Follow-up to rL342324 (D52059):
Missing optimizations with blendv are shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38814
This is an easier and more powerful solution than adding pattern matching for a few
special cases in the backend. The potential danger with this transform in IR is that
the condition value can get separated from the select, and the backend might not be
able to make a blendv out of it again.
llvm-svn: 342806
Summary: This restores the combine that was reverted in r341883. The infinite loop from the failing test no longer occurs due to changes from r342163.
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52070
llvm-svn: 342797
Summary:
Same as to D52146.
`((1 << y)+(-1))` is simply non-canoniacal version of `~(-1 << y)`: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0vl
We can not canonicalize it due to the extra uses. But we can handle it here.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52147
llvm-svn: 342547
Summary:
Two folds are happening here:
1. https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oaFX
2. And then `foldICmpWithHighBitMask()` (D52001): https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wsP4
This change doesn't just add the handling for eq/ne predicates,
it actually builds upon the previous `foldICmpWithLowBitMaskedVal()` work,
so **all** the 16 fold variants* are immediately supported.
I'm indeed only testing these two predicates.
I do not feel like re-proving all 16 folds*, because they were already proven
for the general case of constant with all-ones in low bits. So as long as
the mask produces all-ones in low bits, i'm pretty sure the fold is valid.
But required, i can re-prove, let me know.
* eq/ne are commutative - 4 folds; ult/ule/ugt/uge - are not commutative (the commuted variant is InstSimplified), 4 folds; slt/sle/sgt/sge are not commutative - 4 folds. 12 folds in total.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52146
llvm-svn: 342546
Summary:
If the sub doesn't overflow in the original type we can move it above the sext/zext.
This is similar to what we do for add. The overflow checking for sub is currently weaker than add, so the test cases are constructed for what is supported.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52075
llvm-svn: 342335
Missing optimizations with blendv are shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38814
If this works, it's an easier and more powerful solution than adding pattern matching
for a few special cases in the backend. The potential danger with this transform in IR
is that the condition value can get separated from the select, and the backend might
not be able to make a blendv out of it again. I don't think that's too likely, but
I've kept this patch minimal with a 'TODO', so we can test that theory in the wild
before expanding the transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52059
llvm-svn: 342324
Similar to rL342278:
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
D52075 should be able to use this code too rather than
duplicating all of the logic.
llvm-svn: 342292
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
llvm-svn: 342278
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only n bits wide (where n is a variable.)
There are many ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
More complicated, canonical pattern:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/uhA
We do need to have two `switch()`'es like this,
to not mismatch the swappable predicates.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52001
llvm-svn: 342173
This allows the xor to be removed completely.
This might help with recomitting r341674, but seems good regardless.
Coincidentally fixes PR38915.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51964
llvm-svn: 342163
I accidentally committed this diff with rL342147 because
I had applied D51964. We probably do need those checks,
but D51964 has tests and more discussion/motivation,
so they should be re-added with that patch.
llvm-svn: 342149
I don't have a test case for this, but it's motivated by
the discussion in D51964, and I've added TODO comments for
the better fix - move simplifications into instsimplify
because that's more efficient and reduces risk of infinite
loops in instcombine caused by transforms trying to do the
opposite folds.
In this case, we know that the transform that tries to move
'not' through min/max can be fooled by the multiple uses
of a value in another min/max, so try to squash the
foldSPFofSPF() patterns first.
llvm-svn: 342147
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only `n` bits wide (where `n` is a variable.)
There are **many** ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
Let's handle the second variant first, since it is much simpler.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LYjYhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51985
llvm-svn: 342067
Name: op_ugt_sum
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, %a
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
Name: sum_ult_op
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ult i8 %a, %x
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZRxI
AFAICT, this doesn't interfere with any add-saturation patterns
because those have >1 use for the 'add'. But this should be
better for IR analysis and codegen in the basic cases.
This is another fold inspired by PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 342004
These are the folds in Alive;
Name: xor_ult
Pre: isPowerOf2(-C1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ult i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, ~C1
Name: xor_ugt
Pre: isPowerOf2(C1+1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vty
The ugt case in its simplest form was already handled by DemandedBits,
but that's not ideal as shown in the multi-use test.
I'm not sure if these are all of the symmetrical folds, but I adjusted
the existing code for one of the folds to try to show the similarities.
There's no obvious connection, but this is another preliminary step
for PR14613...
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
llvm-svn: 341997
I noticed that we were not back-propagating undef lanes to shuffle masks when we have a
shuffle that reduces the vector width. This is part of investigating/solving PR38691:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38691
The DAG equivalent was proposed with:
D51696
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51433
llvm-svn: 341981
For vectors, getPrimitiveSizeInBits returns the full vector width. This code should using the element size for vectors. This could be fixed by calling getScalarSizeInBits, but its even easier to just get it from the APInt we're checking.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51938
llvm-svn: 341971
Summary:
Revert min/max changes in rL341674 dues to high compile times causing timeouts (PR38897).
