though, so that's this patch.
The sequence with negation followed by masking is what we
use in the backend and partly in clang (though that part
should be updated).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/TplC
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %shamt, 0
%sub = sub i32 32, %shamt
%shr = lshr i32 %x, %shamt
%shl = shl i32 %x, %sub
%or = or i32 %shr, %shl
%r = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %or
=>
%neg = sub i32 0, %shamt
%masked = and i32 %shamt, 31
%maskedneg = and i32 %neg, 31
%shl2 = lshr i32 %x, %masked
%shr2 = shl i32 %x, %maskedneg
%r = or i32 %shl2, %shr2
llvm-svn: 346807
This is NFCI for InstCombine because it calls InstSimplify,
so I left the tests for this transform there. As noted in
the code comment, we can allow this fold more often by using
FMF and/or value tracking.
llvm-svn: 346169
It looks like we correctly removed edge cases with 0.0 from D50714,
but we were a bit conservative because getBinOpIdentity() doesn't
distinguish between +0.0 and -0.0 and 'nsz' is effectively always
true for fcmp (see discussion in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
Without this change, we would get regressions by canonicalizing
to +0.0 in all fcmp, and that's a step towards solving:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
llvm-svn: 346143
David Green