This fold was written in an odd way and tried to avoid
an endless loop by bailing out on all constants instead
of the supposedly problematic case of -1. But (X & -1)
should always be simplified before we reach here, so I'm
not sure how that is a problem.
There were no tests for the commuted patterns, so I added
those at rL338364.
llvm-svn: 338367
The tests with constants show a missing optimization.
Analysis for adds is better than subs, so this can also
help with other transforms. And codegen is better with
adds for targets like x86 (destructive ops, no sub-from).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/llK
llvm-svn: 338118
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
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
The bug report:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36036
...requests a DAG change for this, but an IR canonicalization
probably handles most cases. If we still want to match this
pattern in the backend, there's a proposal for that too:
D47831
Alive proofs including nsw/nuw cases that were first noted in:
D46988
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Kmp
This patch is largely copied from the existing code that was
initially added with:
D40984
...but I didn't see much gain from trying to share code.
llvm-svn: 334137
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
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
In post-commit review, Eric Christopher notes that many
new MSan warnings are being observed with this patch.
The probable reason is: if 'y' is undef here and we could
evaluate it twice and get different results.
We can't increase the number of uses of a value.
llvm-svn: 333631
Summary:
Finally fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]].
Now that the backend is all done, we can finally fold it!
The canonical unfolded masked merge pattern is
```(x & m) | (y & ~m)```
There is a second, equivalent variant:
```(x | ~m) & (y | m)```
Only one of them (the or-of-and's i think) is canonical.
And if the mask is not a constant, we should fold it to:
```((x ^ y) & M) ^ y```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ndQw
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nicholas, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46814
llvm-svn: 333106
According to alive this is valid. I'm hoping to use this to make an assumption that the sign bit is zero after this sequence. The only way it wouldn't be is if the input was INT__MIN, but by preserving the flags we can make doing this to INT_MIN UB.
The nuw flags is weird because it creates such a contradiction that the original number would have to be positive meaning we could remove the select entirely, but we don't get that far.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46988
llvm-svn: 332623
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:
As discussed in D45733, we want to do this in InstCombine.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LGk
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: chandlerc, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45867
llvm-svn: 331205
Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`,
We should canonicalize the pattern to non-inverted mask.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Yol
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45664
llvm-svn: 331112
Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.
The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.
The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.
Surprisingly, `$ ninja check-llvm` still passes with this.
But i expect the bots will disagree..
The motivational unittest is included.
I'd like to use this in D45664.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, arsenm, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: xbolva00, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45828
llvm-svn: 331085
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
Summary:
In order to get the whole fold as specified in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]],
let's first handle the simple straight-forward things.
Let's start with the `and` -> `or` simplification.
The one obvious thing missing here: the constant mask is not handled.
I have an idea how to handle it, but it will require some thinking,
and is not strictly required here, so i've left that for later.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Pkmg
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, eli.friedman, jingyue
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Was reviewed as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D45631
llvm-svn: 330103
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
getNumUses is a linear time operation. It traverses the user linked list to the end and counts as it goes. Since we are only interested in small constant counts, we should use hasNUses or hasNUsesMore more that terminate the traversal as soon as it can provide the answer.
There are still two other locations in InstCombine, but changing those would force a rebase of D44266 which if accepted would remove them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44398
llvm-svn: 327315
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
This is guarded by shouldChangeType(), so the tests show that
we don't do the fold if the narrower type is not legal. Note
that there is a proposal (D42424) that would change the results
for the specific cases shown in these tests. That difference is
also discussed in PR35792:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35792
Alive proofs for the cases handled here as well as the bitwise
logic binops that we should already do better on:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/c97https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Lc5Ehttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/kdf
llvm-svn: 323437
We want to do this for 2 reasons:
1. Value tracking does not recognize the ashr variant, so it would fail to match for cases like D39766.
2. DAGCombiner does better at producing optimal codegen when we have the cmp+sel pattern.
More detail about what happens in the backend:
1. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the scalar cmp+sel variant of abs
into the shift variant. That is the opposite of this IR canonicalization.
2. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the vector cmp+sel variant of abs
into either an ABS node or the shift variant. That is again the opposite of this IR canonicalization.
3. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the exact shift variants produced by #1 or #2
into an ISD::ABS node. Note: It would be an efficiency improvement if we had #1 go directly to an ABS node
when that's legal/custom.
4. The pattern matching above is incomplete, so it is possible to escape the intended/optimal codegen in a
variety of ways.
a. For #2, the vector path is missing the case for setlt with a '1' constant.
b. For #3, we are missing a match for commuted versions of the shift variants.
5. Therefore, this IR canonicalization can only help get us to the optimal codegen. The version of cmp+sel
produced by this patch will be recognized in the DAG and converted to an ABS node when possible or the
shift sequence when not.
6. In the following examples with this patch applied, we may get conditional moves rather than the shift
produced by the generic DAGCombiner transforms. The conditional move is created using a target-specific
decision for any given target. Whether it is optimal or not for a particular subtarget may be up for debate.
