This reverts commit 1383a91689.
sdiv-canonicalize.ll fails after this revision. The fold needs to be
moved outside the branch handling constant operands. However when this
is done there are further test changes, so I'm reverting this in the
meantime.
llvm-svn: 358026
Similar to:
rL358005
Forego folding arbitrary vector constants to fix a possible miscompile bug.
We can enhance the transform if we do want to handle the more complicated
vector case.
llvm-svn: 358013
A more general canonicalization between fdiv and fmul would not
handle this case because that would have to be limited by uses
to prevent 2 values from becoming 3 values:
(x/y) * (x/y) --> (x*x) / (y*y)
(But we probably should still have that limited -- but more general --
canonicalization independently of this change.)
llvm-svn: 357943
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
Summary:
In several places in the code we use the following pattern:
if (hasUnaryFloatFn(&TLI, Ty, LibFunc_tan, LibFunc_tanf, LibFunc_tanl)) {
[...]
Value *Res = emitUnaryFloatFnCall(X, TLI.getName(LibFunc_tan), B, Attrs);
[...]
}
In short, we check if there is a lib-function for a certain type, and then
we _always_ fetch the name of the "double" version of the lib function and
construct a call to the appropriate function, that we just checked exists,
using that "double" name as a basis.
This is of course a problem in cases where the target doesn't support the
"double" version, but e.g. only the "float" version.
In that case TLI.getName(LibFunc_tan) returns "", and
emitUnaryFloatFnCall happily appends an "f" to "", and we erroneously end
up with a call to a function called "f".
To solve this, the above pattern is changed to
if (hasUnaryFloatFn(&TLI, Ty, LibFunc_tan, LibFunc_tanf, LibFunc_tanl)) {
[...]
Value *Res = emitUnaryFloatFnCall(X, &TLI, LibFunc_tan, LibFunc_tanf,
LibFunc_tanl, B, Attrs);
[...]
}
I.e instead of first fetching the name of the "double" version and then
letting emitUnaryFloatFnCall() add the final "f" or "l", we let
emitUnaryFloatFnCall() fetch the right name from TLI.
Reviewers: eli.friedman, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, bjope, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53370
llvm-svn: 344725
The IRBuilder CreateIntrinsic method wouldn't allow you to specify the
types that you wanted the intrinsic to be mangled with. To fix this
I've:
- Added an ArrayRef<Type *> member to both CreateIntrinsic overloads.
- Used that array to pass into the Intrinsic::getDeclaration call.
- Added a CreateUnaryIntrinsic to replace the most common use of
CreateIntrinsic where the type was auto-deduced from operand 0.
- Added a bunch more unit tests to test Create*Intrinsic calls that
weren't being tested (including the FMF flag that wasn't checked).
This was suggested as part of the AMDGPU specific atomic optimizer
review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D51969).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52087
llvm-svn: 343962
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
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
The actual code seems to be correct, but the comments were misleading.
Patch by Aaron Puchert!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49276
llvm-svn: 337131
This bug was created by rL335258 because we used to always call instsimplify
after trying the associative folds. After that change it became possible
for subsequent folds to encounter unsimplified code (and potentially assert
because of it).
Instead of carrying changed state through instcombine, we can just return
immediately. This allows instsimplify to run, so we can continue assuming
that easy folds have already occurred.
llvm-svn: 336965
Similar to other patches in this series:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335512https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335527https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335597https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335616
...this is filling a gap in analysis that is exposed by an unrelated select-of-constants transform.
I didn't see a way to unify the sext cases because each div/rem opcode results in a different fold.
