InstSimplify doesn't always know how to fold a bitcast of a constant vector.
In particular, the logic in InstSimplify doesn't know how to handle the case
where the constant vector in input contains some undef elements, and the
number of elements is smaller than the number of elements of the bitcast
vector type.
llvm-svn: 281332
This patch fixes a crash caused by an incorrect folding of an ordered comparison
between a packed floating point vector and a splat vector of NaN.
An ordered comparison between a vector and a constant vector of NaN, should
always be folded into a constant vector where each element is i1 false.
Since revision 266175, SimplifyFCmpInst folds the ordered fcmp into a scalar
'false'. Later on, this would cause an assertion failure, since the value type
of the folded value doesn't match the expected value type of the uses of the
original instruction: "Assertion failed: New->getType() == getType() &&
"replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!".
This patch fixes the issue and adds a test case to the already existing test
InstSimplify/floating-point-compares.ll.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24143
llvm-svn: 280488
...because like the corresponding code, this is just too big to keep adding to.
And the next step is to add a vector version of each of these tests to show
missed folds.
Also, auto-generate CHECK lines and add comments for the tests that correspond to
the source code.
llvm-svn: 279530
I'm removing a misplaced pair of more specific folds from InstCombine in this patch as well,
so we know where those folds are happening in InstSimplify.
llvm-svn: 277738
ConstantExpr::getWithOperands does much of the hard work that
ConstantFoldInstOperandsImpl tries to do but more completely.
This lets us fold ExtractValue/InsertValue expressions.
llvm-svn: 277100
When folding an expression, we run ConstantFoldConstantExpression on
each operand of that expression.
However, ConstantFoldConstantExpression can fail and retur nullptr.
Previously, we would bail on further refining the expression.
Instead, use the original operand and see if we can refine a later
operand.
llvm-svn: 276959
rL245171 exposed a hole in InstSimplify that manifested in a strange way in PR28466:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28466
It's possible to use trunc + icmp sgt/slt in place of an and + icmp eq/ne, so we need to
recognize that pattern to eliminate selects that are choosing between some value and some
bitmasked version of that value.
Note that there is significant room for improvement (refactoring) and enhancement (more
patterns, possibly in InstCombine rather than here).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537
llvm-svn: 276341
Treat loads which clip before the start of a global initializer the same
way we treat clipping beyond the end of the initializer: use zeros.
llvm-svn: 275345
For functions which are known to return a specific argument, pointer-comparison
folding can look through the function calls as part of its analysis.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9387
llvm-svn: 275039
This is similar to the computeKnownBits improvement in rL268479.
There's probably more we can do for vector logic instructions, but
this should let us see non-splat constant masking ops that can
become vector selects instead of and/andn/or sequences.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21610
llvm-svn: 273459
By moving this transform to InstSimplify from InstCombine, we sidestep the problem/question
raised by PR27869:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27869
...where InstCombine turns an icmp+zext into a shift causing us to miss the fold.
Credit to David Majnemer for a draft patch of the changes to InstructionSimplify.cpp.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21512
llvm-svn: 273200
Similar in spirit to D20497 :
If all elements of a constant vector are known non-zero, then we can say that the
whole vector is known non-zero.
It seems like we could extend this to FP scalar/vector too, but isKnownNonZero()
says it only works for integers and pointers for now.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20544
llvm-svn: 270562
Vector GEP with mixed (vector and scalar) indices failed on the InstSimplify Pass when all indices are constants.
Differential revision http://reviews.llvm.org/D20149
llvm-svn: 269590
Do simplifications common to all shift instructions based on the amount shifted:
1. If the shift amount is known larger than the bitwidth, the result is undefined.
2. If the valid bits of the shift amount are all known to be 0, it's a shift by zero, so the shift operand is the result.
Note that we could generalize the shift-by-zero transform into a shift-by-constant if all of the valid bits in the shift
amount are known, but that would have to be done in InstCombine rather than here because it would mean we need to create
a new shift instruction.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19874
llvm-svn: 269114
This intrinsic takes two arguments, ``%ptr`` and ``%offset``. It loads
a 32-bit value from the address ``%ptr + %offset``, adds ``%ptr`` to that
value and returns it. The constant folder specifically recognizes the form of
this intrinsic and the constant initializers it may load from; if a loaded
constant initializer is known to have the form ``i32 trunc(x - %ptr)``,
the intrinsic call is folded to ``x``.
LLVM provides that the calculation of such a constant initializer will
not overflow at link time under the medium code model if ``x`` is an
``unnamed_addr`` function. However, it does not provide this guarantee for
a constant initializer folded into a function body. This intrinsic can be
used to avoid the possibility of overflows when loading from such a constant.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18367
llvm-svn: 267223
No matter what value you OR in to A, the result of (or A, B) is going to be UGE A. When A and B are positive, it's SGE too. If A is negative, OR'ing a value into it can't make it positive, but can increase its value closer to -1, therefore (or A, B) is SGE A. Working through all possible combinations produces this truth table:
```
A is
+, -, +/-
F F F + B is
T F ? -
? F ? +/-
```
The related optimizations are flipping the 'slt' for 'sge' which always NOTs the result (if the result is known), and swapping the LHS and RHS while swapping the comparison predicate.
There are more idioms left to implement (aren't there always!) but I've stopped here because any more would risk becoming unreasonable for reviewers.
llvm-svn: 266939
I didn't notice any significant changes in the actual checks here;
all of these tests already used FileCheck, so a script can batch
update them in one shot.
This commit is just to show the value of automating this process:
We have uniform formatting as opposed to a mish-mash of check
structure that changes based on individual prefs and the current
fashion. This makes it simpler to update when we find a bug or
make an enhancement.
llvm-svn: 264457
Andrea Di Biagio