Summary:
The (not (sext)) case is really (xor (sext), -1) which should have been simplified to (sext (xor, 1)) before we got here. So we shouldn't need to handle it.
With that taken care of we only need to two cases so don't need the swap anymore. This makes us in sync with the equivalent code in visitOr so inline this to match.
Reviewers: spatel, eli.friedman, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36240
llvm-svn: 310063
As far as I can tell this should be handled by foldCastedBitwiseLogic which is called later in visitXor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36214
llvm-svn: 309882
This adds support for sext in foldLogicCastConstant. This is a prerequisite for D36214.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36234
llvm-svn: 309880
Summary:
If one side simplifies to the identity value for inner opcode, we can replace the value with just the operation that can't be simplified.
I've removed a couple now unneeded special cases in visitAnd and visitOr. There are probably other cases I missed.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer, hfinkel, dberlin
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: grandinj, llvm-commits, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35451
llvm-svn: 308111
Previously the InstCombiner class contained a pointer to an IR builder that had been passed to the constructor. Sometimes this would be passed to helper functions as either a pointer or the pointer would be dereferenced to be passed by reference.
This patch makes it a reference everywhere including the InstCombiner class itself so there is more inconsistency. This a large, but mechanical patch. I've done very minimal formatting changes on it despite what clang-format wanted to do.
llvm-svn: 307451
Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
Bswap isn't a simple operation so we need to make sure we are really removing a call to it before doing these simplifications.
For the case when both LHS and RHS are bswaps I've allowed it to be moved if either LHS or RHS has a single use since that at least allows us to move it later where it might find another bswap to combine with and it decreases the use count on the other side so maybe the other user can be optimized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34974
llvm-svn: 307273
Summary:
I came across this while thinking about what would happen if one of the operands in this xor pattern was itself a inverted (A & ~B) ^ (~A & B)-> (A^B).
The patterns here assume that the (~a | ~b) will be demorganed to ~(a & b) first. Though I wonder if there's a multiple use case that would prevent the demorgan.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34870
llvm-svn: 306967
There are two conditions ORed here with similar checks and each contain two matches that must be true for the if to succeed. With the commutable match on the first half of the OR then both ifs basically have the same first part and only the second part distinguishs. With this change we move the commutable match to second half and make the first half unique.
This caused some tests to change because we now produce a commuted result, but this shouldn't matter in practice.
llvm-svn: 306800
If the components of the and/or had multiple uses, this transform created an additional instruction.
This patch makes sure we remove one of the components.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34498
llvm-svn: 306027
There are 2 parts to this patch made simultaneously to avoid a regression.
We're reversing the canonicalization that moves bitwise vector ops before bitcasts.
We're moving bitwise vector ops *after* bitcasts instead. That's the 1st and 3rd hunks
of the patch. The motivation is that there's only one fold that currently depends on
the existing canonicalization (see next), but there are many folds that would
automatically benefit from the new canonicalization.
PR33138 ( https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33138 ) shows why/how we have these
patterns in IR.
There's an or(and,andn) pattern that requires an adjustment in order to continue matching
to 'select' because the bitcast changes position. This match is unfortunately complicated
because it requires 4 logic ops with optional bitcast and sext ops.
Test diffs:
1. The bitcast.ll and bitcast-bigendian.ll changes show the most basic difference -
bitcast comes before logic.
2. There are also tests with no diffs in bitcast.ll that verify that we're still doing
folds that were enabled by the previous canonicalization.
3. icmp-xor-signbit.ll shows the payoff. We don't need to adjust existing icmp patterns
to look through bitcasts.
4. logical-select.ll contains several tests for the or(and,andn) --> select fold to
verify that we are still handling those cases. The lone diff shows the movement of
the bitcast from the new canonicalization rule.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33517
llvm-svn: 306011
We have a large portfolio of folds for and-of-icmps and or-of-icmps in InstSimplify and InstCombine,
but hardly anything for xor-of-icmps. Rather than trying to rethink and translate all of those folds,
we can use the truth table definition of xor:
X ^ Y --> (X | Y) & !(X & Y)
...to see if we can convert the xor to and/or and then use the existing folds.