Note that in this case, the backend might want to convert the select into math:
Name: sext urem
%e = sext i1 %x to i32
%r = urem i32 %y, %e
=>
%c = icmp eq i32 %y, -1
%z = zext i1 %c to i32
%r = add i32 %z, %y
llvm-svn: 335622
Note: I didn't add a hasOneUse() check because the existing,
related fold doesn't have that check. I suspect that the
improved analysis and codegen make these some of the rare
canonicalization cases where we allow an increase in
instructions.
llvm-svn: 335597
This removes a "UDivFoldAction" in favor of a simple constant
matcher. In theory, the existing code could do more matching,
but I don't see any evidence or need for it. I've left a TODO
about using ValueTracking in case we see any regressions.
llvm-svn: 335545
This is outwardly NFC from what I can tell, but it should be more efficient
to simplify first (despite the name, SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative does
not actually simplify as InstSimplify does - it creates/morphs instructions).
This should make it easier to refactor duplicated code that runs for all binops.
llvm-svn: 335258
When we optimize select basing on fact that div by 0 is undef
we should not traverse the instruction which are not guaranteed to
transfer execution to next instruction. Guard intrinsic is an example.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47576
llvm-svn: 333864
As noted in the review thread for rL333782, we could have
made a bug harder to hit if we were simplifying instructions
before trying other folds.
The shuffle transform in question isn't ever a simplification;
it's just a canonicalization. So I've renamed that to make that
clearer.
This is NFCI at this point, but I've regenerated the test file
to show the cosmetic value naming difference of using
instcombine's RAUW vs. the builder.
Possible follow-ups:
1. Move reassociation folds after simplifies too.
2. Refactor common code; we shouldn't have so much repetition.
llvm-svn: 333820
This is a follow-up to r331272.
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
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331275
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
The tests marked with 'FIXME' require loosening the check
in SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative() to optimize completely;
that's still checking isFast() in Instruction::isAssociative().
llvm-svn: 329121
This replaces a large chunk of code that was looking for compound
patterns that include these sub-patterns. Existing tests ensure that
all of the previous examples are still folded as expected.
We still need to loosen the FMF check.
llvm-svn: 328502
This was supposed to be an NFC refactoring that will eventually allow
eliminating the isFast() predicate, but there's a rare possibility
that we would pessimize the code as shown in the test case because
we failed to check 'hasOneUse()' properly. This version also removes
an inefficiency of the old code; we would look for:
(X * C) * C1 --> X * (C * C1)
...but that pattern is always handled by
SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative().
llvm-svn: 327404
The code was checking that all of the instructions in the
sequence are 'fast', but that's not necessary. The final
multiply is all that we need to check (tests adjusted).
The fmul doesn't need to be fully 'fast' either, but that
can be another patch.
llvm-svn: 326608
This is a retry of r326502 with updates to the reassociate
test file that I missed the first time.
@test15_reassoc in the supposed -reassociate test file
(except that it tests 2 other passes too...) shows that
there's no clear responsiblity for reassociation transforms.
Instcombine now gets that case, but only because the
constant values are identical. Otherwise, it would still
miss that pattern.
Reassociate doesn't get that case because it hasn't been
updated to use less than 'fast' FMF.
llvm-svn: 326513
I forgot that I added tests for 'reassoc' to -reassociate, but
suprisingly that file calls -instcombine too, so it is affected.
I'll update that file and try again.
llvm-svn: 326510
Also, rename 'foldOpWithConstantIntoOperand' because that's annoyingly
vague. The constant check is redundant in some cases, but it allows
removing duplication for most of the calls.
llvm-svn: 326329
Note: gcc appears to allow this fold with -freciprocal-math alone,
but clang/llvm require more than that with this patch. The wording
in the definitions seems fuzzy enough that it could go either way,
but we'll err on the conservative side of FMF interpretation.
This patch also changes the newly created fmul to have FMF propagated
by the last fdiv rather than intersecting the FMF of the fdivs. This
matches the behavior of other folds near here. The new fmul is only
used to produce an intermediate op for the final fdiv result, so it
shouldn't be any stricter than that result. The previous behavior
could result in dropping FMF via other folds in instcombine or CSE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43398
llvm-svn: 326098
Sanjay Patel