This exposes the helper for other power-of-2 instcombine folds that I'm intending to add vector support to.
The helper only operated on power-of-2 constants so getExactLogBase2 is a more accurate name.
These transforms will now be performed irrespective of the number of uses for the expression "1.0/sqrt(X)":
1.0/sqrt(X) * X => X/sqrt(X)
X * 1.0/sqrt(X) => X/sqrt(X)
We already handle more general cases, and we are intentionally not creating extra (and likely expensive)
fdiv ops in IR. This pattern is the exception to the rule because we always expect the Backend to reduce
X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X), if it has the necessary (reassoc) fast-math-flags.
Ref: DagCombiner optimizes the X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86726
These are not correctness issues.
In visitUDivOperand(), if the (potential) divisor is undef, then udiv is
already UB, so it is not incorrect to keep undef as shift amount.
But, that is suboptimal.
We could instead simply drop that select, picking the other operand.
Afterwards, getLogBase2() could assert that there is no undef in divisor.
While x*undef is undef, shift-by-undef is poison,
which we must avoid introducing.
Also log2(iN undef) is *NOT* iN undef, because log2(iN undef) u< N.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47133
Negator knows how to do this, but the one-use reasoning is getting
a bit muddy here, we don't really want to increase instruction count,
so we need to both lie that "IsNegation" and have an one-use check
on the outermost LHS value.
Multiplication is commutative, and either of operands can be negative,
so if the RHS is a negated power-of-two, we should try to make it
true power-of-two (which will allow us to turn it into a left-shift),
by trying to sink the negation down into LHS op.
But, we shouldn't re-invent the logic for sinking negation,
let's just use Negator for that.
Tests and original patch by: Simon Pilgrim @RKSimon!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85446
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
This is the one i'm seeing as missed optimization,
although there are likely other possibilities, as usual.
There are 4 variants of a general sdiv->udiv fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/VS6
Name: v0
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 C0, C1
Name: v1
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 -C0, C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v2
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 C0, -C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v3
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 -C0, -C1
If we really don't like sdiv (more than udiv that is),
and are okay with increasing instruction count (2 new negations),
and we ensure that we don't undo the fold,
then we could just implement these..
Similar to rG40fcc42:
The base case only worked because we were relying on a
poison-unsafe select transform; if that is fixed, we
would regress on patterns like this.
The extra use tests show that the select transform can't
be applied consistently. So it may be a regression to have
an extra instruction on 1 test, but that result was not
created safely and does not happen reliably.
The base case only works because we are relying on a
poison-unsafe select transform; if that is fixed, we
would regress on patterns like this.
The extra use tests show that the select transform can't
be applied consistently. So it may be a regression to have
an extra instruction on 1 test, but that result was not
created safely and does not happen reliably.
fabs(X) * fabs(Y) --> fabs(X * Y)
fabs(X) / fabs(Y) --> fabs(X / Y)
If both operands of fmul/fdiv are positive, then the result must be positive.
There's a NAN corner-case that prevents removing the more specific fold just
above this one:
fabs(X) * fabs(X) -> X * X
That fold works even with NAN because the sign-bit result of the multiply is
not specified if X is NAN.
We can't remove that and use the more general fold that is proposed here
because once we convert to this:
fabs (X * X)
...it is not legal to simplify the 'fabs' out of that expression when X is NAN.
That's because fabs() guarantees that the sign-bit is always cleared - even
for NAN values.
So this patch has the potential to lose information, but it seems unlikely if
we do the more specific fold ahead of this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82277
Summary:
getLogBase2 tries to iterate over the number of vector elements. Since
the number of elements of a scalable vector is unknown at compile time,
we must return null if the input type is scalable.
Identified by test LLVM.Transforms/InstCombine::nsw.ll
Reviewers: efriedma, fpetrogalli, kmclaughlin, spatel
Reviewed By: efriedma, fpetrogalli
Subscribers: tschuett, hiraditya, rkruppe, psnobl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79197
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, rriddle, efriedma
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77263
Use UnaryOperator::CreateFNeg instead.
Summary:
With the introduction of the native fneg instruction, the
fsub -0.0, %x idiom is obsolete. This patch makes LLVM
emit fneg instead of the idiom in all places.
Reviewed By: cameron.mcinally
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75130
Rather than mixing creation of new instructions and in-place
modification here, create a new log2 intrinsic. This should be
NFC apart from worklist order changes.
Adds a replaceOperand() helper, which is like Instruction.setOperand()
but adds the old operand to the worklist. This reduces the amount of
missing or incorrect worklist management.
This only applies the helper to a relatively small subset of
setOperand() calls in InstCombine, namely those of the pattern
`I.setOperand(); return &I;`, where it is most obviously applicable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73803
This renames Worklist.AddDeferred() to Worklist.add() and
Worklist.Add() to Worklist.push(). The intention here is that
Worklist.add() should be the go-to method for explicit worklist
management, while the raw Worklist.push() is mostly for
InstCombine internals. I will then migrate uses of Worklist.push()
to Worklist.add() in followup changes.
As suggested by spatel on D73411 I'm also changing the remaining
method names to lowercase first character, in line with current
coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73745
This is a special case of Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X, with X = 1.0.
The m_OneUse check is avoided because even in the case of the
multiple uses for 1.0/Y, the number of instructions remain the same
and a division is replaced by a multiplication.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72319
As described here:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44186
The match() code safely allows undef values, but we can't safely
propagate a vector constant that contains an undef to the new
compare instruction.
Reverse the canonicalization of fneg relative to fmul/fdiv. That makes it
easier to implement the transforms (and possibly other fneg transforms) in
1 place because we can always start the pattern match from fneg (either the
legacy binop or the new unop).
There's a secondary practical benefit seen in PR21914 and PR42681:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21914https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42681
...hoisting fneg rather than sinking seems to play nicer with LICM in IR
(although this change may expose analysis holes in the other direction).
1. The instcombine test changes show the expected neutral IR diffs from
reversing the order.
2. The reassociation tests show that we were missing an optimization
opportunity to fold away fneg-of-fneg. My reading of IEEE-754 says
that all of these transforms are allowed (regardless of binop/unop
fneg version) because:
"For all other operations [besides copy/abs/negate/copysign], this
standard does not specify the sign bit of a NaN result."
In all of these transforms, we always have some other binop
(fadd/fsub/fmul/fdiv), so we are free to flip the sign bit of a
potential intermediate NaN operand.
(If that interpretation is wrong, then we must already have a bug in
the existing transforms?)
3. The clang tests shouldn't exist as-is, but that's effectively a
revert of rL367149 (the test broke with an extension of the
pre-existing fneg canonicalization in rL367146).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65399
llvm-svn: 367447
Summary:
I have stumbled into this by accident while preparing to extend backend `x s% C ==/!= 0` handling.
While we did happen to handle this fold in most of the cases,
the folding is indirect - we fold `x u% y` to `x & (y-1)` (iff `y` is power-of-two),
or first turn `x s% -y` to `x u% y`; that does handle most of the cases.
But we can't turn `x s% INT_MIN` to `x u% -INT_MIN`,
and thus we end up being stuck with `(x s% INT_MIN) == 0`.
There is no such restriction for the more general fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IIeS
To be noted, the fold does not enforce that `y` is a constant,
so it may indeed increase instruction count.
This is consistent with what `x u% y`->`x & (y-1)` already does.
I think it makes sense, it's at most one (simple) extra instruction,
while `rem`ainder is really much more un-simple (and likely **very** costly).
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, nikic, xbolva00, craig.topper
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65046
llvm-svn: 367322
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
Dávid Bolvanský