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/J9v
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33342
llvm-svn: 305792
Summary:
These 4 patterns have the same one use check repeated twice for each. Once without a cast and one with. But the cast has no effect on what method is called.
For the OR case I believe it is always profitable regardless of the number of uses since we'll never increase the instruction count.
For the AND case I believe it is profitable if the pair of xors has one use such that we'll get rid of it completely. Or if the C value is something freely invertible, in which case the not doesn't cost anything.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34308
llvm-svn: 305705
Summary: This is the demorganed version of the case we already handle for the OR of iszero.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34244
llvm-svn: 305548
Currently we expect A to be on the same side in both Ands but nothing guarantees that.
While there also switch to using matchers for some of the code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34230
llvm-svn: 305487
Summary: This matches the behavior we already had for compares and makes us consistent everywhere.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel, spatel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33604
llvm-svn: 305049
We have wrappers for several other ValueTracking methods that take care of passing all of the analysis and assumption cache parameters. This extends it to isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo.
llvm-svn: 303924
Also, fix the old-style capitalization of the related functions
and move them to the 'private' section of the class since they
are just helpers of the visit* functions.
As shown in the post-commit comments for D32143, we are missing
folds for xor-of-icmps.
llvm-svn: 303381
// (X ^ C1) | C2 --> (X | C2) ^ (C1&~C2)
This canonicalization was added at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL7264
By moving xors out/down, we can more easily combine constants. I'm adding
tests that do not change with this patch, so we can verify that those kinds
of transforms are still happening.
This is no-functional-change-intended because there's a later fold:
// (X^C)|Y -> (X|Y)^C iff Y&C == 0
...and demanded-bits appears to guarantee that any fold that would have
hit the fold we're removing here would be caught by that 2nd fold.
Similar reasoning was used in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL299384
The larger motivation for removing this code is that it could interfere with
the fix for PR32706:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
Ie, we're not checking if the 'xor' is actually a 'not', so we could reverse
a 'not' optimization and cause an infinite loop by altering an 'xor X, -1'.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33050
llvm-svn: 302733
The motivation for getting rid of dyn_castNotVal is to allow fixing:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
So this was supposed to be functional-change-intended for the case
of inverting constants and applying DeMorgan. However, I can't find
any cases where that pattern will actually get to matchDeMorgansLaws()
because we have other folds in visitAnd/visitOr that do the same
thing. So this ends up just being a clean-up patch with slight efficiency
improvement, but no-functional-change-intended.
llvm-svn: 302581
This is another step towards getting rid of dyn_castNotVal,
so we can recommit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300977
As the tests show, we were missing the lshr case for constants
and both ashr/lshr vector splat folds. The ashr case with constant
was being performed inefficiently in 2 steps. It's also possible
there was a latent bug in that case because we can't do that fold
if the constant is positive:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/Bge
llvm-svn: 302465
We can simplify (or (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to 'true' or one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything seems
to check out. Eg, the deleted code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
This is a follow-up to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301260https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 302370
This was originally checked in here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301923
And reverted here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301924
Because there's a clang test that would fail after this. I fixed/removed the
offending CHECK lines in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301928
So let's try this again. Original commit message:
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing, but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern that has an extra 'not' in it: ~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold that pattern too: (~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301929
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is
harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while
random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing,
but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have
excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't
match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern
that has an extra 'not' in it:
~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold
that pattern too:
(~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301923
If we have ~(~X & Y), it only makes sense to transform it to (X | ~Y) when we do not need
the intermediate (~X & Y) value. In that case, we would need an extra instruction to
generate ~Y + 'or' (as shown in the test changes).
It's ok if we have multiple uses of ~X or Y, however. In those cases, we may not reduce the
instruction count or critical path, but we might improve throughput because we can generate
~X and ~Y in parallel. Whether that actually makes perf sense or not for a target is something
we can't answer in IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32703
llvm-svn: 301848
Craig Topper