Extends the transform from:
rL364341
...to include another (more common?) pattern that tests whether a
value is a power-of-2 (including or excluding zero).
llvm-svn: 364856
Summary:
To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se,
it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3,
but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is
indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind
when there are extra uses.
This does address the regression being exposed in D63992.
https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltUhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]]
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993
llvm-svn: 364792
Summary:
Given pattern:
`icmp eq/ne (and ((x shift Q), (y oppositeshift K))), 0`
we should move shifts to the same hand of 'and', i.e. rewrite as
`icmp eq/ne (and (x shift (Q+K)), y), 0` iff `(Q+K) u< bitwidth(x)`
It might be tempting to not restrict this to situations where we know
we'd fold two shifts together, but i'm not sure what rules should there be
to avoid endless combine loops.
We pick the same shift that was originally used to shift the variable we picked to shift:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/6x1v
Should fix [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42399 | PR42399]].
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63829
llvm-svn: 364791
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
This follows up the transform from rL363956 to use the ctpop intrinsic when checking for power-of-2-or-zero.
This is matching the isPowerOf2() patterns used in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
But there's at least 1 instcombine follow-up needed to match the alternate form:
(v & (v - 1)) == 0;
We should have all of the backend expansions handled with:
rL364319
(x86-specific changes still needed for optimal code based on subtarget)
And the larger patterns to exclude zero as a power-of-2 are joining with this change after:
rL364153 ( D63660 )
rL364246
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63777
llvm-svn: 364341
This is the Demorgan'd 'not' of the pattern handled in:
D63660 / rL364153
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is not a power-of-2 using ctpop(X) > 1,
so combining that with an is-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if not exactly 1 bit is set:
(X == 0) || (ctpop(X) u> 1) --> ctpop(X) != 1
llvm-svn: 364246
Prefer the more exact intrinsic to remove a use of the input value
and possibly make further transforms easier (we will still need
to match patterns with funnel-shift of wider types as pieces of
bswap, especially if we want to canonicalize to funnel-shift with
constant shift amount). Discussed in D46760.
llvm-svn: 364187
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is power-of-2-or-0 using ctpop(X) < 2,
so combining that with a non-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if exactly 1 bit is set:
(X != 0) && (ctpop(X) u< 2) --> ctpop(X) == 1
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63660
llvm-svn: 364153
The form that compares against 0 is better because:
1. It removes a use of the input value.
2. It's the more standard form for this pattern: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#DetermineIfPowerOf2
3. It results in equal or better codegen (tested with x86, AArch64, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS).
This is a root cause for PR42314, but probably doesn't completely answer the codegen request:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
Alive proof:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/9kG
Name: is power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a2, 0
Name: is not power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a2, 0
llvm-svn: 363956
I'm not 100% sure about this, since I'm worried about IR transforms
that might end up introducing divergence downstream once replaced with
a constant, but I haven't come up with an example yet.
llvm-svn: 363406
Extend the mechanism to overload intrinsic arguments by using either
backward or forward references to the overloadable arguments.
In for example:
def int_something : Intrinsic<[LLVMPointerToElt<0>],
[llvm_anyvector_ty], []>;
LLVMPointerToElt<0> is a forward reference to the overloadable operand
of type 'llvm_anyvector_ty' and would allow intrinsics such as:
declare i32* @llvm.something.v4i32(<4 x i32>);
declare i64* @llvm.something.v2i64(<2 x i64>);
where the result pointer type is deduced from the element type of the
first argument.
If the returned pointer is not a pointer to the element type, LLVM will
give an error:
Intrinsic has incorrect return type!
i64* (<4 x i32>)* @llvm.something.v4i32
Reviewers: RKSimon, arsenm, rnk, greened
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62995
llvm-svn: 363233
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
When the byval attribute has a type, it must match the pointee type of
any parameter; but InstCombine was not updating the attribute when
folding casts of various kinds away.
llvm-svn: 362643
It looks this fold was already partially happening, indirectly
via some other folds, but with one-use limitation.
No other fold here has that restriction.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ftR
llvm-svn: 362217
Previously, this used a statement like this:
Map[A] = Map[B];
This is equivalent to the following:
const auto &Src = Map[B];
auto &Dest = Map[A];
Dest = Src;
The second statement, "auto &Dest = Map[A];" can insert a new
element into the DenseMap, which can potentially grow and reallocate
the DenseMap's internal storage, which will invalidate the existing
reference to the source. When doing the actual assignment,
the Src reference is dereferenced, accessing memory that was
freed when the DenseMap grew.
This issue hasn't shown up when LLVM was built with Clang, because
the right hand side ended up dereferenced before evaulating the
left hand side. (If the value type is a larger data type, Clang doesn't
do this but behaves like GCC.)
With GCC, a cast to Value* isn't enough to make it dereference the
right hand side reference before invoking operator[] (while that is
enough to make Clang/LLVM do the right thing for larger types), but
storing it in an intermediate variable in a separate statement works.
This fixes PR42065.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62624
llvm-svn: 362150
Based on the overflow direction information added in D62463, we can
now fold always overflowing signed saturating add/sub to signed min/max.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62544
llvm-svn: 362006
In order to fold an always overflowing signed saturating add/sub,
we need to know in which direction the always overflow occurs.
This patch splits up AlwaysOverflows into AlwaysOverflowsLow and
AlwaysOverflowsHigh to pass through this information (but it is
not used yet).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62463
llvm-svn: 361858
Extract method to compute overflow based on binop and signedness,
and then make the result handling code generic. This extends the
always-overflow handling to signed muls, but has currently no effect,
as we don't compute always overflow for them (thus NFC).
llvm-svn: 361721
Just a minor refactoring to use the new helper method
DataLayout::typeSizeEqualsStoreSize(). This is done when
checking if getTypeSizeInBits is equal/non-equal to
getTypeStoreSizeInBits.
llvm-svn: 361613
Sanjay Patel