define i32 @abs_shifty(i32 %x) {
%signbit = ashr i32 %x, 31
%add = add i32 %signbit, %x
%abs = xor i32 %signbit, %add
ret i32 %abs
}
define i32 @abs_cmpsubsel(i32 %x) {
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, zeroinitializer
%sub = sub i32 zeroinitializer, %x
%abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %sub, i32 %x
ret i32 %abs
}
define <4 x i32> @abs_shifty_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%signbit = ashr <4 x i32> %x, <i32 31, i32 31, i32 31, i32 31>
%add = add <4 x i32> %signbit, %x
%abs = xor <4 x i32> %signbit, %add
ret <4 x i32> %abs
}
define <4 x i32> @abs_cmpsubsel_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%cmp = icmp slt <4 x i32> %x, zeroinitializer
%sub = sub <4 x i32> zeroinitializer, %x
%abs = select <4 x i1> %cmp, <4 x i32> %sub, <4 x i32> %x
ret <4 x i32> %abs
}
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=x86_64 -mattr=avx
> abs_shifty:
> movl %edi, %eax
> negl %eax
> cmovll %edi, %eax
> retq
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> movl %edi, %eax
> negl %eax
> cmovll %edi, %eax
> retq
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> vpabsd %xmm0, %xmm0
> retq
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> vpabsd %xmm0, %xmm0
> retq
>
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=aarch64
> abs_shifty:
> cmp w0, #0 // =0
> cneg w0, w0, mi
> ret
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> cmp w0, #0 // =0
> cneg w0, w0, mi
> ret
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> abs v0.4s, v0.4s
> ret
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> abs v0.4s, v0.4s
> ret
>
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=powerpc64le
> abs_shifty:
> srawi 4, 3, 31
> add 3, 3, 4
> xor 3, 3, 4
> blr
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> srawi 4, 3, 31
> add 3, 3, 4
> xor 3, 3, 4
> blr
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> vspltisw 3, -16
> vspltisw 4, 15
> vsubuwm 3, 4, 3
> vsraw 3, 2, 3
> vadduwm 2, 2, 3
> xxlxor 34, 34, 35
> blr
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> vspltisw 3, -16
> vspltisw 4, 15
> vsubuwm 3, 4, 3
> vsraw 3, 2, 3
> vadduwm 2, 2, 3
> xxlxor 34, 34, 35
> blr
>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40984
llvm-svn: 320921
This is a preliminary step towards solving the remaining part of PR27145 - IR for isfinite():
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27145
In order to solve that one more generally, we need to add matching for and/or of fcmp ord/uno
with a constant operand.
But while looking at those patterns, I realized we were missing a canonicalization for nonzero
constants. Rather than limiting to just folds for constants, we're adding a general value
tracking method for this based on an existing DAG helper.
By transforming everything to 0.0, we can simplify the existing code in foldLogicOfFCmps()
and pick up missing vector folds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37427
llvm-svn: 312591
In addition to removing chunks of duplicated code, we don't
want these to diverge. If there's a fold for one, there
should be a fold of the other via DeMorgan's Laws.
llvm-svn: 312420
We had these locals:
Value *Op0RHS = LHS->getOperand(1);
Value *Op1LHS = RHS->getOperand(0);
...so we confusingly transposed the meaning of left/right and op0/op1.
llvm-svn: 312418
This makes it easier to see that they're almost duplicates.
As with the similar icmp functions, there should be identical
folds for both logic ops because those are DeMorganized variants.
llvm-svn: 312415
A future patch will make the code look through truncates feeding the compare. So the compares might be different types but the pretruncated types might be the same.
This should be safe because we still require the same Value* to be used truncated or not in both compares. So that serves to ensure the types are the same.
llvm-svn: 312381
Previously we used the type from the LHS of the compare, but a future patch will change decomposeBitTestICmp to look through truncates so it will return a pretruncated Value* and the type needs to match that.
llvm-svn: 312380
Looks like for 'and' and 'or' we end up performing at least some of the transformations this is bocking in a round about way anyway.
For 'and sext(cmp1), sext(cmp2) we end up later turning it into 'select cmp1, sext(cmp2), 0'. Then we optimize that back to sext (and cmp1, cmp2). This is the same result we would have gotten if shouldOptimizeCast hadn't blocked it. We do something analogous for 'or'.
With this patch we allow that transformation to happen directly in foldCastedBitwiseLogic. And we now support the same thing for 'xor'. This is definitely opening up many other cases, but since we already went around it for some cases hopefully it's ok.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36213
llvm-svn: 311508
I don't think there's any reason to have them scattered about and on all 4 operands. We already have an early check that both compares must be the same type. And within a given compare the LHS and RHS must have the same type. Beyond that I don't think there's anyway this function returns anything valid for pointer types. So let's just return early and be done with it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36561
llvm-svn: 311383
This recommits r310869, with the moved files and no extra changes.
Original commit message:
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310889
Failed to add the two files that moved. And then added an extra change I didn't mean to while trying to fix that. Reverting everything.
llvm-svn: 310873
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310869
Summary:
These functions were overly complicated. The body of this function was rechecking for an And operation to find the constant, but we already knew we were looking at two Ands ORed together and the pieces are in variables. We already had earlier nearby code that checked for ConstantInts. So just inline the remaining parts into the earlier code.
Next step is to use m_APInt instead of ConstantInt.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, davide, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36439
llvm-svn: 310806
This also corrects the description to match what was actually implemented. The old comment said X^(C1|C2), but it implemented X^((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)). I believe ((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)) is equivalent to (C1^C2).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36505
llvm-svn: 310658
We used to try to truncate the constant vector to vXi1, but if it's already i1 this would fail. Instead we now use IRBuilder::getZExtOrTrunc which should check the type and only create a trunc if needed. I believe this should trigger constant folding in the IRBuilder and ultimately do the same thing just with the additional type check.
llvm-svn: 310639
Note the original code I deleted incorrectly listed this as (X | C1) & C2 --> (X & C2^(C1&C2)) | C1 Which is only valid if C1 is a subset of C2. This relied on SimplifyDemandedBits to remove any extra bits from C1 before we got to that code.
My new implementation avoids relying on that behavior so that it can be naively verified with alive.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36384
llvm-svn: 310272
Sanjay Patel