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:
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
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
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
Summary:
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38149 | PR38149 ]]
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158957 and later,
the IR for 'check for [no] signed truncation' pattern can be improved:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gBf
^ that pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in signed case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
Proofs for this transform: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
This transform is surprisingly frustrating.
This does not deal with non-splat shift amounts, or with undef shift amounts.
I've outlined what i think the solution should be:
```
// Potential handling of non-splats: for each element:
// * if both are undef, replace with constant 0.
// Because (1<<0) is OK and is 1, and ((1<<0)>>1) is also OK and is 0.
// * if both are not undef, and are different, bailout.
// * else, only one is undef, then pick the non-undef one.
```
The DAGCombine will reverse this transform, see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49266
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49320
llvm-svn: 337190
All predicates are handled.
There does not seem to be any other possible folds here.
There are some more folds possible with inverted mask though.
llvm-svn: 337112
Summary:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123
This pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in unsigned case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Rny
^ there are more opportunities for folds, i will follow up with them afterwards.
Caveat: this somehow exposes a missing opportunities
in `test/Transforms/InstCombine/icmp-logical.ll`
It seems, the problem is in `foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps()` in `InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp`.
But i'm not quite sure what is wrong, because it calls `getMaskedTypeForICmpPair()`,
which calls `decomposeBitTestICmp()` which should already work for these cases...
As @spatel notes in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158760,
that code is a rather complex mess, so we'll let it slide.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: yamauchi, majnemer, t.p.northover, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179
llvm-svn: 336834
This patch changes order of transform in InstCombineCompares to avoid
performing transforms based on ranges which produce complex bit arithmetics
before more simple things (like folding with constants) are done. See PR37636
for the motivating example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48584
Reviewed By: spatel, lebedev.ri
llvm-svn: 336172
Summary:
When iterating users of a multiply in processUMulZExtIdiom, the
call to setOperand in the truncation case may replace the use
being visited; make sure the iterator has been advanced before
doing that replacement.
Reviewers: majnemer, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48192
llvm-svn: 334844
Inspired by r331508, I did a grep and found these.
Mostly just change from dyn_cast to cast. Some cases also showed a dyn_cast result being converted to bool, so those I changed to isa.
llvm-svn: 331577
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Summary:
Folding patterns like:
%vec = shufflevector <4 x i8> %insvec, <4 x i8> undef, <4 x i32> zeroinitializer
%cast = bitcast <4 x i8> %vec to i32
%cond = icmp eq i32 %cast, 0
into:
%ext = extractelement <4 x i8> %insvec, i32 0
%cond = icmp eq i32 %ext, 0
Combined with existing rules, this allows us to fold patterns like:
%insvec = insertelement <4 x i8> undef, i8 %val, i32 0
%vec = shufflevector <4 x i8> %insvec, <4 x i8> undef, <4 x i32> zeroinitializer
%cast = bitcast <4 x i8> %vec to i32
%cond = icmp eq i32 %cast, 0
into:
%cond = icmp eq i8 %val, 0
When we construct a splat vector via a shuffle, and bitcast the vector into an integer type for comparison against an integer constant. Then we can simplify the the comparison to compare the splatted value against the integer constant.
Reviewers: spatel, anna, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44997
llvm-svn: 329087
Summary:
Presently, InstCombiner::foldICmpWithCastAndCast() implicitly assumes that it is
only invoked with icmp instructions of integer type. If that assumption is broken,
and it is called with an icmp of vector type, then it fails (asserts/crashes).
This patch addresses the deficiency. It allows it to simplify
icmp (ptrtoint x), (ptrtoint/c) of vector type into a compare of the inputs,
much as is done when the type is integer.
Reviewers: apilipenko, fedor.sergeev, mkazantsev, anna
Reviewed By: anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44063
llvm-svn: 326730
Making a width of GEP Index, which is used for address calculation, to be one of the pointer properties in the Data Layout.
p[address space]:size:memory_size:alignment:pref_alignment:index_size_in_bits.
The index size parameter is optional, if not specified, it is equal to the pointer size.
Till now, the InstCombiner normalized GEPs and extended the Index operand to the pointer width.
It works fine if you can convert pointer to integer for address calculation and all registered targets do this.
But some ISAs have very restricted instruction set for the pointer calculation. During discussions were desided to retrieve information for GEP index from the Data Layout.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120416.html
I added an interface to the Data Layout and I changed the InstCombiner and some other passes to take the Index width into account.
This change does not affect any in-tree target. I added tests to cover data layouts with explicitly specified index size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42123
llvm-svn: 325102
Because of potential UB (known bits conflicts with an llvm.assume),
we have to check rather than assert here because InstSimplify doesn't
kill the compare:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35846
llvm-svn: 322104
Summary:
This patch adds an early out to visitICmpInst if we are looking at a compare as part of an integer absolute value idiom. Similar is already done for min/max.
In the particular case I observed in a benchmark we had an absolute value of a load from an indexed global. We simplified the compare using foldCmpLoadFromIndexedGlobal into a magic bit vector, a shift, and an and. But the load result was still used for the select and the negate part of the absolute valute idiom. So we overcomplicated the code and lost the ability to recognize it as an absolute value.
I've chosen a simpler case for the test here.
Reviewers: spatel, davide, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39766
llvm-svn: 317994
Jesper Antonsson