Checking in to unblock failing builds. Patch available for post-commit review and re-revert once resolved.
Working on a smaller reproducer for PR38897.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51897
llvm-svn: 341883
There were two combines not covered by the check before now, neither of which
actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687) when we just
didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been diligently maintained
since.
llvm-svn: 341831
shuf (sel (shuf NarrowCond, undef, WideMask), X, Y), undef, NarrowMask) -->
sel NarrowCond, (shuf X, undef, NarrowMask), (shuf Y, undef, NarrowMask)
The motivating case from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38691
...is the last regression test. In that case, we're just left with the narrow select.
Note that if we do create new shuffles, they use the existing extraction identity mask,
so there's no danger that this transform creates arbitrary shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51496
llvm-svn: 341708
If the ~X wasn't able to simplify above the max/min, we might be able to simplify it by moving it below the max/min.
I had to modify the ~(min/max ~X, Y) transform to prevent getting stuck in a loop when we saw the new ~(max/min X, ~Y) before the ~Y had been folded away to remove the new not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51398
llvm-svn: 341674
If OtherOpT or OtherOpF have scalar types and the condition is a vector,
we would create an invalid select.
Reviewers: spatel, john.brawn, mssimpso, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51781
llvm-svn: 341666
This fold is needed to avoid a regression when we try
to recommit rL300977.
We can't see the most basic win currently because
demanded bits changes the patterns:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/plpp
llvm-svn: 341559
I'm preparing to add the same functionality both here and to the DAG
version of this code in D51696 / D51433, so try to make those cases
as similar as possible to avoid bugs.
llvm-svn: 341545
I'm probably missing some way to use m_Deferred to remove the code
duplication, but that can be a follow-up.
The improvement in demand_shrink_nsw.ll is an example of missing
the fold because the pattern matching was deficient. I didn't try
to follow the bits in that test, but Alive says it's correct:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ugc
llvm-svn: 341426
This is just a cleanup step. The TODO comments show
what is wrong with the 'and' version of the fold.
Fixing this should be part of recommitting:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341405
The fold was implemented for the general case but use-limitation,
but the later constant version which didn't check uses was only
matching splat constants.
llvm-svn: 341292
This is no-outwardly-visible-change intended, so no test.
But the code is smaller and more efficient. The check for
a 'not' op is intended to avoid the expensive value tracking
call when it should not be necessary, and it might prevent
infinite looping when we resurrect:
rL300977
llvm-svn: 341280
This is a follow-up to rL339604 which did the same transform
for a sin libcall. The handling of intrinsics vs. libcalls
is unfortunately scattered, so I'm just adding this next to
the existing transform for llvm.cos for now.
This should resolve PR38458:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38458
If the call was already negated, the negates will cancel
each other out.
llvm-svn: 340952
We were calling getNumUses to check for 1 or 2 uses. But getNumUses is linear in the number of uses. We can instead use !hasNUsesOrMore(3) which will stop the linear scan as soon as it determines there are at least 3 uses even if there are more.
llvm-svn: 340939
This lines up with the behavior of an existing transform where if both
operands of the binop are shuffled, we allow moving the binop before the
shuffle regardless of whether the shuffle changes the size of the vector.
llvm-svn: 340787
This is a bit awkward in a handful of places where we didn't even have
an instruction and now we have to see if we can build one. But on the
whole, this seems like a win and at worst a reasonable cost for removing
`TerminatorInst`.
All of this is part of the removal of `TerminatorInst` from the
`Instruction` type hierarchy.
llvm-svn: 340701
The core get and set routines move to the `Instruction` class. These
routines are only valid to call on instructions which are terminators.
The iterator and *generic* range based access move to `CFG.h` where all
the other generic successor and predecessor access lives. While moving
the iterator here, simplify it using the iterator utilities LLVM
provides and updates coding style as much as reasonable. The APIs remain
pointer-heavy when they could better use references, and retain the odd
behavior of `operator*` and `operator->` that is common in LLVM
iterators. Adjusting this API, if desired, should be a follow-up step.
Non-generic range iteration is added for the two instructions where
there is an especially easy mechanism and where there was code
attempting to use the range accessor from a specific subclass:
`indirectbr` and `br`. In both cases, the successors are contiguous
operands and can be easily iterated via the operand list.
This is the first major patch in removing the `TerminatorInst` type from
the IR's instruction type hierarchy. This change was discussed in an RFC
here and was pretty clearly positive:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html
There will be a series of much more mechanical changes following this
one to complete this move.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47467
llvm-svn: 340698
This patch makes the DoesKMove argument non-optional, to force people
to think about it. Most cases where it is false are either code hoisting
or code sinking, where we pick one instruction from a set of
equal instructions among different code paths.
Reviewers: dberlin, nlopes, efriedma, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47475
llvm-svn: 340606
Sanjay Patel